[Archived] Mowbray stays as manager

[Dreams of 1995]

1 hour ago, Biz said:

just like I haven't seen you picking up Neal, Gav et al this morning in the meeting thread - who's descriptions of those still wanting to engage with the club, are far worse than Meadows occasional lack of tact.

 

What did Neal & Gav say in the meeting thread that offended you, Biz?

[Leonard Venkhater]

1 hour ago, Biz said:

 

Bringing Meadows into this completely undermines your issue with his content also. You're complaining about his opinion on the scenario, because it differs to your own. I guarantee that you'd have no problem with his "loaded" terms if they tallied up against your own, just like I haven't seen you picking up Neal, Gav et al this morning in the meeting thread - who's descriptions of those still wanting to engage with the club, are far worse than Meadows occasional lack of tact.

 

Good.No more ambiguity! At least, we are both clear about where we stand and which side we are on.

[AggyBlue]

25 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

Good.No more ambiguity! At least, we are both clear about where we stand and which side we are on.

What are the 'sides' LV?

I'm unsure which side I'm on

[JBiz]

1 hour ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

Good.No more ambiguity! At least, we are both clear about where we stand and which side we are on.

I think it's sad that you see it as such, I certainly don't. To me, it's just differing viewpoints on what went wrong at the club, and the impact fans can have going forward.

One club, one set of fans, one side. I might find the suggestion of "accepting" or "supporting" the owners repulsive, you might find the opposite equally baffling but both of us want the same things.

What any of this has to do with Jal posting unsubstantiated rumours is anyone's guess.

2 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

What did Neal & Gav say in the meeting thread that offended you, Biz?

Do the research yourself, I find this suggestion appalling; that those getting involved are "peasants" feeding of scraps.

 

[Dreams of 1995]

28 minutes ago, Biz said:

 

Do the research yourself, I find this suggestion appalling; that those getting involved are "peasants" feeding of scraps.

 

If you took that as Neal calling fans peasants then more fool you.

I think any reasonable, level-headed man not looking for a stick to beat people with, would have construed that as Neal speculating what the owners think of us and not what he himself thinks of the fans in attendance. He even used the term 'us'- I doubt Neal would call himself a peasant.

 

[JBiz]

31 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

If you took that as Neal calling fans peasants then more fool you.

I think any reasonable, level-headed man not looking for a stick to beat people with, would have construed that as Neal speculating what the owners think of us and not what he himself thinks of the fans in attendance. He even used the term 'us'; I doubt Neal would call himself a peasant.

 

The "reasonable and level headed" amongst us can accept that differing views don't need to result in personal jibes or insults. The comment on my mental state or perceived "agenda" is absolutely irrelevant.

As I glanced it this morning, from recollection, I recall the phrases "peasants feeding off scraps", "a pointless exercise", "starry eyed dreamers" and the suggestion that those willing to engage are "a-ok" with the process. I'm not re-reading it. I felt it was very judgemental of those prepared to still actually get involved on our behalf, Madon, Mike etc? AKA Appalling?

 

[Parsonblue]

2 hours ago, AggyBlue said:

What are the 'sides' LV?

I'm unsure which side I'm on

I thought we were all on the side of Blackburn Rovers.

[47er]

6 hours ago, Biz said:

The "reasonable and level headed" amongst us can accept that differing views don't need to result in personal jibes or insults. The comment on my mental state or perceived "agenda" is absolutely irrelevant.

As I glanced it this morning, from recollection, I recall the phrases "peasants feeding off scraps", "a pointless exercise", "starry eyed dreamers" and the suggestion that those willing to engage are "a-ok" with the process. I'm not re-reading it. I felt it was very judgemental of those prepared to still actually get involved on our behalf, Madon, Mike etc? AKA Appalling?

 

So calling others contributions "bile' and labelling posters whose views are different to your's "fantasists" does not constitute a personal jibe or insults? How is that different or worse than writing about "starry-eyed dreamers" for instance? (And personally,I'm comfortable with either.)

Its this staggering disconnect that once caused me refer to you as the most irritating man in England. Its as if you are immune to logic and reason.

[JBiz]

11 minutes ago, 47er said:

So calling others contributions "bile' and labelling posters whose views are different to your's "fantasists" does not constitute a personal jibe or insults? How is that different or worse than writing about "starry-eyed dreamers" for instance? (And personally,I'm comfortable with either.)

Its this staggering disconnect that once caused me refer to you as the most irritating man in England. Its as if you are immune to logic and reason.

Bore off. 

[47er]

8 hours ago, Biz said:

Bore off. 

Ha! You wouldn't be in charge of the School Debating Team would you?

[RV Blue]

8 hours ago, 47er said:

So calling others contributions "bile' and labelling posters whose views are different to your's "fantasists" does not constitute a personal jibe or insults? How is that different or worse than writing about "starry-eyed dreamers" for instance? (And personally,I'm comfortable with either.)

Its this staggering disconnect that once caused me refer to you as the most irritating man in England. Its as if you are immune to logic and reason.

He called me "thick" the other day, but no, he doesn't resort to personal jibes. 

[JBiz]

16 minutes ago, 47er said:

Ha! You wouldn't be in charge of the School Debating Team would you?

 

Just now, RV Blue said:

He called me "thick" the other day, but no, he doesn't resort to personal jibes. 

 

[blueboy3333]

I'm sure K-Mod will be all over the obvious flaming.

[JacknOry]

On 10/6/2017 at 19:08, Biz said:

 

Bringing Meadows into this completely undermines your issue with his content also. You're complaining about his opinion on the scenario, because it differs to your own. I guarantee that you'd have no problem with his "loaded" terms if they tallied up against your own, just like I haven't seen you picking up Neal, Gav et al this morning in the meeting thread - who's descriptions of those still wanting to engage with the club, are far worse than Meadows occasional lack of tact.

 

lol

[had.e.nuff]

I think it may well go into meltdown again today with us slipping out of the play off spots "sack the manager"

[tomphil]

13 minutes ago, had.e.nuff said:

I think it may well go into meltdown again today with us slipping out of the play off spots "sack the manager"

...."And the board".... oh wait

[Athlete]

10 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

I'm sure K-Mod will be all over the obvious flaming.

he would if it was chaddy

[JAL]

How did Mowbray, if it was him, choose to appoint David Lowe to first team coach when he's not that good ?

How did Mowbray and for how much did he give the talentless Ryan Nyambe a four year contract ?

Why does Mowbray think that the one gear only Gladwin can do a job to win you a game. ?

Questions and there's more that don't give me any confidence in the Boro man or the people running our club.

[Dreams of 1995]

On 06/10/2017 at 17:05, Biz said:

The "reasonable and level headed" amongst us can accept that differing views don't need to result in personal jibes or insults. The comment on my mental state or perceived "agenda" is absolutely irrelevant.

As I glanced it this morning, from recollection, I recall the phrases "peasants feeding off scraps", "a pointless exercise", "starry eyed dreamers" and the suggestion that those willing to engage are "a-ok" with the process. I'm not re-reading it. I felt it was very judgemental of those prepared to still actually get involved on our behalf, Madon, Mike etc? AKA Appalling?

 

You were clearly being unreasonable by using that as a way to argue back against Leonard. Nobody else, except you, saw what Neal said as an insult to fans.

The fact that you then admitted you glanced at it, whilst now refusing to re-read it to get a better grasp of what Neal said and in what context, goes to show that you clearly aren't acting in a reasonable and level headed way in this instance.

He didn't judge Madon or Mike. Stop trying to bring that into the equation. He judged the owners; judged what he thinks they think of us; judged the meeting as a waste of time. He certainly didn't call them peasants. What a weird statement to make, or rather what a weird assumption to come too.

It is a pointless exercise - I'm sure even those who attended will testify to that. Tony 'stole the show' but the truth of the matter is this was meant to be an audience with the directors, not the manager. In that regards Neal is entirely right.

I must have missed the starry eyed dreamers part

[JBiz]

Four days to just bring more arguments back to the surface. 

So the definition of being "unreasonable" is having your own opinion is it? The definition of being "level headed" is to avoid speaking your mind I guess? 

This "pointless exercise" that you refer too, is something that quite a few fans engage with and I personally don't think it's pointless. If you can't deal with that, that's not my problem. I've got not problem discussing the pros/cons of such forum, but simply writing it off as "pointless" is not my view.

 

 

[Dreams of 1995]

12 minutes ago, Biz said:

Four days to just bring more arguments back to the surface. 

So the definition of being "unreasonable" is having your own opinion is it? The definition of being "level headed" is to avoid speaking your mind I guess? 

This "pointless exercise" that you refer too, is something that quite a few fans engage with and I personally don't think it's pointless. If you can't deal with that, that's not my problem. I've got not problem discussing the pros/cons of such forum, but simply writing it off as "pointless" is not my view.

 

 

No. You are perfectly entitled to have an opinion. Again you are misconstruing what is being said- are you doing it on purpose?

What makes you unreasonable is how terribly out of context you took Neal's post and then tried to use it as a stick to beat another poster with coupled with your outright refusal to re read it; this refusal to possibly rectify a mistake you made, and presumably you'd apologise once you realised that mistake, clearly meant you weren't looking at this in a level headed manner. It has nothing to do with forming an opinion and speaking your mind at all.

Engaging with it isn't pointless. You are showing your hand and asking questions. However, the deliverance of the meeting is pointless: if the directors don't show up (Coar, Silvestre & Pasha), the owners don't show up and a third of the meeting is a Q&A with the manager then the very idea of a Supporters Consultation is deemed pointless. The people with the answers aren't there to answer them and the answers we are getting are planned responses to questions that have had to put forward in an 'agenda'. There's no real consultation.

It wouldn't be pointless if the people who could answer the questions are there to do so. As it stands they refuse to. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to suggest that asking those questions is 'pointless' if you know they can't possibly be answered with real conviction, ipso facto making the exercise, in its current form, entirely pointless.

[JBiz]

1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

No. You are perfectly entitled to have an opinion. Again you are misconstruing what is being said- are you doing it on purpose?

What makes you unreasonable is how terribly out of context you took Neal's post and then tried to use it as a stick to beat another poster with coupled with your outright refusal to re read it; this refusal to possibly rectify a mistake you made, and presumably you'd apologise once you realised that mistake, clearly meant you weren't looking at this in a level headed manner. It has nothing to do with forming an opinion and speaking your mind at all.

Engaging with it isn't pointless. You are showing your hand and asking questions. However, the deliverance of the meeting is pointless: if the directors don't show up (Coar, Silvestre & Pasha), the owners don't show up and a third of the meeting is a Q&A with the manager then the very idea of a Supporters Consultation is deemed pointless. The people with the answers aren't there to answer them and the answers we are getting are planned responses to questions that have had to put forward in an 'agenda'. There's no real consultation.

It wouldn't be pointless if the people who could answer the questions are there to do so. As it stands they refuse to. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to suggest that asking those questions is 'pointless' if you know they can't possibly be answered with real conviction, ipso facto making the exercise, in its current form, entirely pointless.

You either can accept that I saw those comments as "appalling" or you cannot, end of conversation. Try moving on, I certainly have done.

[Mike E]

3 hours ago, Biz said:

You either can accept that I saw those comments as "appalling" or you cannot, end of conversation. Try moving on, I certainly have done.

I accept that, but I must admit I find it (and your reasoning of it) rather baffling 

[JBiz]

56 minutes ago, Mike E said:

I accept that, but I must admit I find it (and your reasoning of it) rather baffling 

I'm lost tbh Mike. All I remember is finding this post ridiculous;

"Graham's legs look like they've gone Nuttall needs a chance the only problem is his agent screwing the club over for his services." 

We can both agree that what ensued is baffling

[blueboy3333]

I'd forgotten he did this. He'd better win at Oldham to make up.