A bit worrying

Behindu · by **Behindu** » 10 Oct 2007 14:28

SpaceCruiser wrote:Maybe it's time for a poll entitled "Do you want this expansion to go ahead?" or have we already done something like that?

Maybe it's not.

Schards#2 · by **Schards#2** » 10 Oct 2007 14:32

Dirk Gently wrote:If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I would call it a duck.

You don't have to specifically use the word "duck" for your point to be made.

But if it looks nothing like a duck then it isn't a duck.

The post quoted merely suggests tickets wern't sold - this is due to people not wanting to buy them, nothing to do with the ticket office.

Why people can't just put their hands up and admit they were wrong rather than trying to read some subliminal message that simply isn't there, I have no idea.

Wycombe Royal · by **Wycombe Royal** » 10 Oct 2007 14:33

Schards#2 wrote:Why people can't just put their hands up and admit they were wrong

For the second day running my tea is now splattered all over my keyboard. At this rate I'm going to have to get a new laptop.

Behindu · by **Behindu** » 10 Oct 2007 14:33

Can I just comment that whilst I am clear in what I believe was implied by Schards I am prepared to accept that it was not his INTENTION to imply what I'm clear in believing he said.
If Schards is prepared to accept that he believes that it is fair of me to clearly believe that what he said implies what I believe it to imply then I'm prepared to accept that his belief that he did not in fact accuse the ticket office of deliberate deceit is genuine, even if the expression of that is unclear.

I hope that ends the matter.

(Can I also inform people that assuming this discussion is at an end I have some insults left over which will not now be required and are available at a bargain price, although not cheap.)

Dr Hfuhruhurr · by **Dr Hfuhruhurr** » 10 Oct 2007 14:36

Well if someone is saying using cheap insults, use a cheap insult. You know give a dog a bad name and all.

Ill start - Schards, you're an arsehole.

Does this help end this travesty of a thread?

Baines · by **Baines** » 10 Oct 2007 14:37

Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
Does this help end this travesty of a thread?

I don't see how it addresses the duck question.

Dirk Gently · by **Dirk Gently** » 10 Oct 2007 14:38

Baines wrote:
Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
Does this help end this travesty of a thread?
I don't see how it addresses the duck question.

That's just you all over, isn't it!?!

Behindu · by **Behindu** » 10 Oct 2007 14:38

One day we'll look back at this thread and laugh...

won't we ?

Dr Hfuhruhurr · by **Dr Hfuhruhurr** » 10 Oct 2007 14:38

Baines wrote:
Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
Does this help end this travesty of a thread?
I don't see how it addresses the duck question.

Fu&k the duck question - its a stalling question. Its an irrelevance dressed up as an issue

Dirk Gently · by **Dirk Gently** » 10 Oct 2007 14:40

Behindu wrote:One day we'll look back at this thread and laugh...

I think we'll look back at it on frequent occasions - whenever the odd sentence from it is quoted against someone.

Dirk Gently · by **Dirk Gently** » 10 Oct 2007 14:41

Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
Baines wrote:
Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
Does this help end this travesty of a thread?
I don't see how it addresses the duck question.
Fu&k the duck question - its a stalling question. Its an irrelevance dressed up as an issue

If you're going to resort to rhyming then I'm certainly not going to discuss anything with you!

Behindu · by **Behindu** » 10 Oct 2007 14:41

Dirk Gently wrote:
Behindu wrote:One day we'll look back at this thread and laugh...
I think we'll look back at it on frequent occasions - whenever the odd sentence from it is quoted against someone.

I've already saved a number of random letters which I intend to reassemble and insert within a quote in order to support any damn point I like.

Dr Hfuhruhurr · by **Dr Hfuhruhurr** » 10 Oct 2007 14:43

Dirk Gently wrote:
Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
Baines wrote: I don't see how it addresses the duck question.
Fu&k the duck question - its a stalling question. Its an irrelevance dressed up as an issue
If you're going to resort to rhyming then I'm certainly not going to discuss anything with you!

Funnily enough, Schards ignored my very reasonable post on the stadium expansion - I think he prefers it this way(Oh yeah, cheap insult), the to%%er

Riseley · by **Riseley** » 10 Oct 2007 14:45

Some of you are not taking this issue seriously enough. Obviously Schards is right and the future of our club in peril if Mr Mad does not heed the tenacious ones rather eloquent warnings.

Dr Hfuhruhurr · by **Dr Hfuhruhurr** » 10 Oct 2007 14:47

Riseley wrote:Some of you are not taking this issue seriously enough. Obviously Schards is right and the future of our club in peril if Mr Mad does not heed the tenacious ones rather eloquent warnings.

No, you're right.
For a moment, we all got a bit confused and thought Schards had dug up this thread after nearly a fortnight's dormancy to have a go at Woodcote Royal.

All my apologies, Riseley - forgiven?

Skyline · by **Skyline** » 10 Oct 2007 14:53

Behindu wrote:Can I just comment that whilst I am clear in what I believe was implied by Schards I am prepared to accept that it was not his INTENTION to imply what I'm clear in believing he said.
If Schards is prepared to accept that he believes that it is fair of me to clearly believe that what he said implies what I believe it to imply then I'm prepared to accept that his belief that he did not in fact accuse the ticket office of deliberate deceit is genuine, even if the expression of that is unclear.

I hope that ends the matter.

Good to have you back on top form Sir Humphrey.

Dirk Gently · by **Dirk Gently** » 10 Oct 2007 14:54

Behindu wrote:Can I just comment that whilst I am clear in what I believe was implied by Schards I am prepared to accept that it was not his INTENTION to imply what I'm clear in believing he said.
If Schards is prepared to accept that he believes that it is fair of me to clearly believe that what he said implies what I believe it to imply then I'm prepared to accept that his belief that he did not in fact accuse the ticket office of deliberate deceit is genuine, even if the expression of that is unclear.

Can you be quoted on that?

Behindu · by **Behindu** » 10 Oct 2007 15:33

Dirk Gently wrote:
Behindu wrote:Can I just comment that whilst I am clear in what I believe was implied by Schards I am prepared to accept that it was not his INTENTION to imply what I'm clear in believing he said.
If Schards is prepared to accept that he believes that it is fair of me to clearly believe that what he said implies what I believe it to imply then I'm prepared to accept that his belief that he did not in fact accuse the ticket office of deliberate deceit is genuine, even if the expression of that is unclear.
Can you be quoted on that?

Not easily....

weybridgewanderer · by **weybridgewanderer** » 10 Oct 2007 16:14

I thought this thread was a "debate" on stadium expansion which is a club policy issue. The majority thought it a good idea, one or 2 have a different opinion, statistics can be used and abused to prove both sides ... 20% of road accidents are caused by drinking and driving, that means 80% are caused by sober people so I say ban the sober people.

The last few pages have degenerated into a slanging match about the difference being stating something explicitly on a thread compared with implying something on a thread which is hardly a RFC club policy issue.

So can this thread now be moved to "anything else"?

Wycombe Royal · by **Wycombe Royal** » 10 Oct 2007 16:18

weybridgewanderer wrote:The last few pages

It started long before that.......

Links

Forums

A bit worrying

Who is online