: Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:28 pm  

mystic eddie wrote:

It gets curiouser and curiouser. 24 people now have picked option 1 and STILL no-one has said why? I find that very odd TBH.

Maybe because they simply think that Option 1, which states:

Doing the best with the resources at his disposal

... is a self-contained, open-and-shut option, which says all it needs to, and doesn't actually require a "Why"?

: Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:49 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Maybe because they simply think that Option 1, which states:

... is a self-contained, open-and-shut option, which says all it needs to, and doesn't actually require a "Why"?

Maybe the problem is more that they have not voted the way those with an agenda expected them to vote? After all, we haven't seen anything like all the 55 (so far, assuming no multiple aliases) who voted options 2-4 giving their reasons either. Isn't that odd, given that you'd expect those who want to change something would make far more noise than those who do not?

Never mind though, its like the EU and Ireland over the EU Constitution - sorry Lisbon Treaty, silly me - if the voters do not come up with the required answer, just keep making them vote again till they do?

: Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:32 pm  

I was torn between 2 & three, but I went for look for another quality replacement. I don't mean as in publicly or anything, I just mean that if the right coach becomes available we should take a gamble.

: Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:39 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Maybe the problem is more that they have not voted the way those with an agenda expected them to vote? After all, we haven't seen anything like all the 55 (so far, assuming no multiple aliases) who voted options 2-4 giving their reasons either. Isn't that odd, given that you'd expect those who want to change something would make far more noise than those who do not?

Never mind though, its like the EU and Ireland over the EU Constitution - sorry Lisbon Treaty, silly me - if the voters do not come up with the required answer, just keep making them vote again till they do?

This keeps getting mentioned a lot but who do we think is who. I always used to think Honourbull was you Adey.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:29 am  

redeverready wrote:

This keeps getting mentioned a lot but who do we think is who. I always used to think Honourbull was you Adey.

It is/was.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:32 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Maybe because they simply think that Option 1, which states:

... is a self-contained, open-and-shut option, which says all it needs to, and doesn't actually require a "Why"?

Very possibly this is the case.

It is just the case if I wanted to defend my teams coach in the face of adversity amongst a growing number of dissenters because I think he is doing pretty damn well under the circumstances, then I would state my case for the defence.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:55 am  

Duckman wrote:

That is annoying when people resort to that, but I always reckon that says more about the pr!ck picking up on grammar than the person being picked up.

Should that be a semi-colon after but, rather than a comma?

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:25 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

. . . . . It is just the case if I wanted to defend my teams coach in the face of adversity amongst a growing number of dissenters because I think he is doing pretty damn well under the circumstances, then I would state my case for the defence.

That's how you see things and people/personalities are all different. Nowadays I generally don't join in the fray and tosh that some post on here about how "they know" what to do to resolve the current difficulties. That's not because I can't promote an valid point/counter claim, it's just that generally I can't be ar$ed / don't have the time that some seem to have. All power to them - it gets their posting figures up / gets them known.

I can categorically confirm that to my knowledge (PM's et al) that there have been at least 5 (now ex) regular posters from here <and the old Bulls MB> that have simply had enough of not being able to make a simple/harmless comment about how they view things without "having someone else's view rammed down my throat, time and time again and with not too little sarcasm or vitriol".

Coming on here for a chat around RL or The Bulls can now be a hazardous, and some one argue stress inducing, pastime. Some poster excel at being good at dancing around the margins of the AUP

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:37 am  

edit

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:55 am  

tigertot wrote:

Should that be a semi-colon after but, rather than a comma?

After but what?