Jump to content
Big Change Coming to DonsTalk This July ×
DonsTalk

Losing patience with McGhee


Kowalski

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • TENEMENTFUNSTER

    22

  • baggy89

    18

  • westenddon

    13

  • bilbobaggins

    11

Guest rocket debris

Sorry I'm posting from my phone so can't quote, why would you think thats pure unadulterated shite then rocket?...

Well get an iPhone then. Best invention known to man.

 

It's pure unadulterated shite because your point was not twisted as you said it was: -

 

"although that seems to have been interpreted as McGhee shouldnt take some of the flack for tuesdays shambles.  Seems like my point (and others) has been tiwsted as another argument to absolve McGhee from any blame for some of the performances this season."

 

If you can find one post of mine that says he's doing or has ever done a good job at AFC, I will donate £5,000 to stave off the impending and inevitable death of this webchatspeaksite.

 

Third link down.

 

I said a less favourable result would bump up numbers, not the same thing as wanting us to lose or even that I valued numbers at the protest over a win that day.

 

If we lost that day, numbers had been up - fairly obvious logic there, rather than wanting my team to lose.

Ha Ha Ha! I think I can actually hear the desperate back pedalling or are you really suggesting the patently obvious inference to this quote was not intentioned?

 

Questions.

 

What was the point in your protest?

 

Do you believe a larger turn out would have reinforced this point?

 

A case of you reading what you want to read - if you want to take from that that I paid my money that day hoping for us to lose then feel free.

 

The point of the protest was to make the point that we felt Jimmy's time at Aberdeen was up - the point was made that win, lose, or draw the protest would take place.

 

Larger numbers might have reinforced the point, still doesn't mean I wanted us to lose to re-inforce said point.

Guest rocket debris

Ha Ha Ha! I think I can actually hear the desperate back pedalling or are you really suggesting the patently obvious inference to this quote was not intentioned?

 

Questions.

 

What was the point in your protest?

 

Do you believe a larger turn out would have reinforced this point?

Look at you. What is your point, other than to argue online with a Dons fan? Questions, questions, that's all you ever give me. To cut a long story short, you've lost your mind. You belong here.

Look at you. What is your point, other than to argue online with a Dons fan? Questions, questions, that's all you ever give me. To cut a long story short, you've lost your mind. You belong here.

 

It's far easier for people like this to stay here where they agree with each other, swear a lot and convince themselves that lies and myths are fact.

 

They don't like it up 'em, to coin a phrase.

You were the one who went to the press and became spokesperson for the JMG (for the benefit of Rocket, a term coined on AFCHAT and used by Brian in his dealings with the press, as a name for the sextuple). Therefore it would have benefited you if there were larger numbers, no? You would have looked less of a fool if it was a success?

I would suggest that whether consciously intentioned or not, the inference is there.

Guest rocket debris

You were the one who went to the press and became spokesperson for the JMG (for the benefit of Rocket, a term coined on AFCHAT and used by Brian in his dealings with the press, as a name for the sextuple). Therefore it would have benefited you if there were larger numbers, no? You would have looked less of a fool if it was a success?

I would suggest that whether consciously intentioned or not, the inference is there.

Your suggestion is misguided. Once again, what are you trying to achieve? On this thread, are you now saying that we should not have got rid of JC? Seems to me that you have a pathological need for confrontation. What is the debate? What is your point?

That seems a desperate misinterpretation. What are you investing energy arguing about today? What is the point you are taking? Put it in a nutshell.

 

Look at you. What is your point, other than to argue online with a Dons fan? Questions, questions, that's all you ever give me. To cut a long story short, you've lost your mind. You belong here.

 

Your suggestion is misguided. Once again, what are you trying to achieve? On this thread, are you now saying that we should not have got rid of JC? Seems to me that you have a pathological need for confrontation. What is the debate? What is your point?

 

All without reply :hammer:

You were the one who went to the press and became spokesperson for the JMG (for the benefit of Rocket, a term coined on AFCHAT and used by Brian in his dealings with the press, as a name for the sextuple). Therefore it would have benefited you if there were larger numbers, no? You would have looked less of a fool if it was a success?

I would suggest that whether consciously intentioned or not, the inference is there.

 

Protest done, Jimmy gone - if 200,000 were there and Jimmy was still here then it'd have failed so I'm not massively sure wtf you're on about.

 

I'd rather Caley stayed in the SPL last season than Falkirk, so going by your logic I'd have rather we lost that day and they'd stayed in the SPL.

 

If we're talking "infering" then there's a few folk on here who're far more intent on seeing us lose than that solitary post you're clinging to.

Protest done, Jimmy gone - if 200,000 were there and Jimmy was still here then it'd have failed so I'm not massively sure wtf you're on about.

 

I'd rather Caley stayed in the SPL last season than Falkirk, so going by your logic I'd have rather we lost that day and they'd stayed in the SPL.

 

If we're talking "infering" then there's a few folk on here who're far more intent on seeing us lose than that solitary post you're clinging to.

 

Do I really need to provide a summary after every page for you highly intelligent Chat posters?

 

The point is.

 

You stated no-one involved wanted to see us lose.

 

I thought it was after the protest when it was suggested more would have gone if we lost.

 

I knew I couldn't be bothered to even use the search facility.

 

Dave kindly provided links.

 

I clicked on one.

 

Immediately noticed one, that was suggesting the protest would gain more support if we lost.

 

Noticed it was from you.

 

Posted it up on here in response to your claim.

 

You then claimed that I'm reading too much into it.

 

I claim, consciously or sub-consciously, you meant it.

 

I don't think I suggested once that the protest failed, I now how preciously you protesters hold those 4 minutes in the memories of your desperate struggle against the tyranny of Calderwood's reign.

 

I also fail to see how the 3 posters on here can have a knee-jerk reaction when we lose, but in truth actually want us to lose?

 

Quite what that middle paragraph is about...

 

So in truth I am now confused over what the point of you is.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...