NEW Asst Coach !!

[Con Gorozidis]

I think we have gotten to the bottom of this.
Filth supporters! We need to unite against a common enemy. They will never give us any credit for anything we do. They will always look for a negative in anything we do . Its in their dna.

You dont have to answer me but im genuinely interested because I aways admire small business people.
What kind of business you have ?

[White Winmar]

I run a consultancy in organisational development, Con. We have ten employees and a collection of associates who do occasional work for us. I suppose it's ironic, given the nature of this thread, that the majority of them are women. I can assure you all of them have a very strong sense of self and purpose. That's why I employed them. ATM most of our work revolves around change management in Government, but we also do psychometric testing, team assessments, mediations and investigations ( an unfortunate consequence of my previous career!).

[maverick]

Who is perpetuating lies? I'm merely reporting some opinions that are held by women I know. Why shoot the messenger? You'll see in an earlier post that my best friend's son had been coached by Peta at school level. The feedback was good. At that point I too, thought it was a sound appointment. It's only when my partner, her friends and a couple of my employees, begged to differ, that I really started to think about it. As a saints member, I desperately want her to succeed.

I employ 6 women and they are divided in opinion about Peta's appointment. Interestingly, the two that follow the AFL, think it's a cynical exercise. In their defence, they are filth supporters, so I guess we can give them some leeway. They are saints, and Milne haters. Two of the others think it's good and the remaining two have no opinion, because they don't know what the AFL is!

My partner and her colleagues grew up in a very different world to today's. My partner was constantly propositioned at work over her first 10 years, and that hasn't stopped to this day. She's been told more that once, that she should treat that as a compliment. A playful slap on the bottom is not harassment, but encouragement. She also was very good friends with
Glen Hawker's fiancé back in the 80's (he canceled the engagement a month before the wedding). Her recollection of that time was that AFL footballers wanted, or tolerated women, purely for the promise of sex.

If you didn't "put out", you were a lesbian or frigid. You soon stopped being invited to social engagements, which somewhat strangely, were never attended by the player's girlfriends or wives (including Hawker's fiancée ). Can you imagine my partner's discomfort at turning up to a function that her friend knew nothing about and that was attended by Hawker?

So pardon my support of her and her colleagues as their views are based on unpleasant experiences and on the fact that the AFL is still largely a boys club.

As for TOT's assertion that the PC lobby is Socially progressive and seems to own this concept, might I just say this is typical of the pomposity of the movement and it's disingenuous rhetoric. What arrogance. What dishonesty. The so called achievements of the PC lobby are very much up for debate. It does not have a monopoly on being "socially progressive". What it is, and I see this in my consulting work with government departments every day, is just one of a number of lobby groups that seeks power and a licence to influence opinion. I can assure you that it is no more relevant or " right" than many other groups. As for the response to this post and thread, it provides ample evidence that many people blithely accept what they're told, without analysis or thought. Hysteria and abuse are the lifeblood of spurious movements like the PC's. Their outrage is based on the erroneous premise that they are totally correct in their beliefs, beyond facts, or arguments that contradict them.

All well and good, but there is nothing specific in there about STKFC and that's what bothers me the most. Generalisations about boys clubs etc are your opinion and somewhat true, but largely just that, generalisations. To pull STKFC out of all of this is out of line IMO.

Keeps perpetuating lies written by Caroline Wilson and the Herald Sun in general.

[Sainternist]

You're still carrying on, White Winmar?

Come on, let's give the club the benefit of the doubt. It has been trying its utmost to shed this "misogynist" image. Apart from the Mad Monday shenanigans of last year, none of our players seem to be misbehaving off field. With a new generation coming through, we are turning a new leaf. Making the assumption that Peta Searle's appointment was only a PR exercise is a simpleton's view, IMO.

FFS, whose side are you on anyway?!?!

[White Winmar]

I'm on our side! What I've reported on is what opposition supporters and women I know think. I've stated twice already that I hope PETA succeeds! WTF is all this aggro about? Surely others can have their opinion? I've been a member for thirty years. I consulted to the club for fourteen years! I love the saints and I think I've proved my loyalty over time. As for being a simpleton's view, there are plenty out their who hold it. Maybe they're all simpletons. I hope she succeeds, as I've already stated twice. What more do I need to say? As I've stated before, PC hysteria plays it's role once again. I'm actually on our side, as I've always been. I hope that clears it up once and for all.

[White Winmar]

Who is perpetuating lies? I'm merely reporting some opinions that are held by women I know. Why shoot the messenger? You'll see in an earlier post that my best friend's son had been coached by Peta at school level. The feedback was good. At that point I too, thought it was a sound appointment. It's only when my partner, her friends and a couple of my employees, begged to differ, that I really started to think about it. As a saints member, I desperately want her to succeed.

I employ 6 women and they are divided in opinion about Peta's appointment. Interestingly, the two that follow the AFL, think it's a cynical exercise. In their defence, they are filth supporters, so I guess we can give them some leeway. They are saints, and Milne haters. Two of the others think it's good and the remaining two have no opinion, because they don't know what the AFL is!

My partner and her colleagues grew up in a very different world to today's. My partner was constantly propositioned at work over her first 10 years, and that hasn't stopped to this day. She's been told more that once, that she should treat that as a compliment. A playful slap on the bottom is not harassment, but encouragement. She also was very good friends with
Glen Hawker's fiancé back in the 80's (he canceled the engagement a month before the wedding). Her recollection of that time was that AFL footballers wanted, or tolerated women, purely for the promise of sex.

If you didn't "put out", you were a lesbian or frigid. You soon stopped being invited to social engagements, which somewhat strangely, were never attended by the player's girlfriends or wives (including Hawker's fiancée ). Can you imagine my partner's discomfort at turning up to a function that her friend knew nothing about and that was attended by Hawker?

So pardon my support of her and her colleagues as their views are based on unpleasant experiences and on the fact that the AFL is still largely a boys club.

As for TOT's assertion that the PC lobby is Socially progressive and seems to own this concept, might I just say this is typical of the pomposity of the movement and it's disingenuous rhetoric. What arrogance. What dishonesty. The so called achievements of the PC lobby are very much up for debate. It does not have a monopoly on being "socially progressive". What it is, and I see this in my consulting work with government departments every day, is just one of a number of lobby groups that seeks power and a licence to influence opinion. I can assure you that it is no more relevant or " right" than many other groups. As for the response to this post and thread, it provides ample evidence that many people blithely accept what they're told, without analysis or thought. Hysteria and abuse are the lifeblood of spurious movements like the PC's. Their outrage is based on the erroneous premise that they are totally correct in their beliefs, beyond facts, or arguments that contradict them.

All well and good, but there is nothing specific in there about STKFC and that's what bothers me the most. Generalisations about boys clubs etc are your opinion and somewhat true, but largely just that, generalisations. To pull STKFC out of all of this is out of line IMO.

Keeps perpetuating lies written by Caroline Wilson and the Herald Sun in general.

I see your point about generalisations, Maverick, but I'm not singling the saints out for special consideration. All AFL clubs are pretty much the same when it comes to culture. It's always <edited by mods> me to tears when the saints have been singled out for having a poor culture. I've worked for four different clubs since 1997, and our culture is no better or worse than the other three. Our culture is fine, and has generally been ok in all the time I was involved. The whole point of this thread is that the opinion makers, and the women affected, are very cynical of the motives of ALL AFL clubs, not just the saints.

[whiskers3614]

I'm on our side! What I've reported on is what opposition supporters and women I know think. I've stated twice already that I hope PETA succeeds! WTF is all this aggro about? Surely others can have their opinion? I've been a member for thirty years. I consulted to the club for fourteen years! I love the saints and I think I've proved my loyalty over time. As for being a simpleton's view, there are plenty out their who hold it. Maybe they're all simpletons. I hope she succeeds, as I've already stated twice. What more do I need to say? As I've stated before, PC hysteria plays it's role once again. I'm actually on our side, as I've always been. I hope that clears it up once and for all.

Not like you!

[Sainternist]

I'm on our side! What I've reported on is what opposition supporters and women I know think. I've stated twice already that I hope PETA succeeds! WTF is all this aggro about? Surely others can have their opinion? I've been a member for thirty years. I consulted to the club for fourteen years! I love the saints and I think I've proved my loyalty over time. As for being a simpleton's view, there are plenty out their who hold it. Maybe they're all simpletons. I hope she succeeds, as I've already stated twice. What more do I need to say? As I've stated before, PC hysteria plays it's role once again. I'm actually on our side, as I've always been. I hope that clears it up once and for all.

Mate, the views of the opposition supporters, regardless of gender, aren't worth an ounce of manure. They don't know anything about the club. They are outsiders to the establishment. To hell with them and their biased opinions.

Just you wait until they change their tune when progress is made. No doubt they'll be rubbishing another club on its arsebone because, hey, that's what society is good at. Always gotta kick 'em when they're down.

[kosifantutti]

Try to restrict your comments to our new Assistant coach, so that we can keep it in this forum.

It's obvious to me that she's made a difference. Previous game we lost to an average team at home by 80 points. This week we played the top team away and only lost by 70.

[SaintPav]

I despise this ridiculous term PC.

Conservative idiots like Bolt, Jones et al have hijacked it to dismiss anyone who do not agree with their views and use it as an excuse to not behave respectfully. For example, the personal attacks on Julia Gillard.

The self serving left can’t live up to their values and aren't any better.

[Cairnsman]

Try to restrict your comments to our new Assistant coach, so that we can keep it in this forum.

It's obvious to me that she's made a difference. Previous game we lost to an average team at home by 80 points. This week we played the top team away and only lost by 70.

Surely you are joking?

[SaintPav]

Try to restrict your comments to our new Assistant coach, so that we can keep it in this forum.

It's obvious to me that she's made a difference. Previous game we lost to an average team at home by 80 points. This week we played the top team away and only lost by 70.

Surely you are joking?

Exactly!

An inflammatory comment, especially coming from a mod.

Take a weeks rest, Wolfie.

[Dave McNamara]

I see your point about generalisations, Maverick, but I'm not singling the saints out for special consideration. All AFL clubs are pretty much the same when it comes to culture. It's always shitted me to tears when the saints have been singled out for having a poor culture. I've worked for four different clubs since 1997, and our culture is no better or worse than the other three. Our culture is fine, and has generally been ok in all the time I was involved. The whole point of this thread is that the opinion makers, and the women affected, are very cynical of the motives of ALL AFL clubs, not just the saints.

Like I posted earlier, really interesting thread guys n' girls.


WW, I reckon that you've mentioned (above) a key issue that has 'set-off' a lot of us...
ie; our Saintas are continually and very unfairly tarnished when it comes to the issue of 'women'.

So, two points that you might ask your partner and her colleagues to clear-up for us. (Possibly from a safe distance. )

1/ In reality (as c/f perception) just how are the Saints worse than the other clubs?

2/ Why are your partner and her colleagues so skeptical about our club's reasons for appointing Peta? Why are they so convinced that it's merely a cynical PR move by our club?
I ask, because such a belief... implies that no woman could possibly gain such a position... on merit.


I honestly believe that our sisters are the superior gender, but... they aren't always infallible. And also, not all of us blokes are the enemy...

[saintbrat]

did anyone wander down to training today to welcome Peta and see how she went?


BTW Sandringham play next Saturday at TBBO vs Collingwood if you wish to see her in action.

[suss]

She certainly does. I replied even though your pathetic post does not warrant one. Read my post again. I doubt you'll get the message, though. Nothing like hysteria and ignorance when it comes to killing an argument. A bit more honesty and less bigotry would do everyone some good. Also expressing yourself without fear of vilification is what it's all about. That includes not being intimidated by shrill, ignorant, PC keyboard warriors, don't you think?

Can you please tell me what I should think, as I'd love to become a new age sensitive PC fellow, like yourself. How good is it to never have to think for yourself, suss? To always have someone there to tell you what to think and what you're allowed to say. What's it like? Please tell me.

<edited by mods>

I'm not asking you to think anything. I'm simply pointing out the constant discriminatory garbage you post on this site. It is against forum rules BTW. Happy to point them out if you need the direction.

You posted on another thread that being gay is, well, wrong. That is like posting that being black is wrong. Like Jews, white people and people with red hair, gay people had no choice about how they were born. To suggest that they're lesser people is extemely offensive.

As to Peta Searle, you question her appointment but make no mention of her official training and qualifications, no mention of her extensive experience, no mention of the referees including Gary Ayres, Stan Alves and David Parkin, to name a few.

Instead, the "evidence" you use to question her appointment is some anecdotal evidence from a handful of women you work with. Heaven's above. Were they on the interview committee were they?

You absolutely embarrass yourself (again) by implying that she is less than qualified to fulfill the role because of her gender and, yet again, seek to hide behind your bigotry by suggesting that anyone who doesn't accept your offensive tripe as a "shrill" member of the "PC" brigade.

[The OtherThommo]

As for TOT's assertion that the PC lobby is Socially progressive and seems to own this concept, might I just say this is typical of the pomposity of the movement and it's disingenuous rhetoric. What arrogance. What dishonesty. The so called achievements of the PC lobby are very much up for debate. It does not have a monopoly on being "socially progressive". What it is, and I see this in my consulting work with government departments every day, is just one of a number of lobby groups that seeks power and a licence to influence opinion. I can assure you that it is no more relevant or " right" than many other groups. As for the response to this post and thread, it provides ample evidence that many people blithely accept what they're told, without analysis or thought. Hysteria and abuse are the lifeblood of spurious movements like the PC's. Their outrage is based on the erroneous premise that they are totally correct in their beliefs, beyond facts, or arguments that contradict them.

For someone who frequently resorts to advising those who reply to revisit what you wrote, I suggest you practice a bit of what you preach (and, man, don't you preach).

I posted a couple of dictionary definitions of "political correctness", and argued those definitions showed the pejorative use of PC in contemporary, popular language was an example of how language was co-opted by those who influence and control popular media. Yet, you can't get past your 1st sentence without using "pomposity" and "disingenuous". Then "arrogance". Then, yet, again, "dishonesty". You missed out dismissive references to a lack of intelligence this time around, but I've left the clock ticking.

Just about everything you post on such issues drips with contempt. Yet you frequently manage to argue yourself up logic cul de sacs. The dictionary definitions use "socially progressive" and you manage to contort that reference into saying the PC "movement" does not have a monopoly on being socially progressive. Huh? You're either arguing the definitions are wrong (and they don't concentrate on traditional views of political leanings - left, right, centre), or you're saying "socially progressive" is applicable to more groups than YOU take to be decipherable from the contemporary meaning of the term.

OK, fine, I'm happy to go with that - you seem to be trying to claim to be socially progressive, to whatever degree. Ergo, by definition, you're PC!! Triffic. Makes not a jot of difference to my argument who's considered PC, or not, precisely because, as I argued, the language, again, has been co-opted i.e. it's been rendered meaningless (and it's assumed a pejorative and contemptuous role in the language partly because it's been rendered meaningless).

And, of course, many groups seek influence, with all sorts of agendas. I didn't argue that wasn't the case, either. What I am arguing is that those with what I consider to be socially progressive agendas just aren't anywhere near as successful, in shaping contemporary policy and political culture, as those who favour either the maintenance of the status quo or, in many cases, a regression to a medieval, feudal society and class structure. It's who has the bully pulpits and megaphones who have shaped contemporary societies' attitudes and kultcha, and that has long been the case. The fact the last 30 odd years has seen the West lurch neoliberal is not an accident, it's not a fluke - it's a result.

And, if you find yourself unable to recognise the inequality that has grown in Western political economies over the last 30 odd years, and why, then you need to do a bit more "analysis" yourself. I suggest you start with Piketty's book on "effortless capital accumulation". From there, try the history and development of the Bilderberg Group.

As for special claims to insight because you work with gubmint departments on organisation structures and behaviours, spare me old son. The last place anything happens in modern politics is in gubmint departments. You need to join something like the IPA or News Corp if you want to have any influence. You're p***ing into a very stiff breeze with your current approach. Consultants who work with gubmint departments on organisational matters are close to the ultimate smokescreen. It's a buffer zone, a protective layer - makes people feel busy, but achieves naught. But, hey everyone's got to get an earn right?, and the public trough is as good a place as any.

Mob of MBA's in the outfit, are there? Experts in HR, are they? Managerialism 101 - not a devotee, myself. Coitanly manages to keep most people in line, though, so I suppose it's done it's job. Good basis for maximising economic extraction, too.

Oh, and by the way, without being able to categorically state this as fact - I reckon Mullet is probably a woman (the duck test is widely applicable). Maybe believing what people write, when they appear to express themselves genuinely, is a flaw I need to overcome. But, it's gone OK so far, so I'll stick with it for now.

P.S. Just love the way you duck shove words like "hysteria", "abuse" and "outrage" on to those who disagree with you, then claim "facts" and "analysis" all for yourself, by differentiation (like the last couple of sentences of the quoted paragraph). That's good, that is. In a manual, was it?

[Cairnsman]

As for TOT's assertion that the PC lobby is Socially progressive and seems to own this concept, might I just say this is typical of the pomposity of the movement and it's disingenuous rhetoric. What arrogance. What dishonesty. The so called achievements of the PC lobby are very much up for debate. It does not have a monopoly on being "socially progressive". What it is, and I see this in my consulting work with government departments every day, is just one of a number of lobby groups that seeks power and a licence to influence opinion. I can assure you that it is no more relevant or " right" than many other groups. As for the response to this post and thread, it provides ample evidence that many people blithely accept what they're told, without analysis or thought. Hysteria and abuse are the lifeblood of spurious movements like the PC's. Their outrage is based on the erroneous premise that they are totally correct in their beliefs, beyond facts, or arguments that contradict them.

For someone who frequently resorts to advising those who reply to revisit what you wrote, I suggest you practice a bit of what you preach (and, man, don't you preach).

I posted a couple of dictionary definitions of "political correctness", and argued those definitions showed the pejorative use of PC in contemporary, popular language was an example of how language was co-opted by those who influence and control popular media. Yet, you can't get past your 1st sentence without using "pomposity" and "disingenuous". Then "arrogance". Then, yet, again, "dishonesty". You missed out dismissive references to a lack of intelligence this time around, but I've left the clock ticking.

Just about everything you post on such issues drips with contempt. Yet you frequently manage to argue yourself up logic cul de sacs. The dictionary definitions use "socially progressive" and you manage to contort that reference into saying the PC "movement" does not have a monopoly on being socially progressive. Huh? You're either arguing the definitions are wrong (and they don't concentrate on traditional views of political leanings - left, right, centre), or you're saying "socially progressive" is applicable to more groups than YOU take to be decipherable from the contemporary meaning of the term.

OK, fine, I'm happy to go with that - you seem to be trying to claim to be socially progressive, to whatever degree. Ergo, by definition, you're PC!! Triffic. Makes not a jot of difference to my argument who's considered PC, or not, precisely because, as I argued, the language, again, has been co-opted i.e. it's been rendered meaningless (and it's assumed a pejorative and contemptuous role in the language partly because it's been rendered meaningless).

And, of course, many groups seek influence, with all sorts of agendas. I didn't argue that wasn't the case, either. What I am arguing is that those with what I consider to be socially progressive agendas just aren't anywhere near as successful, in shaping contemporary policy and political culture, as those who favour either the maintenance of the status quo or, in many cases, a regression to a medieval, feudal society and class structure. It's who has the bully pulpits and megaphones who have shaped contemporary societies' attitudes and kultcha, and that has long been the case. The fact the last 30 odd years has seen the West lurch neoliberal is not an accident, it's not a fluke - it's a result.

And, if you find yourself unable to recognise the inequality that has grown in Western political economies over the last 30 odd years, and why, then you need to do a bit more "analysis" yourself. I suggest you start with Piketty's book on "effortless capital accumulation". From there, try the history and development of the Bilderberg Group.

As for special claims to insight because you work with gubmint departments on organisation structures and behaviours, spare me old son. The last place anything happens in modern politics is in gubmint departments. You need to join something like the IPA or News Corp if you want to have any influence. You're p***ing into a very stiff breeze with your current approach. Consultants who work with gubmint departments on organisational matters are close to the ultimate smokescreen. It's a buffer zone, a protective layer - makes people feel busy, but achieves naught. But, hey everyone's got to get an earn right?, and the public trough is as good a place as any.

Mob of MBA's in the outfit, are there? Experts in HR, are they? Managerialism 101 - not a devotee, myself. Coitanly manages to keep most people in line, though, so I suppose it's done it's job. Good basis for maximising economic extraction, too.

Oh, and by the way, without being able to categorically state this as fact - I reckon Mullet is probably a woman (the duck test is widely applicable). Maybe believing what people write, when they appear to express themselves genuinely, is a flaw I need to overcome. But, it's gone OK so far, so I'll stick with it for now.

P.S. Just love the way you duck shove words like "hysteria", "abuse" and "outrage" on to those who disagree with you, then claim "facts" and "analysis" all for yourself, by differentiation (like the last couple of sentences of the quoted paragraph). That's good, that is. In a manual, was it?

Not entering into the debate but I must say as a self employed free thinking and free spirited person I thoroughly enjoyed this contribution. Always enjoy your contributions ToT.

That wasn't a crack at you either WW...just saying I always enjoy the way ToT articulates his POV.

[st.byron]

P.S. Just love the way you duck shove words like "hysteria", "abuse" and "outrage" on to those who disagree with you, then claim "facts" and "analysis" all for yourself, by differentiation (like the last couple of sentences of the quoted paragraph). That's good, that is. In a manual, was it?

I agree. WW you used exactly the same approach in the recent thread about gay people. Claim the high moral ground based on facts whilst painting others as 'shrill', 'abusive' and 'hysterical', when in fact the 'high moral ground' is manifestly myopic.
Refusing to recognise the irony of that. The kind of thing Crosby Textor or News Corp are expert at.

[Cairnsman]

P.S. Just love the way you duck shove words like "hysteria", "abuse" and "outrage" on to those who disagree with you, then claim "facts" and "analysis" all for yourself, by differentiation (like the last couple of sentences of the quoted paragraph). That's good, that is. In a manual, was it?

I agree. WW you used exactly the same approach in the recent thread about gay people. Claim the high moral ground based on facts whilst painting others as 'shrill', 'abusive' and 'hysterical', when in fact the 'high moral ground' is manifestly myopic.
Refusing to recognise the irony of that. The kind of thing Crosby Textor or News Corp are expert at.

Is it also similar to suggesting someone lacks the ability to comprehend when they don't agree?

[saintspremiers]

I'm on our side! What I've reported on is what opposition supporters and women I know think. I've stated twice already that I hope PETA succeeds! WTF is all this aggro about? Surely others can have their opinion? I've been a member for thirty years. I consulted to the club for fourteen years! I love the saints and I think I've proved my loyalty over time. As for being a simpleton's view, there are plenty out their who hold it. Maybe they're all simpletons. I hope she succeeds, as I've already stated twice. What more do I need to say? As I've stated before, PC hysteria plays it's role once again. I'm actually on our side, as I've always been. I hope that clears it up once and for all.

Mate, the views of the opposition supporters, regardless of gender, aren't worth an ounce of manure. They don't know anything about the club. They are outsiders to the establishment. To hell with them and their biased opinions.

Just you wait until they change their tune when progress is made. No doubt they'll be rubbishing another club on its arsebone because, hey, that's what society is good at. Always gotta kick 'em when they're down.

Potential sponsors don't necessarily barrack for the Saints. Perception can be reality in the world we now live in. Sad but true.

[White Winmar]

This sums your "argument"up. You are indeed a sophist - defiition - One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation. I hope you see the irony in the fact your argument relies on condescension, petty abuse and an arrogant dismissal of views different to your own. As for your dismissive description of government department as "gubmint", it shows you are not willing to live by the expectations you have of others. Your comments are offensive and ignorant, but not surprising. One thing you might want to take note of is the term, "less" is more". So many empty and unnecessary words, but that is the lot of a sophist.

Perhaps you'd like to stick your snout in the "trough" rather than writing long-winded, essentially irrelevant rubbish on a footy fan web site? As soon as we get a vacancy for a long-winded, arrogant, hypocritical bag of wind, I'll PM you.

<warned for abuse>

[The OtherThommo]

This sums your "argument"up. You are indeed a sophist - defiition - One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation. I hope you see the irony in the fact your argument relies on condescension, petty abuse and an arrogant dismissal of views different to your own. As for your dismissive description of government department as "gubmint", it shows you are not willing to live by the expectations you have of others. Your comments are offensive and ignorant, but not surprising. One thing you might want to take note of is the term, "less" is more". So many empty and unnecessary words, but that is the lot of a sophist.

Perhaps you'd like to stick your snout in the "trough" rather than writing long-winded, essentially irrelevant rubbish on a footy fan web site? As soon as we get a vacancy for a long-winded, arrogant, hypocritical bag of wind, I'll PM you.

<warned for abuse>

Sophists were condemned, not because they didn't know what they were talking about, but because they only imparted their wisdom for money - I'm doin' this for free!!

As for the rest, just cannot be bothered. Same nonsense, different day.

And, don't bother with the PM; 1) I don't need or want a job and 2) Particularly that type of job, via the route you suggest.

Somehow I just don't think it would work out.

[st.byron]

I agree. WW you used exactly the same approach in the recent thread about gay people. Claim the high moral ground based on facts whilst painting others as 'shrill', 'abusive' and 'hysterical', when in fact the 'high moral ground' is manifestly myopic.
Refusing to recognise the irony of that. The kind of thing Crosby Textor or News Corp are expert at.

Is it also similar to suggesting someone lacks the ability to comprehend when they don't agree?[/quote]


If someone disagrees with something it doesn't mean they don't comprehend it. If however because they disagree they are painted as shrill, hysterical, abusive and other emotive names, then yes it can imply they have a lack of ability to comprehend. Labelling others in this way certainly takes a superior stand point. ie. "I'm more knowledgeable, pragmatic and informed than you. If you weren't so shrill and hysterical, I could debate with you as an equal".

it's a well used tactic in the media and politics. It essentially paints the other person as inferior and less intelligent without having to say so. It can be arrogant, superior and used to support narrow and myopic points of view. It's especially ironic when the person using that tactic is using it to defend views that are sexist, racist or homophobic.

[Sainternist]

I'm on our side! What I've reported on is what opposition supporters and women I know think. I've stated twice already that I hope PETA succeeds! WTF is all this aggro about? Surely others can have their opinion? I've been a member for thirty years. I consulted to the club for fourteen years! I love the saints and I think I've proved my loyalty over time. As for being a simpleton's view, there are plenty out their who hold it. Maybe they're all simpletons. I hope she succeeds, as I've already stated twice. What more do I need to say? As I've stated before, PC hysteria plays it's role once again. I'm actually on our side, as I've always been. I hope that clears it up once and for all.

Mate, the views of the opposition supporters, regardless of gender, aren't worth an ounce of manure. They don't know anything about the club. They are outsiders to the establishment. To hell with them and their biased opinions.

Just you wait until they change their tune when progress is made. No doubt they'll be rubbishing another club on its arsebone because, hey, that's what society is good at. Always gotta kick 'em when they're down.

Potential sponsors don't necessarily barrack for the Saints. Perception can be reality in the world we now live in. Sad but true.

That is a very valid point. Nevertheless, I believe the club is heading in the right direction finding a new image and will put itself in a far more positive light. The rate it's going, the sponsors will come a-knocking by 2008.

There's much promise ahead.

#BelieveOrBum

[Cairnsman]

I agree. WW you used exactly the same approach in the recent thread about gay people. Claim the high moral ground based on facts whilst painting others as 'shrill', 'abusive' and 'hysterical', when in fact the 'high moral ground' is manifestly myopic.
Refusing to recognise the irony of that. The kind of thing Crosby Textor or News Corp are expert at.

Is it also similar to suggesting someone lacks the ability to comprehend when they don't agree?

If someone disagrees with something it doesn't mean they don't comprehend it. If however because they disagree they are painted as shrill, hysterical, abusive and other emotive names, then yes it can imply they have a lack of ability to comprehend. Labelling others in this way certainly takes a superior stand point. ie. "I'm more knowledgeable, pragmatic and informed than you. If you weren't so shrill and hysterical, I could debate with you as an equal".

it's a well used tactic in the media and politics. It essentially paints the other person as inferior and less intelligent without having to say so. It can be arrogant, superior and used to support narrow and myopic points of view. It's especially ironic when the person using that tactic is using it to defend views that are sexist, racist or homophobic.[/quote]

Oh I see, thanks for the clarification. Just thought I'd ask because you see it used regularly.