Classic NSC debates...

[Bry Nylon]

This is one of mine - an exchange between BensGrandad and The Large One in 2008, when, in the depths of the financial crisis, the funding for Falmer debate was raging...

Fair play to BG

I will be accused of being a deafitist but I go along with the principal of 'no smoke without fire'.

I am certain in my own mind that unless 1 man comes up with mega bucks we will struggle to finance Falmer.

It is obvious to any long term supporters that the projected attendance figures needed to repay the debt are 'pie in the sky' hopes that will never be achieved unless we are at the top end of the Championship at least. If me , an ordinary supporter, can see this and form that opinion how must somebody whose job it is to investigate these loans etc see it.

I hope that I am wrong but I do not hold a lot of confidence for raising the money by other means other than 1 very wealthy man.

That is such a bollocks phrase, deserving of scorn.

What it really means is taking a free-hand to create an hysterical, irrelevant or sometimes downright wrong tale about any given circumstance, and the complete evasion of any responsibility to back it up.


I know you adore and cherish the concept of one man running a football club for his own pleasure, glory and means, but it's not going to happen here for the foreseeable future.

Similarly, if you have so little faith in the financial package being delivered, and the repayment methods to be implemented (in other words, you don't think enough people would turn up), where do you think we'll find your fabled 'one man' who would be mental enough to come forward and spunk his fortune on such a folly?

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Classic Large One there. The absolute certainty with which he speaks. Marvellous.

 

[BensGrandad]

I do get some things right even if they are not on the rumour site

 

[The Truth]

Couldn't of been more spot on.

 

[Mental Lental]

I don't know why people make bold black and white declarative sentences on the internet. Just qualify your opinions with "I think" or "it could be argued that" etc.

It saves you looking like a complete bellend when you turn out to be "completely badger" wrong.

 

[Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ]

classic.

 

[Triggaaar]

I'm not sure BG was right about the attendance figures though.

 

[dougdeep]

Couldn't of been more spot on.

Have

 

[The Truth]

Have

spelt with a capital?

 

[Nibble]

I don't know why people make bold black and white declarative sentences on the internet. Just qualify your opinions with "I think" or "it could be argued that" etc.

It saves you looking like a complete bellend when you turn out to be "completely badger" wrong.

I know what you are saying but I don't believe at all in qualifying statements. You believe it or you don't. Adding the pre-fix I believe or I think is surplus to the statement. Of course you believe it, of course that's what you think or why would you say it? If there is doubt then that's another thing, you say "I am trying to get to grips with this but here are my initial thoughts". It's the same as erring or uhhming or adding "like" to a sentence. Believe it or don't believe it. Think it or don't think it. You don't require a qualifying pre-fix before it.

 

[Leighgull]

Not sure it was a classic debate. It read to me like one poster had seriously thought the issue through and arrived at an opinion based on logic and reason whilst another poster decided to ridicule it based on a lot of fine language and no ****ing idea how the world works.

 

[Mental Lental]

I know what you are saying but I don't believe at all in qualifying statements. You believe it or you don't. Adding the pre-fix I believe or I think is surplus to the statement. Of course you believe it, of course that's what you think or why would you say it? If there is doubt then that's another thing, you say "I am trying to get to grips with this but here are my initial thoughts". It's the same as erring or uhhming or adding "like" to a sentence. Believe it or don't believe it. Think it or don't think it. You don't require a qualifying pre-fix before it.

I agree that there is no need for qualifying statements if you are 100% sure that what you're saying is true. The problem comes when people make predictions about the future (an area where nobody can be 100% sure about anything.) TLO's boldly declarative statement leaves no room to manuever and as such produces a much larger amount of egg on face when everything he said turns out to be completely and utterly WRONG.

 

[Return of the Rev]

both wrong ! win win on that thread

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Have

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
regards
DR

 

[Simster]

This is one of mine - an exchange between BensGrandad and The Large One in 2008, when, in the depths of the financial crisis, the funding for Falmer debate was raging...

Fair play to BG

I can understand why you'd think this was quality, and sure enough BG was right for the most part, but he did have his own agenda to an extent. His consortium didn't get the gig back in the 90s so he spent a decade sniping at DK.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

where do you think we'll find your fabled 'one man' who would be mental enough to come forward and spunk his fortune on such a folly?

I wonder?

 

[Commander]

I can understand why you'd think this was quality, and sure enough BG was right for the most part, but he did have his own agenda to an extent. His consortium didn't get the gig back in the 90s so he spent a decade sniping at DK.

True, but I think we should still give him this one, especially as he was so patronisingly put down by TLO.

 

[Triggaaar]

spelt with a capital?

Spelt

 

[wehatepalace]

Have

Get a life, sad sack.

 

[Hillian1]

Have

And there we have Dougs' life in a nutshell, on the internet at 4.50 in the morning poised and ready to highlight a grammatical or spelling error to try and gain some sense of superiority.

Sad man, sad life.