omg.... the Sky is green - green I tell ye..........
@Subroc you are a persistent little.......fella
The point is not whether we get our own way or not. We should put our ego aside and talk about what is best for the interests of the club. Will you be happy if you get your way but you are wrong and the club suffers? I am sure that you will not be happy because you are a fan of LFC as I am.
I have practised as far as I can what I am suggesting. My post history will show that where I have realised that I was wrong, I have put up my hands and admitted it, conceded the point, apologised where necessary, and moved on to adopt the better position.
That I think is where a forum like this can do a lot of good - to host considered, courteous and careful discussions made for the interests of the club because we as fans support its success. As opposed to innumerable blowhards making and insults digs at each other, venting empty sophistry or just trying to win arguments for the sake of it“I never said I desired to do good, I'm one of the bad guys, my desire is to get my own way, as often as possible and with minimal effort - this thread hasn't been a winner so far”.
If I’d have put a smilie after this would you have still taken it literally? As VGB says relax.
Jack Bauer situation is very different from ours - the former is much more clear where lives are at stake and ther eis a bomb ticking somewhere. Our situation is more opaque and the stakes are far lower. Shankly's quote about football and life cannot be taken literally.
Also, we are not dealing with enemy combatants but with fellow fans of the same club who love the club like you. We are all on the same side.
Even in that 24 Hours type of situation, does saving lives permit torture and waterboarding and pistol whipping? It is a slippery slope. Since the excesses of Abu Ghraib, this issue has caused much soul searching. It is OTT, but suffice to say, IMHO if the terrorist who is saying that your system and civilisatn is corrupt, debased and hypocritical, and he succeeds in making you violate the fundamental tenets of justice that your civilisatn believes in, then regardless of whether the bomb goes off, he has succeeded already. He has turned you into a monster just like him. The weapons we use to achieve our aims are not only double edged, but the sharp end extends both ways as well, and the killer is killed at the same timeI don’t watch 24 to be honest but surprisingly I’m aware that the two situations are not on a par. The context is, that almost inevitably in discussing a matter of principle it evolves/devolves into discussing extremes in order to test the boundaries.
Your example, if this then eventually that, for an individual and for a point in time things are not general the resolution is therefore simpler – there isn’t necessarily a path to travel down – even where there is a path you don’t have to follow it and there will be branches and places where you can turn around.
Also the idea that this is going to hurt me more than you only applies if you believe in Karma or some form of related spiritualism without those it really is going to hurt you more and me not much at all. Conscience is a luxury of intellect and advantage.
IMHO you are making the logical fallacies of overemphasising two factors to become the only factors.I was pointing out that while the majority opinion about Lucas was misguided and wrong, it corrected itself about him and the vocal minority succeeded in showing the truth of their arguments to the majority. Of course the player himself deserves the plaudits for his perseverance, and of course the managers deserve credit for seeing his worth. But that does not negate the part played by the dynamics of discussion on the forum where in the end, a minority position which was doubted and denigrated by the majority, was adopted by the majority in the end. That miniority did not stop trying to explain in cogent and clear logical and rational fashion to the majority, and that was pivotal in th end to providing the rational basis for accepting that Lucas was indeed a good player.Now that’s just odd – you said it was one thing, I say it was two different things but I’m wrong for only using two things………how did the minority view get on with Babel, Voronin etc – the position on Lucas was not adopted and would never have been adopted if the manager and player had not believed in what they were doing (with their advantages over the rest of us which you so easily and mistakenly discount later). Lucas simply wouldn’t have played and the minority would never have had a platform to argue from. Even those fans that supported Lucas were doing so on faith and guess work, others like me remained neutral only because of the belief in Lucas from the manager and his fellow players. If Lucas had allowed the majority to influence him, then the majority view would have become self fulfilling. So you risk losing players of less mental strength, or maybe exactly the same strength but different individual circumstances by allowing the disrespect and ‘free speech’ of the unwashed.
We have not bottomed out when challenging becomes indoctrination or when the right to pedal ideas becomes harmful. Both no doubt addressed by a kind word and civil debate whilst all hell breaks loose in the worthy cause of future enlightenment.
Moving on to politics – the best (not perfect) form of government is a benevolent dictatorship – discuss……
Is there any need to denigrate my linguistic faculties? I am sure that it is clear that my command of the English language is more than sufficient to discourse with posters on this forum.Woah there sparky, read it again, - perhaps I was denigrating my own ability with the written word -
After all, whenever somebody resorts to attacking or making a dig at the other poster, it is frequently a sure sign that he has a weak argument...Now that is a fallacy – firstly the tortuous english you prize – ‘frequently a sure sign’ – does that work? Also you are discounting the fact some people like to insult other, in large swathes of northern England it’s a natural consequence of any discussion and the more you like somebody the more you insult them – of course when you really don’t like somebody you either say nothing or just actually mean it. Besides the cultural rift – there is also the case that insults can follow from frustration and misunderstanding not out of any weakness of argument but out of a weakness in understanding or simple lack of patience– then again there may just be a weakness in vocabulary.
I do not see where and how you have shown that I have not been constructive, apart from using pejorative terms such as "negative' which seems to mean to disagree in any way with what Dalglish is saying.
I have also pointed out and explained how your argument that we need to have all the evidence before we can assess Dalglish's decisions, is unsupportable because nobody has all the evidence except him and Clarke perhaps. To follow your argument to its logical conclusion would make him "uncriticisable" (my invented word!). I have been transparent with my reasons as to why I think certain decisions made by him are mistaken and how there is a better way. By all maens, if you disagree, please posit reason why that is so. I acknowledge that I may be wrong. However, "not having all the data" is not going to cut it as an argument. It is not about the need for immediate results, but it is rather the quality of the decision making itself which is what I am more concerned withThere you go down that winding path again ………you don’t have all the information and not having all the information isn’t an argument against having an opinion – absolutely spot on but it devalues your opinion – more information greater chance of making correct decision – less information more chance of an incorrect opinion - is this even worth discussing?
At no point, for the gazillionth time, have I said don’t have an opinion – what I have asked for is some acknowledgement that actually your opinion ain’t worth much - that you are observing fraction of what you need to observe in order to make a reasonable case either way – that Dalglish himself who has more information than most is not in a position to say whether it’ll work or not – ask the question but dont presume that you have the answer – you have an answer – you think playing them all is risky – check – you think he’s making a mistake – check - but we should be 2nd in the table, we’ve played as much good football this season as last, - the players have actually put some excellent spells pf football together –- its entirely possible that if we’d used one player at a time we’d be worse off – we lost our last two games of the season don’t forget – there is doubt – why not reserve your opinion until you have more information, why not accept the possibility that Kenny may be right and you wrong and suck it up – why not say he’s my manager I’m going to support him in trying to turn this club around, allow him to make mistakes if that’s what they are, to spot those mistakes and fix them without judging them and build a spirit of positivity.
I have not called for his replacement at all. I would have thought that it were obvious that I am pointing out the mistakes Dalglish has made and suggesting a better course of action because I hope that in some way, he would change them. Now, before you mention it, I am not thinking that he will read this post and decide to amend his ways, of course. I am not that deluded.And herein lies the issue – you are not pointing out mistakes he’s made – you are pointing out mistakes you think he may have made – there is no ‘truth’ here – its opinion and its subjective and its unknowable - but you are treating your own opinion as fact. In a position where you cannot actually know the answer you have a choice of giving the benefit of the doubt to Kenny or to your self – my moneys not on you.
