Finally, Something that makes sense in the HUN..

[The Old Dark Navy's]

ODN - so in other words don't bother to post if you disagree with the long time posters. No problem, if I ever post again it shall be only where I agree with the general "group think". Apologies for confusing a message board as a place for debate.

I have to say for someone with your undoubted intelligence and impressive credentials, you have not applied an appropriate amount of time to comprehension in this instance.

Debate is great, debate is encouraged.

Insulting someone's intelligence as a prelude to that debate is not. A lot of people do it, but I think it is fair to say that if a new poster does it, without having the bank of credit points behind them, then they are responsible for creating the reputation that may follow them.

I must have missed class the day they taught us that denigrating your opponent is a key element to debating their point.

Your reluctance to see the point I am making simply raises more questions in my mind.

 

[Alpha1]

ODN - so in other words don't bother to post if you disagree with the long time posters. No problem, if I ever post again it shall be only where I agree with the general "group think". Apologies for confusing a message board as a place for debate.

You can post to your hearts content, but some of the stuff you have been saying is pretty stupid.

 

[blueblood25]

ODN - so in other words don't bother to post if you disagree with the long time posters. No problem, if I ever post again it shall be only where I agree with the general "group think". Apologies for confusing a message board as a place for debate.

Maybe don't bother to post if you're just going to insult everyone.
Go away?

 

[jono25]

ODN - The original poster wrote a letter to the HUN denigrating a portion of CFC fans upset over the Fevola trade. Does that not make her comments fair game for a similar response?

The content of her letter is what provoked my critical response. Had she of not been so condescending in her comments I would not have been so critical in my reply. Does that make sense?

So for example when some person starts a topic saying "Judd to FF", I don't intend to criticise that poster because although they may have a stupid idea, they have expressed it without slagging off a large porition of our supporter base (as the letter writer did). I would simply explain why it is a stupid idea.

So in summary, the tone of the letter was what brought about my critical response. I merely followed the author's tone. You don't see that because of the in bred love here (which I actually think is a good thing).

blueblood25 - simply...no.

 

[1eight6four]

Superb!

Here is natural order:

STAYS - Club, true Carlton people.
GOES - Players, coaches, presidents etc........snowflake "supporters" and alledged "members".

 

[Matt72]

ODN - The original poster wrote a letter to the HUN denigrating a portion of CFC fans upset over the Fevola trade. Does that not make her comments fair game for a similar response?

The content of her letter is what provoked my critical response. Had she of not been so condescending in her comments I would not have been so critical in my reply. Does that make sense?

So for example when some person starts a topic saying "Judd to FF", I don't intend to criticise that poster because although they may have a stupid idea, they have expressed it without slagging off a large porition of our supporter base (as the letter writer did). I would simply explain why it is a stupid idea.

So in summary, the tone of the letter was what brought about my critical response. I merely followed the author's tone. You don't see that because of the in bred love here (which I actually think is a good thing).

blueblood25 - simply...no.

The bold words are factually incorrect.
300 out of 42,000 is not a large portion

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

ODN - The original poster wrote a letter to the HUN denigrating a portion of CFC fans upset over the Fevola trade. Does that not make her comments fair game for a similar response?

The content of her letter is what provoked my critical response. Had she of not been so condescending in her comments I would not have been so critical in my reply. Does that make sense?

So for example when some person starts a topic saying "Judd to FF", I don't intend to criticise that poster because although they may have a stupid idea, they have expressed it without slagging off a large porition of our supporter base (as the letter writer did). I would simply explain why it is a stupid idea.

So in summary, the tone of the letter was what brought about my critical response. I merely followed the author's tone. You don't see that because of the in bred love here (which I actually think is a good thing).

blueblood25 - simply...no.

Whilst I understand and appreciate what you are saying, it is a little more complicated than that. The OP generalised an opinion in a published letter, which is often not designed to encapture every individual but a general sentiment. You replied to the individual.

Further, I interpreted the article as being critical of those who have opted not to support the Carlton Football Club any more by way of purchasing a membership, because of the Fevola trade, not just those that are supportive of Fevola and upset the trade occurred.