I couldn't have put it better myself.

If you actually bother to read what happened, ME made (another) personal attack (as he does all over the place, he's on the permanent wind-up now) and as I was one target on this occasion I gave it one reply (making it clear that was that). He's trying to wind it up, but again as you can see, I've ignored it.

So if you feel the need to tell anyone to STFU, don't include someone who already had. It's illogical.

I also resent your "every post on here" remark. I reserve the right if I so choose to reply to personal attacks (as no doubt would you) but most of what I post is, so far as I am concerned, on topic and reasoned, and in no way 'bickering' etc. For example you may have the view that most people want McNamara out. Do you insist that nobody disagrees with you? Or if they do, is it 'bickering'?

More Handbags!!!

Though i have to admit i saw it coming from you.

FFS! Paul was actually fair enough with his comments but still "the other two" have to make some issue out of it.

The problem with you FA is that you get involved with any argument you can then act all innocent and pretend you know nothing about it when people show you up. You also try to claim that you had one reply when it is pretty clear that you (like me) always want to have the last word on anything as you have tried to do a couple of posts above this one. You also claim that your posts are "fair and reasoned" yet this comment...



Where then, did he tell you to STFU? Show me in a "fair and reasoned way" if you please?

As for Adey? It is amusing that you claim that I "sometimes manage to goad you" yet you post the following



After BP tried to diffuse the situation in a clear attempt to reignite the flames. Very hypocritical I would suggest but, in true Adey style, I guess the "people will decide".

It is a perfect time for me to step back from this as I actually agree with Paul but whether the "other two" can find comfort in not wanting to nitpick on any small issue is another matter. Paul has already had it on here and if it is not him then no doubt it will be someone else. Good luck Paul, you will need it.

Heaven help us, STILL he goes on! Yet more dishonest deliberate misrepresentation and "poor-me" whining when folk show this attention-seeker up for what he is. He seems to think he can get away with dishonest smears and personal attacks when it suits him, but then when he is on a losing run everyone should be friends again.

You might have noticed that (unlike him with his regular and multiple quotes) I did not refer to anyone in that short post above that he quoted? So there was no need for any individual to react at all. Yet funnily enough, he seemed to see himself in what I said. Wonder why?

Anyway, as I said I will continue to try and ignore him and not rise to the bait, so threads don't get derailed. But its not helped by other highly-disenchanted fans rallying to his perverted cause because it provides an easy focus for discontent without the requirement for practicable solutions.

With regard to that particular exchange, if you read it, you would have to agree that I promised to, and did, let you have the last word, or indeed several last words on that point. I haven't, and won't respond further, ditto the couple of further threads where my only response to personal barbs is just to point out what you're doing.

Of course, if you make another point - like the few you've just made - you presumably [iwant[/i people to read and reply? If not - why post? What is it that upsets you when posts you write are responded to, and is this upset a reasonable reaction?


... was fair and reasoned . . .




Well it is, but then trust me, [iany[/i time would fit the bill for that.


The common denominator in the threads he is complaining about would seem to be you. The person who starts off this stuff would also seem to be you. The person who makes repeated efforts to get a rise would also seem to be you.

As a Bradford fan on the Bradford fans' forum, you'll find that when you continue to post anti-Bulls stuff especially, you may well be shown up for what you are doing.

What I would think is delusional in the extreme though, is if you think, as you seem to think, that all your 'thoughts' should be left posted up there, sacrosanct, in the way some followers regard the verses of the Koran or the Bible, without the right of response, analysis, disagreement or reply allowed for the points that you make, or your targets. Have you now awarded yourself exclusive posting rights? If not, why is it you believe that you are entitled to them?

If Paul124897 or anyone else wants to read your stuff unopposed they should say so. If they agree with you, I never said anyone wasn't free to do that. And if Paul124897 is fair then while he may not [ilike[/i my disagreeing with you, he should realise that [inot[/i disagreeing with you would leave you to post unopposed.

Paul124897, I have no intention of sending such replies as this via the PM system, for simple reasons. I have no interest in any private spat with ME. One of the reasons I sometimes reply to ME (and others) is to show such Bulls SUPPORTERS as may read the threads that the forum hasn't been surrendered to the NT and that we don't all think like ME or other Fifth Columnists. PMs would not achieve this, or indeed anything. And I note that ironically you addressed your comments to the audience, and not by PMs.

Equating replies with ME's originating material makes as much sense to me as blaming the smell of the broken sewer on the workmen trying to fix it.

Ok.

It's both right and proper that differing views are allowed to be raised here.

Hell, it's rights and proper that differing "styles" be here too.

Some people are more articulate than others, some more obtuse, some logical and some just sporting for the wind and to try and prove that they "were right"

Some are very skilled in acting more than a tad machiavellian in choosing to answer only the points that serve their purpose and consistently / consciously elect to merely obfuscate the original point(s) being made.

I wasn't trying to pour oil on choppy water. I certainly wouldn't identify the three posters, as in the earlier comment, as being "the issue".

In reality it all comes down to Addey's point of the positive/negative tendencies within any club.

Given that all of this has run and run for quite sometime now I was only asking whether people thought it had really run it's course and so was only getting repetitive.

<[iand, just for the (Daily

) record, I suspect I'm more in the positive tendancy . . . though with less and less to be positive about>[/i

That is a most poetic description

Close it IMO.

Long past its sell-by date.

No doubt like the Hydra another will arise, and another, and another...

Wouldn't think so, for mine. If everything was going swimmingly then sure, but the way things are, I'd say a "coach" thread must have a long shelf-life yet.





"My name is Bullpower, and I am Tendency Positive"
It's your constitutional right!

You are next to the bottom of the league. What should you be discussing? ME might be a one-trick pony but ATM he has the upper hand in the 'I told you so' competition. He says Macca, PT say it's the cost of repairing a drain.

I'm not sure we've made that actual diagnosis, we're still looking into sudden and inexplicable upwellings of sheeite all over the field when you least expect it

Given the relative ground levels viz a viz the bogs & field it would probably be downwellings, a flood almost.

Does anybody recall whether Macca was involved in the Joynt voluntary tackle.

If I'd have told you to STFU, I would have put it in no uncertain terms. I haven't, and purely feel instead of doing it in threads and derailing the thread, do it elsewhere.



Yes, I've already said I meant 'every thread on here' rather than 'every post' and no, I don't reply to personal attacks against me. I grew past that stage a while back, maybe you should too?



Nope, I respect the opinions of others - to which those who know me personally on here will know that.

You and Eddie are actually quite alike in terms of trying to get the last word in, and being so protective of your opinions. The posts I've read often lead me to believe that either of you would continue until the other one agrees with the others opinion.



Was that aimed at me? If so, how am I rallying to his cause? Sure, I've known Eddie before rlfans through the Bullrage message board, to which Eddie was a moderator on there. However, my aim isn't to defend him, he has said some pretty dastardly stuff, but he isn't alone.

My focus of discontent is aimed at threads being derailed due to 3 people taking digs at each other and boosting their own egos (FA, Eddie, Tiger) which just lead to meaningless dialogue for the rest of us.

So yeah, I hope that wasn't aimed at me as I actually had you down to be one of the reasonable posters, if not a little confused with your own feelings at times (ie.. negative one week, positive the next).



It's not just him. Whoever starts it, shouldn't. Whoever replies to it, shouldn't. What makes it worse is that you're all above 20 years of age, probably with a wife and/or kids but let's be honest - you're acting like kids.



Debate is good. Where did I say I wanted to read things unopposed? I want to read a debate that doesn't include mindless name calling or extremities such as a certain poster should commit suicide because he has an opinion that someone doesn't agree with (I'm looking at you Tiger Beer).

Get your opinions out on the table, but don't try to change somebodies opinion. If someone is being outrageous, just laughing and move on. He/She is entitled to that opinion.

Now, to draw this post to a conclusion, I have no spat with either of you. As I've said, debate is good. But debate really ing sucks when wading through pages of nonsense.

You've all said valid points in regards to the club and where it is at.

PM sent.

Replied.

Pretty sure we don't need to know about when you PM each other.

Whadya MEAN..."not a little confused?"

Too right I'm confused! I'm a LOT confused!

Like most of us were! How can the team we saw a week last Friday turn into the one we saw last Friday? Its been like riding a roller-coaster watching this lot, although right now we seem to be spending rather too long in the underground dark bit. That's bound to come across in what people (other than the diehard optimists and the perennial negativites) say on here, especially straight after matches.

I live in hope of being confused again THIS Friday!

Its OK. We were only talking about you.

Steve McNamara's record.

2006
Win Ratio 52% from 19 games
27 points For average per game
20 points Against average per game

2007
Win Ratio 62% from 27 games
27 points For average per game
20 points Against average per game

2008
Win Ratio 51% from 27 games
26 points For average per game
23 points Against average per game

2009
Win Ratio 22% from 9 games
18 points For average per game
27 points Against average per game

Since round 12 last year when it appears the wheels fell off.
Win Ratio 37% from 24 games
24 points For average per game
26 points Against average per game

I made this point on aother thread, a win ratio of 22% would have us bottom (Celtic notwithstanding) and would have had us bottom the last two years and relegated instead of Salford.

There are many manifold reasons put forward for this as extensively discussed elsewhere, but this basic fact needs improving ASAP by the current staff or a new one (obvious I know, but Im feeling in a obvious mood)

Surely i'm not that important, but thank you!

Depressing reading. I didn't think we'd fall this badly but personally i never thought McNarama was the right man in 2007 to make this Bulls team contenders. Not that i wanna go into a debate about money being the issue. Just don't think he's done well enough with squad at disposal.