E I Addio Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Seems this subject is a bit of misinterpretation, grew legs and became almost a lesson to us all to watch what we post and don't type in anger when not aware of facts. That pretty much sums it up IMO. I tend to think that hurling abuse says more about the abuser than the abused. As Stevebrum said earlier, two wrongs don't make a right. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Jones Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Seems this subject is a bit of misinterpretation, grew legs and became almost a lesson to us all to watch what we post and don't type in anger when not aware of facts. It was because of the facts that the original post was made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 It was because of the facts that the original post was made. No it wasn't. SCB later admitted that at the time he started the thread with a deliberately provocative title he hadn't even bothered to read the article in question. The very first reply to the original post was from someone who said they were no fan of Jon Cook but that in that posters view SCB should be banned so the thread was clearly controversial from the start. There was aready a heatleader list thread where the article could and should have been discussed maturely without a second thread which very quickly degenerated into name calling and abuse and when the mods amended the title yet another thread was started with an even more offensive title. Babas post was spot on IMO The full picture, or at least as much as we are ever likely to get , only emerged with Gordon Pairmans post. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Jones Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 No it wasn't. SCB later admitted that at the time he started the thread with a deliberately provocative title he hadn't even bothered to read the article in question. The very first reply to the original post was from someone who said they were no fan of Jon Cook but that in that posters view SCB should be banned so the thread was clearly controversial from the start. There was aready a heatleader list thread where the article could and should have been discussed maturely without a second thread which very quickly degenerated into name calling and abuse and when the mods amended the title yet another thread was started with an even more offensive title. Babas post was spot on IMO The full picture, or at least as much as we are ever likely to get , only emerged with Gordon Pairmans post. He'd read my precis of the article which, I modestly submit, was a fair and accurate depiction of the salient facts. I'm shocked that anyone was shocked by SCB being intententionally provocative. Gordon Pairman's view, though welcome, adds hardly anything to the discussion in my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemini Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 I'm shocked that anyone was shocked by SCB being intententionally provocative. I was very shocked myself. SCB is such a lovely quiet, meek, uncontroversial person normally. I think there must have been a full moon or all the planets were lined up wrongly that changed his personality that fateful day. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) He'd read my precis of the article which, I modestly submit, was a fair and accurate depiction of the salient facts. The article covered half a page of SS. Your précis of it consisted of just three lines, omiting completely the fact that it was in answer to criticisms and mentioned nothing about the inconsistencies that had been thrown up in various methods of calculation, amongst other details then after summarising the whole thing in just three lines you quoted Cooks remarks verbatim. That, I modestly submit was not a fair and accurate depiction of the salient facts. Baba' s comment above suggests it was a bit of a misrepresentation, and I tend to share that view. More important is Baba's comment about what we could all learn from the unfortunate and I'll-tempered episode. Some will take his comments on board, others sadly will not. Edited January 6, 2016 by E I Addio 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) He'd read my precis of the article which, I modestly submit, was a fair and accurate depiction of the salient facts. I'm shocked that anyone was shocked by SCB being intententionally provocative. Gordon Pairman's view, though welcome, adds hardly anything to the discussion in my view. I presume the one dissenting promotion was Leicester then??!! And that JC's comment at the end of his article was probably aimed at them??! Edited January 6, 2016 by Skidder1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baba Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 I'm sure most will be careful, E l ADDIO and after the past two weeks I'm surprised only one ban has been handed out. Some of the stuff aimed at TWK was shocking and hurtful. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marko Posted January 11, 2016 Report Share Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) Glad to see some sanity has been restored, fwiw from the moment I read the article even before it all kicked off on here I never read anything into it. Edited for poor grammar Edited January 11, 2016 by Claret73 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.