craig 5,199 Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 nonsense m8. you said "they have as much right to protest as you do to dismiss them" as if it were an answer to his saying 'gtf'. you didn't say, "yes, you are entitled to that opinion" or "there's another opinion". it was a rebuttal. you suggested he was in some way wrong for having that opinion. having equal right to speak isn't the same as the contents of your speech being worthwhile. fraser said they should GTF, not that they shouldn't be allowed to speak. why is it as soon as someone takes a definite position on something other people turn round and go "well, that isnt the only way of viewing it", as if it were a response no-one had thought of. fraser doesnt like the protesting. he is probably fine with the idea of protesting, and people's general right to it, but doesn't like it in this instance. why would you think saying "people have a right to their opinion and protest" is an answer to that? Barry, sorry but you are wrong. How can you construe me saying that they have as much right as Fraser as meaning that Fraser cant say what he likes ? 1. I did not say that Fraser was wrong to have that opinion. I asked why they should GTF. I didn't suggest he was wrong at all but you can spin it however you like. 2. I stated that they have as much right to voice their dissent as Fraser does to dismiss them. So, by inference in your post, you are suggesting that I am saying that BOTH factions would be wrong ? Nonsense. Why would it NOT be an answer to that. If you look at Fraser's posts on the subject he seems to NOT be in agreement with the protesting of the club management. That is his right and I never denied him it. But why then should others GTF ? Why should they NOT have that same right. Personally I think the question I posed of Fraser was valid and that both HE and THEY have the same right - you just chose to jump in on what was a pretty inane question and, at least to me it seems, for no real reason. You can interpret my questioning of Fraser all you want and can place words to my post - but the actuality is that it merely stated that those fans who disagree with Fraser and who DO want to protest have as much right to do so as he has to dismiss them. Quite why we even get to this stage of debate for a trivial subject is beyond me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 ok, here it is. you are the only person that brought rights to protest into this. fraser wasn't talking about rights to protest. he said they shouldn't be protesting. saying people have a right to protest is to say absolutely nothing constructive. saying "everyones rights are the same" isnt an answer. people can protest to bring the age of legal sex down to 4. those people can GTF. my point was (and is) that this brings nothing to the debate - it's certainly no response. its true but pointless. it's not about rights to opinions, its about whose opinion is right. and it's not a trivial subject - whether we, as fans, should be protesting is what this is all about. your rhetoric dances round it. fraser thinks no - you think, well, "everyone has a right" - ie: nothing. and why have you started going on the defensive? it's only debate ffs. its alright for you to question fraser but not me question you? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 ok, here it is. you are the only person that brought rights to protest into this. fraser wasn't talking about rights to protest. he said they shouldn't be protesting. saying people have a right to protest is to say absolutely nothing constructive. saying "everyones rights are the same" isnt an answer. people can protest to bring the age of legal sex down to 4. those people can GTF. my point was (and is) that this brings nothing to the debate - it's certainly no response. its true but pointless. it's not about rights to opinions, its about whose opinion is right. and it's not a trivial subject - whether we, as fans, should be protesting is what this is all about. your rhetoric dances round it. fraser thinks no - you think, well, "everyone has a right" - ie: nothing. and why have you started going on the defensive? it's only debate ffs. its alright for you to question fraser but not me question you? What a diatribe and for what ? Sorry, but I doubt your time OR mine is worth the response, do you (even though I find myself compelled)? You say I am providing nothing constructive and that is your prerogative. But pray tell, what constructive advice do I (or anyone) get from your above post ? I would have thought that by saying "everyone has a right" would have been plain enough to see - I believe that YES they have a right and are ENTITLED to protest - is that plain enough for you Barry ? Did I say you couldn't question me ? Not at all - my point was merely that here we are in a pointless debate IMO. I am sure you have more important things to be getting on with, as do I. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 firstly, there's no diatribe. if you dont want to debate this, then just dont. i'm trying to get to the heart of this and you seem to be taking it as some sort of personal insult. if you dont like it, dont reply. I would have thought that by saying "everyone has a right" would have been plain enough to see - I believe that YES they have a right and are ENTITLED to protest - is that plain enough for you Barry ? no, it isn't clear enough. EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO PROTEST AT ANYTHING ALL THE TIME. PEOPLE ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS have the right to protest - that doesn't mean that they SHOULD be protesting. is this that difficult to work out? whether we should be protesting is the question fraser was addressing, and the one you avoided. fraser said they should 'gtf'. he isn't happy people are protesting. why would you think their having a right to protest would be an answer to that? if i said "craig, saw some people marching to legalise paedophelia - they can gtf" would you take me to be discussing people's rights to protest? do you think "oh, they have a right to protest" would be an anwer? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboyharley 5 Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 What a diatribe and for what ? Sorry, but I doubt your time OR mine is worth the response, do you (even though I find myself compelled)? You say I am providing nothing constructive and that is your prerogative. But pray tell, what constructive advice do I (or anyone) get from your above post ? I would have thought that by saying "everyone has a right" would have been plain enough to see - I believe that YES they have a right and are ENTITLED to protest - is that plain enough for you Barry ? Did I say you couldn't question me ? Not at all - my point was merely that here we are in a pointless debate IMO. I am sure you have more important things to be getting on with, as do I. now now ladies. :cheers: 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 firstly, there's no diatribe. if you dont want to debate this, then just dont. i'm trying to get to the heart of this and you seem to be taking it as some sort of personal insult. if you dont like it, dont reply. no, it isn't clear enough. EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO PROTEST AT ANYTHING ALL THE TIME. PEOPLE ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS have the right to protest - that doesn't mean that they SHOULD be protesting. is this that difficult to work out? whether we should be protesting is the question fraser was addressing, and the one you avoided. fraser said they should 'gtf'. he isn't happy people are protesting. why would you think their having a right to protest would be an answer to that? if i said "craig, saw some people marching to legalise paedophelia - they can gtf" would you take me to be discussing people's rights to protest? do you think "oh, they have a right to protest" would be an anwer? You are right, I don't. I, and I am sure you, have far more important things to be doing than debating semantics - or at least it is semantic in my opinion. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 no bother. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 no bother. After all that....... :fish: You should be on a debating team though Barry. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 if i should be on a debating team m8, you should have been a politician. you're a dab hand at avoiding simple questions and shouting "semantics" to cloud the issue. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 craig, sent you a pm. i talk pish more than you take the hump, but i dont think this is some obscure thing here. hopefully that should sort it out. 0 Quote Link to post 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.