|
Post by Bath Gas on Jul 29, 2021 23:33:02 GMT
That £400 might pay a third of a week's wages for one of our younger first team squad members. Shame on you for writing that. You said that fans were holding the purse strings - I wasn't suggesting that the money would be better spent at Rovers, just that if we're in charge of the purse strings, that's the context for £400. Fair play to that person for choosing to give it to a charity.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 23:45:39 GMT
No I didn't, Tilly.
|
|
bloogas
Joined: July 2016
Posts: 1,091
|
Post by bloogas on Jul 30, 2021 6:39:24 GMT
Professional Rovers! Never been so disgraced. 1) Match fixing circa 1960. 2) Fined by FA or League circa 1950 for conflict of interest (or similar) over links with Greyhound Racing company. Just saying. You will of course say that Bert Tann dealt swiftly and firmly with (1) and that (2) was a technicality.
|
|
|
Post by Bath Gas on Jul 30, 2021 6:51:42 GMT
Didn't realise that the fans were now funding all the running costs of Bristol Rovers - bravo! That £400 might pay a third of a week's wages for one of our younger first team squad members. We're back to being told that we should be grateful that Wael is losing far more than any Rovers owner has ever managed before. Nope. Anyway, it speaks volumes that you say that rather than join everybody else and thank the person for supporting a fantastic cause. Shoveler posted the following in response to my comment that fans were not holding the purse strings:- "We sure are.
And one person has just directed his £400 towards a cause far more deserving."I interpreted this to mean that we are holding the purse strings because fans are withholding income from the club, such as one person who has given £400 to a charity instead of buying a season ticket from Bristol Rovers. Why put those two sentences in the same post if he was not making a connection between them? My response was in no way critical of the person donating to charity (an admirable thing to do), it was pointing out where £400 sits within the structure of Rovers' running costs, so I wouldn't say we are holding the purse strings. If attendances plummet to disastrous levels, that may well cause Wael to have a re-think. However, "holding the purse strings" means having the power over how money is spent - we would still not be in that position. This has reminded me why I go for long periods of time without posting on here, some members seem to relish trying to seek out negatives in anything which those who are not within the inner circle post, and then put their own spin on it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2021 7:32:23 GMT
No I didn't! You keep quoting things I haven't said. Shame on you.
|
|
trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 1,442
|
Post by trymer on Jul 30, 2021 7:40:23 GMT
We're back to being told that we should be grateful that Wael is losing far more than any Rovers owner has ever managed before. Nope. Anyway, it speaks volumes that you say that rather than join everybody else and thank the person for supporting a fantastic cause. This has reminded me why I go for long periods of time without posting on here, some members seem to relish trying to seek out negatives in anything which those who are not within the inner circle post, and then put their own spin on it. Agreed,and some rarely post on threads about matches/players and never post on past players/matches...makes me wonder if one or two on here are actually Rovers supporters or just trolls/wums.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2021 9:49:56 GMT
We're back to being told that we should be grateful that Wael is losing far more than any Rovers owner has ever managed before. Nope. Anyway, it speaks volumes that you say that rather than join everybody else and thank the person for supporting a fantastic cause. Shoveler posted the following in response to my comment that fans were not holding the purse strings:- "We sure are.
And one person has just directed his £400 towards a cause far more deserving."I interpreted this to mean that we are holding the purse strings because fans are withholding income from the club, such as one person who has given £400 to a charity instead of buying a season ticket from Bristol Rovers. Why put those two sentences in the same post if he was not making a connection between them? My response was in no way critical of the person donating to charity (an admirable thing to do), it was pointing out where £400 sits within the structure of Rovers' running costs, so I wouldn't say we are holding the purse strings. If attendances plummet to disastrous levels, that may well cause Wael to have a re-think. However, "holding the purse strings" means having the power over how money is spent - we would still not be in that position. This has reminded me why I go for long periods of time without posting on here, some members seem to relish trying to seek out negatives in anything which those who are not within the inner circle post, and then put their own spin on it. You aren't paying any attention at all. I wrote that. When you demonstrate that you can concentrate on what's happening we can hold a conversation, if all you want to do is peruse an agenda against someone then the other forum is better suited to that. To the bigger picture, why focus on what that £400 means to Rovers, I agree, with the losses Wael is racking up it won't go far, but why can't you join the rest of us and see it in the context of Chewbacca setting this thing up and think about what that charity can do with the money? Try it, it'll make you feel all warm and happy inside. Anyway, don't count my silence at the stadium as support for Punchy, you won't hear me telling him what I think because I'm staying away until he's gone.
|
|
|
Post by Bath Gas on Jul 30, 2021 10:30:06 GMT
Shoveler posted the following in response to my comment that fans were not holding the purse strings:- "We sure are.
And one person has just directed his £400 towards a cause far more deserving."I interpreted this to mean that we are holding the purse strings because fans are withholding income from the club, such as one person who has given £400 to a charity instead of buying a season ticket from Bristol Rovers. Why put those two sentences in the same post if he was not making a connection between them? My response was in no way critical of the person donating to charity (an admirable thing to do), it was pointing out where £400 sits within the structure of Rovers' running costs, so I wouldn't say we are holding the purse strings. If attendances plummet to disastrous levels, that may well cause Wael to have a re-think. However, "holding the purse strings" means having the power over how money is spent - we would still not be in that position. This has reminded me why I go for long periods of time without posting on here, some members seem to relish trying to seek out negatives in anything which those who are not within the inner circle post, and then put their own spin on it. You aren't paying any attention at all. I wrote that. When you demonstrate that you can concentrate on what's happening we can hold a conversation, if all you want to do is peruse an agenda against someone then the other forum is better suited to that. To the bigger picture, why focus on what that £400 means to Rovers, I agree, with the losses Wael is racking it it won't go far, but why can't you join the rest of us and see it in the context of Chewbacca setting this thing up and think about what that charity can do with the money? Try it, it'll make you feel all warm and happy inside. Anyway, don't count my silence at the stadium as support for Punchy, you won't hear me telling him what I think because I'm staying away until he's gone. Apologies for attributing the quote to the wrong poster - I certainly have no agenda against ducks. Shoveler has always given respectful answers to any questions I've had. The explanation for my response was to the content of the post, and remains the same. I've already said that it's a good thing when people donate to charities - I've even been known to do it myself sometimes. You have no idea why my levels of concentration may be impaired at times, and are totally out of order to make such a condescending comment.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2021 11:10:22 GMT
You aren't paying any attention at all. I wrote that. When you demonstrate that you can concentrate on what's happening we can hold a conversation, if all you want to do is peruse an agenda against someone then the other forum is better suited to that. To the bigger picture, why focus on what that £400 means to Rovers, I agree, with the losses Wael is racking it it won't go far, but why can't you join the rest of us and see it in the context of Chewbacca setting this thing up and think about what that charity can do with the money? Try it, it'll make you feel all warm and happy inside. Anyway, don't count my silence at the stadium as support for Punchy, you won't hear me telling him what I think because I'm staying away until he's gone. Apologies for attributing the quote to the wrong poster - I certainly have no agenda against ducks. Shoveler has always given respectful answers to any questions I've had. The explanation for my response was to the content of the post, and remains the same. I've already said that it's a good thing when people donate to charities - I've even been known to do it myself sometimes. You have no idea why my levels of concentration may be impaired at times, and are totally out of order to make such a condescending comment. And off we go down the well trodden path of having your opinion challenged, not enjoying it so playing the victim card in an attempt to make the other person look bad. Plenty of us on here deal with health issues and difficult personal situations, but don't feel the need to take swipes at others about it. Back to the point. Why bother trying to move attention away from what that £400 can do for the charity and frame it in context of how long it will last in terms of funding Rovers?
|
|
|
Post by Bath Gas on Jul 30, 2021 11:15:59 GMT
Apologies for attributing the quote to the wrong poster - I certainly have no agenda against ducks. Shoveler has always given respectful answers to any questions I've had. The explanation for my response was to the content of the post, and remains the same. I've already said that it's a good thing when people donate to charities - I've even been known to do it myself sometimes. You have no idea why my levels of concentration may be impaired at times, and are totally out of order to make such a condescending comment. And off we go down the well trodden path of having your opinion challenged, not enjoying it so playing the victim card in an attempt to make the other person look bad. Wow - I think you need to educate yourself - I honestly thought that opinions such as that were almost as extinct as dinosaurs these days.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2021 11:22:39 GMT
And off we go down the well trodden path of having your opinion challenged, not enjoying it so playing the victim card in an attempt to make the other person look bad. Wow - I think you need to educate yourself - I honestly thought that opinions such as that were almost as extinct as dinosaurs these days. You've mustered sufficient concentration be be selective about which part of my post you quoted I see. How about quoting the entire thing or you may appear to be somewhat disingenuous.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2021 12:03:20 GMT
Get a room, you two. I quote only the paragraphs to which I am responding. And blaming the person with whom you are arguing for ignorance of health conditions you have not told them about is just whining. Let us be able to make arguments for our respective cases, not just whine about our opponents. Welcome to Gas Guzzler.
|
|
|
Post by Bath Gas on Jul 30, 2021 12:06:00 GMT
Wow - I think you need to educate yourself - I honestly thought that opinions such as that were almost as extinct as dinosaurs these days. You've mustered sufficient concentration be be selective about which part of my post you quoted I see. How about quoting the entire thing or you may appear to be somewhat disingenuous. Unbelievable, an absolutely vile thing to say. I'm just hoping that the moderators are more up to date, and have some moral standards.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2021 12:08:09 GMT
Isn't there a row of empty telephone boxes that a few on here could occupy to start their pathetic arguments?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2021 12:14:46 GMT
You've mustered sufficient concentration be be selective about which part of my post you quoted I see. How about quoting the entire thing or you may appear to be somewhat disingenuous. Unbelievable, an absolutely vile thing to say. I'm just hoping that the moderators are more up to date, and have some moral standards. Oh dear. Vile? Really? I think, and I'm guessing, that what Bambi wrote hurt you because of a condition you have. I believe Bambi has no idea who you are or what condition you have. Certainly I have no clue. It can be 'vile' therefore only to you and those close to you who know. That's not what an 'absolutely vile thing to say' means. As for moderator censorship and heavy-handed banning, I thought that was why you quit Gaschat. If you like censorship, then Gaschat's there for you. Jeff and Uncle Eppers here are far more open to free speech. All the best with the condition to which you allude, sincerely, but we cannot be expected to guess it without information. We're all alright; let's presume good faith, eh?
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,123
|
Post by eppinggas on Jul 30, 2021 12:20:01 GMT
You've mustered sufficient concentration be be selective about which part of my post you quoted I see. How about quoting the entire thing or you may appear to be somewhat disingenuous. Unbelievable, an absolutely vile thing to say. I'm just hoping that the moderators are more up to date, and have some moral standards. I think I am up to date, thank you. And yes, I would like to think I have moral standards. It would appear to be the people who are still backing Mr B*****, regardless of his long history of violence, are the people who are lacking moral standards.
|
|
|
Post by Bath Gas on Jul 30, 2021 13:01:16 GMT
Unbelievable, an absolutely vile thing to say. I'm just hoping that the moderators are more up to date, and have some moral standards. Oh dear. Vile? Really? I think, and I'm guessing, that what Bambi wrote hurt you because of a condition you have. I believe Bambi has no idea who you are or what condition you have. Certainly I have no clue. It can be 'vile' therefore only to you and those close to you who know. That's not what an 'absolutely vile thing to say' means. As for moderator censorship and heavy-handed banning, I thought that was why you quit Gaschat. If you like censorship, then Gaschat's there for you. Jeff and Uncle Eppers here are far more open to free speech. All the best with the condition to which you allude, sincerely, but we cannot be expected to guess it without information. We're all alright; let's presume good faith, eh? I think I found the Latin quotes easier to understand. You seem to be talking in riddles. I was brought up not to be insulting about a person's abilities, as I may not be aware of the reasons for an shortfall. It seems your take is that it's fine to insult somebody, because you have no idea why an ability might be impaired. I'm amazed that this forum isn't written on stone tablets.
|
|
|
Post by Bath Gas on Jul 30, 2021 13:02:31 GMT
Unbelievable, an absolutely vile thing to say. I'm just hoping that the moderators are more up to date, and have some moral standards. I think I am up to date, thank you. And yes, I would like to think I have moral standards. It would appear to be the people who are still backing Mr B*****, regardless of his long history of violence, are the people who are lacking moral standards. Carry on kidding yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2021 13:12:45 GMT
Alright Tilly, I've really tried with you, but you're determined to be offended by perceived insults of others while insulting others yourself, and that's unlikely what was intended by your stated upbringing. Bambi writes as he writes, without discrimination, so if you consider your 'abilities' require different treatment, then you are free to specify what.
I return to my request that we strive to debate each others' arguments and to share opinions, rather than fight each other as individuals. It's up to you, friend.
EDIT P.S. none of this means I'll stop complaining about Bambi's split infinitives, which I note you are more careful to kindly avoid.
|
|
warehamgas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,430
|
Post by warehamgas on Jul 30, 2021 13:15:03 GMT
Unbelievable, an absolutely vile thing to say. I'm just hoping that the moderators are more up to date, and have some moral standards. I think I am up to date, thank you. And yes, I would like to think I have moral standards. It would appear to be the people who are still backing Mr B*****, regardless of his long history of violence, are the people who are lacking moral standards. Just to clarify epping, I am still backing BRFC as are many other people. It was made clear, by the club, that I would have to tolerate JB at least to continue to support my club for the foreseeable future until he’s not here. I’m not happy about that and since the weekend less happy but perhaps no less surprised at what’s come to pass. It was always a ticking bomb imo. I am still supporting BRFC and will continue to do so, albeit with that man in charge. That will change in time, he will be gone but BRFC will still be here. You're not saying that because of our respective stances your “moral standards” are higher than those who may still be supporting the club are you? Or are you actually saying that they are higher because of that? UTG!
|
|