Wasted years?

[andy steel 0]

Cherry picking your stats to make a very watered down point?

 

How about Little and Crawford who have started twelve (same as McLeod) and eight games each - more than half the games, don't they count? Scott Gallagher has also started six games, McAusland four, Hegarty two, Mitchell one. Then Aird has had 5 sub appearances and McKay four, Hutton two and Murdoch one. Maybe I should stretch stats the other way and include Stephen Smith who has started three games.

 

That suggests to me that you're not actually interested in accuracy.

 

I hesitate to criticise such a formidable poster, but you aren't half a bitchy puss sometimes.

[calscot 0]

It isn't, that would just be silly.

 

I agree. As I said where would you draw the line and why? Say we have two 17 year olds, one joined at 12, the other came from another club at 16, should we fast track the first one regardless of ability to boost our "not been at another club" stats?

 

To me it shows all this counting the youths is "silly", even when the count is not false to suit an agenda. It seems to me that we play plenty of youngsters and at the same time are running away with the competition we're in. So what are people actually complaining about except for "silly" criteria? Does it really matter about exactly what age they joined the club?

 

It kind of reminds me of the "first high profile, Irish catholic senior player from Dublin" headlines. They have to really narrow down the criteria to make us look bad when we've actually signed plenty of catholics. Now it seems the youngsters we're playing don't really count...

[calscot 0]

Cherry picking your stats to make a very watered down point?

 

How about Little and Crawford who have started twelve (same as McLeod) and eight games each - more than half the games, don't they count? Scott Gallagher has also started six games, McAusland four, Hegarty two, Mitchell one. Then Aird has had 5 sub appearances and McKay four, Hutton two and Murdoch one. Maybe I should stretch stats the other way and include Stephen Smith who has started three games.

 

That suggests to me that you're not actually interested in accuracy.

 

Which part do you find most bitchy? Maybe the last line was a bit off but I couldn't resist the paraphrasing...

 

For me, twisting the facts to have a go at your own management team isn't exactly the epitome of playing nice.

[Anchorman 0]

Which part do you find most bitchy? Maybe the last line was a bit off but I couldn't resist the paraphrasing...

For me, twisting the facts to have a go at your own management team isn't exactly the epitome of playing nice.

 

I would agree with bitchy (and antagonising just for the sake of it) which was why I refused to get involved in a 'debate' with you on a previous thread. As for "twisting the facts", read the OP again. No facts twisted. If you disagree then fine. As before - we can agree to disagree.

[Guest Night Owl]

I think before we go into the whole '' who should get ahead of who '' we should maybe figure out what to do with who and where they play.

[andy steel 0]

I would agree with bitchy (and antagonising just for the sake of it) which was why I refused to get involved in a 'debate' with you on a previous thread. As for "twisting the facts", read the OP again. No facts twisted. If you disagree then fine. As before - we can agree to disagree.

 

Now you're at it as well!

[calscot 0]

I would agree with bitchy (and antagonising just for the sake of it) which was why I refused to get involved in a 'debate' with you on a previous thread. As for "twisting the facts", read the OP again. No facts twisted. If you disagree then fine. As before - we can agree to disagree.

 

Hmm. You seem to be still rumbling on well after the storm has past.

 

Look, once again, all I did was try to engage you in debating your position, and gave my OPINION that when someone refuses to debate their point, how are we suppose to know whether their point has any substance?

 

You were then incredibly antagonistic: "I don't like your attitude! You see everything in black and white. You'll never change my mind. You talk nonsense." I tried to talk sensibly to you about the whole idea of debating but you went off on an illogical tangent each time and completely ignored or misrepresented my verbosely explained points until you had a massive whoosh moment and I didn't see where I could go from there.

 

If you really want to agree to disagree you forfeit any right to the last word but you seem very intent on it - if you don't want to cook, stop stirring the pot.

 

Now you're five minutes are up, I'm sorry but I'm not allowed to argue any more. If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

[calscot 0]

I think before we go into the whole '' who should get ahead of who '' we should maybe figure out what to do with who and where they play.

 

Where they play seems to be a huge can of worms...

[calscot 0]

Now you're at it as well!

 

Might have been more prudent if you PMed me instead...

[Anchorman 0]

Hmm. You seem to be still rumbling on well after the storm has past.

 

Look, once again, all I did was try to engage you in debating your position, and gave my OPINION that when someone refuses to debate their point, how are we suppose to know whether their point has any substance?

 

You were then incredibly antagonistic: "I don't like your attitude! You see everything in black and white. You'll never change my mind. You talk nonsense." I tried to talk sensibly to you about the whole idea of debating but you went off on an illogical tangent each time and completely ignored or misrepresented my verbosely explained points until you had a massive whoosh moment and I didn't see where I could go from there.

 

If you really want to agree to disagree you forfeit any right to the last word but you seem very intent on it - if you don't want to cook, stop stirring the pot.

 

Now you're five minutes are up, I'm sorry but I'm not allowed to argue any more. If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

 

I disagree