Possibly because he himself in his post on more than 1 occasion says he is offering a counter argument to those that are "Continually" speculating on every subject and coming to conclusions about people at the club based on nothing more than speculation?

Possibly because this isn't said persons 10,000th post of speculation to paint people in a bad light/good light.

This is the crux of the people who are prepared to wait's argument.
Were happy if there was no criticism or praise of people based on pure speculation without access to facts however have no other option due to the amount of negative speculation to respond which can often be deemed to be "over Positive" which in fact is just people trying to just put some perspective on things without access to the full facts.

www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union ... 2phfc.html Did anyone see this interesting article?

www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union ... 2phfc.html Did anyone see this interesting article?

First time I've seen it, but it made me chuckle.

Andy Farrell and Eddie Jones were first choice ahead of Michael Maguire.

Yeah, course.

That presumably comes from the same Rugby Union 'history book' that had Leeds offering £1 million for Will Carling back in 1990.

So, speculative posts that counter DaveO are allowed but not the other way round? Thanks for the explanation.

That's not what I said is it?
I said if there wasn't so many speculative posts criticising the club an it's employees without knowing the full facts then there wouldn't be any need for any posts to defend against them.

But you read it the way you want.

I really probably shouldn't ask but I am curious as to when anyone who might post an opinion on a forum, positive or negative, ever posts in full knowledge of the facts?

There's far more doe eyed adoration than speculative criticism posted on here though that it to be expected. What shouldn't be accepted is the way that some posters, not you, round on those with an opposing view, especially a view that paints the club in a negative light. Hell, we've even got the mob complaining because some of us want to welcome our opposition!

What I want to see are both sides of the coin in any debate. Vive la difference I say.

Very rarely if ever. What a lot of posters do is write as if what they assume or think to be happening is fact.

Blimey!!!!! i'm "doe eyed!" as well as a "Happy clapper"... Looks like i need to add a signature.

I'm really going to regret this but here goes.

Opinions on players performances, players we should be buying, team structures etc. are all subjective so fill your boots.

Now believe it or believe it not I'm actually not that bothered but I find it strange at times that in certain circumstances when analysing certain issues surrounding certain employees of the club some people like to make assumptions about a situation (that may end up being correct or not) but then push these assumptions as reasons and examples as to why said people are performing well or not.

I can't criticise IFL for example for selling ST when I don't know yet whether he has or hasn't.
I'm not going to get into a slanging match with people who tell me that getting rid of Gaz hock was all SWs fault and IFL is a disgrace for backing his coach all based on someone who says he's "in the know" without any evidence for this.
And let's be honest, what's gone on over the last 3/4 months seems to be the fall out from the Hock situation with certain people who predicted that the club would "Fall apart" etc. with player unrest. Now seeing as this hasn't manifested itself on the field as predicted we seem to now have a barrage of criticism (as I say the majority based on speculation) of the clubs hierarchy and if you don't mind, I'll wait and see until more facts are known before I decide to join in the criticism (which I may do dependant on the explanations given) or not.
I would say that's an ok stance to take and nothing controversial?
As Crunchers said numerous times, if people want to criticise based on assumptions, info they know but can't tell anyone else for whatever reason or whatever that's up to them.
Just don't expect people to sit back and be brainwashed by it, they'll question it and push back and offer counter arguments which I assume is ok?

I don't mind seeing both sides of any argument and I agree with you on the applauding opposition onto the pitch etc.
I just don't see a fair stance from those that want to criticise and when their opinions are questioned or they are asked to provide facts etc. they they go on the offensive and accuse people of bullying or that people are attacking them etc.
Edit
The last bit about complaining about being attacked was not aimed at DaveO who stands toe to toe in any discussion without complaint (despite not agreeing with him most of the time

).

Such as?

Andy Farrell is the Winston Churchill of the north, what a leader he is, if I remember correctly Churchill used to dictate to his secretary in his underpants, somehow I can't see a future Warriors coach doing that from the sidelines

I'll start with paragraphs 1&3 of this post

This one?

If it's accuracy your interested in you might want to add the words paranoid, childish and pathetic too. How old are you?

You really ought to think about developing a sense of humour.

Oh come on ...

Don't go down the route that a certain idiot from the other forum always does, getting abusive as soon as people disagree with him.

The Sam situ is upsetting everyone. Absolutely true. Is it being badly handled by IFL? Maybe. It doesn't look good and we're all frustrated and bewildered that Sam isn't being made to at least serve the three years we were promised. But that doesn't mean that IL is a fool or that Wigan RL is being run poorly. It's still possible that he knew we were losing Sam in 2015, and has seen a way ahead for us that may bring some kind of benefit. We can do a lot worse than wait and hear the explanation.

Cruncher, we are on page 15 and thats the nub of the thread....

Don't you think some of your output could be viewed as abusive? You slap down more people in here than anyone ( even if I agree with virtually all of it). Also, who are you likening me to on the other forum? Am I allowed to feel abused if it's CP Wigan?

I am sick of repeating my stance on here. Where have I posted or even agreed that the club is being poorly run? Don't you see that we, and indeed WP, are virtually in agreement? You state that maybe IL is handling the Sam saga badly but isn't a fool and is running the club well. I couldn't agree more!

With regard to WP I have held out the olive branch at least twice. When I referred to doe eyed support on here am I wrong? Just look at the current thread on not clapping opponents. That was what I referred to as evidence for my statement. WP posted on there showing his feelings against those posting the IMO unsportsmanlike claptrap. In total agreement with me, yet he takes offence at my comments when those that should don't! Ironic or what? I'm afraid you'll just have to excuse me for reacting.

Perhaps I should have done as Cadoo did (would that I had the eloquence), just post your opinion once and brilliantly and leave it at that.

Some "Olive branch"...........

My last comment referred entirely to your previous comment, which contained uncharacteristic name-calling (only that seemed similar to you-know-who; I'm certainly not comparing you to him in any other way). But okay, I'll stay out of any personal dispute.

To be honest, I've lost track of people's opinions on this matter now. I think we're all a bit stressed by it, and maybe people are sounding off in a way they shouldn't. No offence was intended.

I would refer you to a previous post if only I could find it. We've disagreed in so many threads it's either in IFL, rumours, or the Sam thread. Wherever, it is a specific apology to you for any unintended offence caused. Not that it appears to have had the desired effect.