Looking ahead

[CrippsonBlue]

I think the biggest disappointment here is that after so much discussion, I still cannot confidently declare recidivist as my new 'word of the day'

 

[Dramoth]

I think the biggest disappointment here is that after so much discussion, I still cannot confidently declare recidivist as my new 'word of the day'

get with the program here and work with us...

I am sure that after some user based experience with the word, you should be able to leverage it into a position acceptable to you that will break the glass ceiling for the word and propel it into a situation where you can confidently declare recidivist as your new 'word of the day'

Either that or you are some sort of subversive recidivist trying to break down societies mores and morals

 

[thylacine60]

And I'd keep your opinion to yourself before you embarrass yourself further.

I addressed your supposed 'meaning' of the word recidivist above - one that makes no sense in the context of a person posting an opinion on a footy forum. Read it properly. Then... no don't touch the keyboard... think about it.

Are you seriously saying that someone with an opinion that you disagree with is exhibiting 'undesirable behaviour' or 'committing a crime'?

If so, you really do strange moral compass.

Perhaps, just let go and admit that the term didn't really reflect my perfectly innocent behaviour of posting an opinion which in no way was targeted at any other poster on this site.

If you're happy to take The Webster Dictionary as any form of authority - yep, still on this - a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behaviour; especially : relapse into criminal behaviour.

You are so correct. But so am I. Great isn't it? Before you respond remember I have a Degree in Smartarse Detection from Melbourne University.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Most sensible post in at least 3 pages.

I don't intend to come across as conceited. I'm not a fan of that behaviour either.

I simply found myself surrounded by people coming to The General's support for having a crack at me for expressing an opinion.

That term implies criminal behaviour - it is used primarily in society in reference to re-offending criminals. I don't like a poster's opinion, mine or anyone else to be described in these terms to bully another poster into withdrawing a valid opinion.

Ironically, my post was actually about our current forward line and it's problems, I merely mentioned Fev's name along the way and out came the knives.

The wound he has left is deep obviously and I can understand that.

I'm about addressing our current personnel issues and structures and not re-hashing the past. There is a reality though that the trade has hurt our club in some ways and that is a valid situation to discuss. I, like others here, would like nothing more than for the trade to strengthen us in the long run.

Fair call. And on the topic of assessing our forward line, this is the reason I'm now on the fence about Fev. I reckon getting Henderson was a coup to be honest. This kid is going to hold down CHF for many years to come (barring injury) and I reckon will be among the better CHF's around in 2 - 3 years.

Setanta is a complete mystery (perhaps even to himself ) at his current rate, he's on target to kick 60 - 70 goals for the year. If we had been offered that as a guarantee at the start of the year, I don't think there's many who'd have rejected it. Whether things continue in this way, remains to be seen.

What we're missing from last year is the contribution from the smaller forwards and the midfield, but we are only 3 games in so ...

 

[XXX KINGS]

If you're happy to take The Webster Dictionary as any form of authority - yep, still on this - a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behaviour; especially : relapse into criminal behaviour.

You are so correct. But so am I. Great isn't it? Before you respond remember I have a Degree in Smartarse Detection from Melbourne University.

It's actually University of Melbourne, nice try though

 

[CrippsonBlue]

Either that or you are some sort of subversive recidivist trying to break down societies mores and morals

Maybe I've misunderstood the meaning to date, but are you hitting on me?

 

[JuddFevGoal]

If you're happy to take The Webster Dictionary as any form of authority - yep, still on this - a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behaviour; especially : relapse into criminal behaviour.

You are so correct. But so am I. Great isn't it? Before you respond remember I have a Degree in Smartarse Detection from Melbourne University.

Ok I give in.

You got me.

I'm a recidivist.

 

[Sin City]

Maybe I've misunderstood the meaning to date, but are you hitting on me?

That's a submission reversist

 

[Salaryman]

either way, it's a good word. One of the best.

Thy and I got off on the wrong track too....absolutely hated the man....still do

Maybe one day we'll all be friends.

Uni Melb Oldboy too

 

[CrippsonBlue]

That's a submission reversist

Haha nice

 

[blue gunslinger]

I think the biggest disappointment here is that after so much discussion, I still cannot confidently declare recidivist as my new 'word of the day'

stick with boobs or sputum!

 

[Dramoth]

stick with boobs or sputum!

bOObs is always good

or we could fall back on the old cheesy chat up line...

legs is the word of the day... so all you women out there get out and spread the word.

 

[thylacine60]

Ok I give in.

You got me.

I'm a recidivist.

Don't be so reactionary!

 

[blue gunslinger]

bOObs is always good

or we could fall back on the old cheesy chat up line...

legs is the word of the day... so all you women out there get out and spread the word.

much better than that highbrow pissing contest that was going on!

 

[Dramoth]

much better than that highbrow pissing contest that was going on!

there was a pissing contest...

wondered where the smell of stale urine was coming from...

Ohh wait... I live in England... where pissing in the street is the norm... carry on

 

[Windhover]

Yes the latin came first, it's the usual order of things Well done.

You would have to ask TG his reasoning.

I would rather ask the Sphinx for a condom.

TG used the word "recidivist" to disparage a poster with what was, for him, no doubt, a word beyond his active vocabulary. Posters who hold different opinions to one's own cannot for that reason be recidivists. They are not, for a start, relapsing "back" to anything. They are maintaining a previously expressed opinion.

An occasional malapropism should be forgiven. The gratuitous disparaging of other posters should be recognised for what it is - an attempt to "win" an argument by invective rather than invention, ridicule rather than reason. TG should be damned on that basis and for the subsequent altogether predictable diversion of this thread.

 

[Blues_Man]

Agreed if my potential trade had said we get Pears and Trengrove - bad idea.

But the way I worked it was we'd give up Hampson and Gibbs for Roughead, Trengove and Boak. Unrealistic? Possibly. But if we could get that trade would you say no? You would be stupid to rule it out.

Before you say "that will never happen" - two years ago would you have seen Carlton trading Fev for pick 12 and Henerson (and giving pick 27 in return)?

If you want to play at the grown ups table try and read the whole post first....

You are either a troll hiding behind an alias ..or possibly the worst Carlton supporter in history ...i'm tipping you are a troll.

 

[zeeCFC]

pretty sure recidivist is german for "whale's vagina"

 

[thylacine60]

I would rather ask the Sphinx for a condom.

TG used the word "recidivist" to disparage a poster with what was, for him, no doubt, a word beyond his active vocabulary. Posters who hold different opinions to one's own cannot for that reason be recidivists. They are not, for a start, relapsing "back" to anything. They are maintaining a previously expressed opinion.

An occasional malapropism should be forgiven. The gratuitous disparaging of other posters should be recognised for what it is - an attempt to "win" an argument by invective rather than invention, ridicule rather than reason. TG should be damned on that basis and for the subsequent altogether predictable diversion of this thread.

Clearly garbage. Your strained efforts to impress authority on the issue with Thomas Hardy style prose is mildly entertaining but hardly proof of scholastic qualification. Relapsing back? "Back" is surely as redundant as your attempt at snooty elitism.

If a poster has committed crimes against sport on BF through opinions right or wrong, forgoes those opinions only to fall back into evilness and once more offends then yes, quite clearly, he can be termed a recidivist. Next.

 

[thylacine60]

pretty sure recidivist is german for "whale's vagina"

Thanks, Larry.

 

[Windhover]

Clearly garbage. Your strained efforts to impress authority on the issue with Thomas Hardy style prose is mildly entertaining but hardly proof of scholastic qualification. Relapsing back? "Back" is surely as redundant as your attempt at snooty elitism.

If a poster has committed crimes against sport on BF through opinions right or wrong, forgoes those opinions only to fall back into evilness and once more offends then yes, quite clearly, he can be termed a recidivist. Next.

Thank you for the uncalled for, undeserved but complimentary comparison to Thomas Hardy. Are you watching Tess as well? As to your suggestion that my post was as a "proof of scholastic qualification" funnily enough I was unaware that either (a) any "scholastic qualification" was necessary in order to post; or (b) that any scholastic qualification would fit one for the task. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by this indegistible regurgitation of yours.

Despite my alleged lack of scholastic qualification (which I cannot dispute, not knowing what is being referred to) you then ask me whether my use of the phrase "relapsing back" is as redundant as my attempt at snooty elitism. In answering let me break your question down into its component parts - it will be easier for you to follow that way.

First, full marks for noting that "relapsing back" is a tautology and that "back" is redundant since their is no other way to relapse. Of course the use of tautology for emphasis is not, unless excessive, generally regarded as impoverished or inadequate expression, still less ungrammatical. Indeed delightful words such as "quagmire", made up of the two words "quag" and "mire" and all meaning the same thing, are happily used by English speakers without concern from readers or listeners. But I digress.

The second part of your question involves the assumption that my post was an "attempt at snooty elitism". (In passing, your use of the expression "snooty elitism" involves tautology also but we can move on now that you understand that this is permissible although, in this instance a little cliched. Perhaps if you had used "overweening" or "egotistical" instead of "snooty" it might have been a bit more inventive.)

You are mistaken. That was not what I was attempting although I wonder whether you are brave enough to offer an opinion as to whether you think I successfully achieved "snooty elitism". Having praised my writing style I am disappointed that I had not made the intention of my post sufficiently clear. Certainly you have quite missed the point. My purpose was to encourage genuine football debate and discourage opinionated put down as its substitute. The tenor of your post offers evidence of your obduracy.

Your final sentence I regret to say is evidence of a significant inability on your part to think clearly. This is exposed by asking, in relation to that sentence, this question. How is it possible to commit "crimes against sport on bf through opinions" "right or wrong"? What an odd, twisted place BF must be if a "crime" may be committed by an opinion rightly maintained.

As a final, gratutitous comment on your post, let me urge you to join those of us who enjoy healthy debate on matters football and leave behind you your posting past insofar as it involves shallow efforts of policing by invective rather than reason the opinions of others with whom you might disagree. Come on now, there's a good Thylacine.

 

[HARKER]

Thank you for the uncalled for, undeserved but complimentary comparison to Thomas Hardy. Are you watching Tess as well? As to your suggestion that my post was as a "proof of scholastic qualification" funnily enough I was unaware that either (a) any "scholastic qualification" was necessary in order to post; or (b) that any scholastic qualification would fit one for the task. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by this indegistible regurgitation of yours.

Despite my alleged lack of scholastic qualification (which I cannot dispute, not knowing what is being referred to) you then ask me whether my use of the phrase "relapsing back" is as redundant as my attempt at snooty elitism. In answering let me break your question down into its component parts - it will be easier for you to follow that way.

First, full marks for noting that "relapsing back" is a tautology and that "back" is redundant since their is no other way to relapse. Of course the use of tautology for emphasis is not, unless excessive, generally regarded as impoverished or inadequate expression, still less ungrammatical. Indeed delightful words such as "quagmire", made up of the two words "quag" and "mire" and all meaning the same thing, are happily used by English speakers without concern from readers or listeners. But I digress.

The second part of your question involves the assumption that my post was an "attempt at snooty elitism". (In passing, your use of the expression "snooty elitism" involves tautology also but we can move on now that you understand that this is permissible although, in this instance a little cliched. Perhaps if you had used "overweening" or "egotistical" instead of "snooty" it might have been a bit more inventive.)

You are mistaken. That was not what I was attempting although I wonder whether you are brave enough to offer an opinion as to whether you think I successfully achieved "snooty elitism". Having praised my writing style I am disappointed that I had not made the intention of my post sufficiently clear. Certainly you have quite missed the point. My purpose was to encourage genuine football debate and discourage opinionated put down as its substitute. The tenor of your post offers evidence of your obduracy.

Your final sentence I regret to say is evidence of a significant inability on your part to think clearly. This is exposed by asking, in relation to that sentence, this question. How is it possible to commit "crimes against sport on bf through opinions" "right or wrong"? What an odd, twisted place BF must be if a "crime" may be committed by an opinion rightly maintained.

As a final, gratutitous comment on your post, let me urge you to join those of us who enjoy healthy debate on matters football and leave behind you your posting past insofar as it involves shallow efforts of policing by invective rather than reason the opinions of others with whom you might disagree. Come on now, there's a good Thylacine.

Mate, you've really, really got to stop.
This not the forum for social policing
Please add matters football and take up a bit of humour.


Why so serious?

 

[blue gunslinger]

The Sunday Roast is great at the Odin. Plenty of crackling and apple sauce for you Einsteins. Get on with it

 

[Windhover]

Mate, you've really, really got to stop.
This not the forum for social policing
Please add matters football and take up a bit of humour.


Why so serious?

Practice what you preach please. What is this post of yours if not "social policing". As you know from our detailed debate in the past over Thornton, I am delighted to talk football. As to humour, while I expect my posts are an acquired taste and are unlikely to amuse the directed recipient, I am sure there are some who recognise a snippet of wit when they read it.

 

[Salaryman]

the ignore list is a good thing