norwaysaint

It seems to be a reasonable thing for him to ask when he's debating with you. What I object to is when you give your reasons and they are discounted as being because you are misinformed, wilfully dense, stupid or xenophobic, which I'm sure is frustrating to you as well, as it feels like nobody is hearing your voice. However, I'd hope you'd also be able to understand that those opposing you also have valid grounds, that aren't just stupid or (re)moaning.

How do we think the Libdem/Plaid/Green pact will affect seat numbers? And can anyone manage to discuss that one in an adult way without needing to rely on childish name calling etc? Personally I think it will probably net them a few seats, mainly from Labour, but not a significant number in the end.

For many people, voting for Brexit with a deal was very different to Brexit with no deal, for others, as we've seen among leavers, the type of deal can change their mind about leaving. If Leave had won by a large margin, I would say that wasn't an issue, but as it was incredibly narrow, I think it is an issue. I would guess there are probably enough people deterrred by certain outcomes that it would push them to the other side and we would have had a different outcome. Note that my post doesn't say that I think that you should you should agree with them that a new referendum should take place. That's not my point at all. It's just a complete denial that there is some merit in that viewpoint and that it is valid. I think it is strange not to acknowledge that it's not ridiculous, but that you disagree with it. What I find odd is people who are too blinkered to even recognise that the other viewpoint exists and holds some water. The simplistic, black and white way of arguing just creates more frustration for both sides.

Just out of interest, do you really see things in such simplistic, black and white terms, or do you just argue that way to make your point? I mean, I wouldn't back the conservatives at the moment, because I don't feel they represent the best interests, but I am absolutely able to see why some people want that and why they want brexit. It's just that I don't think it's for the best at the moment. I'm always surprised at people who don't see the the other side of the coin and understand it, even if it doesn't work for them. This goes for both sides, by the way, not just tories and leavers, the other side are as bad. Just anybody who sees things in definites and simplistic terms, when it's clearly more complicated than that, seems less trustworthy (maybe the wrong word, but I'm tired), because they aren't able to see anything from any position but their own. Is it that hard to put yourselves in someone else's place and recognise that there is a valid point there, it's just not your preference? Remainers should be able to see that many people really do want to leave Europe and aren't just being dense. They've thought it through after looking at the evidence. Leavers should be able to see that was quite a bit of subterfuge and the referendum was flawed, as well as the EU having many benefits. It doesn't make your argument invalid to recognise that the other side have a case too. You just feel that the merits of your choice are greater. It's not as simple as right/wrong, good/bad, smart/stupid etc Maybe it's just less fun to debate that way...

Haha, yeah, I probably am. I can live with that. I do consider myself a bit above it all.

I've posted many times that I think the silly name calling amongst adults is weird. I don't care who's doing it. Every time I mention it somebody posts something along the lines of "He started it" or "He does it too". Who cares? On this occasion I was talking about the irony of calling out somebody else's debating level, while demonstrating that name calling was theirs. I'm not your school teacher, you don't have to ask why I don't tell him off too. Be men and put your own houses in order without insisting everyone else does it first.

Can you see the irony in your post or is it meant to be there? Your main debating technique as far as I've seen is to call everyone who disagrees with you names. It's not exactly the sign of someone coping well with the discussion...

Genuine question, do you guys talk like this to people in real life or are you just nasty to strangers when it's more distant and anonymous. I don't know any adults who act like this, but maybe I lead a sheltered life.

I just think perhaps you can take all the personal stuff over to the special thread. It's all irrelevant here. There must be a better place to just post insults and snipes at each other. The whole "he started it" thing just makes it all more true. Do you guys have to go on and on name calling and saying nasty personal stuff page after page?

Come on mate, there's only one person being"small" here. Give it a rest.

You're probably right and my comments are based on zero knowledge of good coaching or of these people. I just feel that we sometimes don't take these key positions as seriously as we should and that we set our sights low, which has a knock on effect for the future. It always feels a bit like mates saying the equivalent of "Don't worry mate, we'll find a place for you in the set up" when there must be some outstanding candidates out there if we were a bit more creative. Narurally there is a place for a boot room mentality when you're building on success and handing over the reins smoothly to someone coming up through a proven system though.

Jesus, this is becoming just another thread of the same people sniping and making cheap digs at each other. This is a political discussion, why do you need to start making it so personal and nasty?

I'd agree with that if these players had been through a system where they had learned innovative and game changing tactics and methods from a great coach, but what kind of team and manager did these players learn from? These are the Dave Jones plodders, the Burley years, class of Wotte, Poortvliet, Dennis Wise, Dave Bassett, relegation and survival. These are the students of outdated methods, styles and practice and managers we used to complain about having no plan B. I kind of feel that this level of coach is part of the stagnation of our team and playing style, but as I said, I really wouldn't know and Jaidi and Davies could in fact be talented and innovative coaches being held back by the system around them.

I am going to start by saying I know absolutely nothing about how good any of our coaches are or the performances of any team but the first. However, I've never understood our habit of giving top level coaching jobs to popular former players. We're a premier league team and should be employing the very best coaches we can find who will want to be part of a coaching set up in one of the highest profile, highest lever footbal divisions in the world. It just seems incredibly unlikely that by some great coincidence, the very best available coach at any one time happens to be that bloke who we liked who happened to recently retire from the first team. Surely we should be trying to lure the very best talent from the world, with the best, modern coaching techniques, the most effective ideas, regardless of any playing career at all. I've always found it strange that Dodd, Williams, Jaidi, Davies etc were considered the best candidates for such key roles. Nice guys, but were they really the ones we should have been putting straight into roles that are pretty vital for the future of a club playing at the top level in the world?

If you mean English people wanting England to be separate from any other country, I have no problems with that. I don't understand why there's a need for childish name calling and silly stereotypes, but I've understood that's the level of discussion many here go for. I guess I shouldn't expect too much sophistication on a football forum though, so my fault for looking.

Want to what? Leave the United Kingdom? Of course I can. I did.

As for Scotland and Ireland, I'd find it a shame if they left the union, but I could understand why people living in both might want to leave.

Argentina has never had a colonial population living there. The population of the Falklands has simply never been Argentinian. Their only claims are that they once owned it in theory and that they are the closest mainland, but they are close to it like Britain is close to Iceland.

Back? It's only ever really been a British colony. This thread seems a waste of time and is just another place for less mature posters to use unpleasant language about other groups of people. Shame as there is a real discussion to have, but this is clearly not it. It's just another opportunity to dwell on stereotypes, cheap insults and general hatred.

Blair was just an ambitious career politician. Ultimately there's little difference between him and Boris. Their whole act is about furthering their own careers and the policies and positions are just a tool to achieve that. This is why I don't understand those on here who are such zealous Boris fans. I feel like GM and LD would watch him walk in, rinse his cock in their tepid cup of tea, **** their wives in front of them and they would just drink up and stare at the scene glassy eyed, calling him a genius. Agree with his stance on brexit by all means and obviously hope his agenda succeeds. Back his party and him, but to bleat on about how flawlessly he carries out some masterplan and never sets a foot wrong is just fanboy worship that makes me cringe. If you think he cares about you, brexit or Britain, you're crazy and this is from someone who thinks brexit should be followed through.

I don't buy Corbyn as pro IRA at all, that's just the right wing press getting a foothold that they can manipulate to sway opinion, kind of their job, obviously. I still couldn't back him though. He's just too divisive to lead comprehensively and he doesn't have the charisma. Boris has the charisma, but no real substance and has, if anything, set brexit back even further by indulging in shenanigans rather than just negotiating well and convincing his own allies to back him. I really know f... All about Jo Swindon, so won't comment. All I can say is that she hasn't looked like a ****wit yet. Damning with faint praise.

It's not that unusual. I'm 48, about to turn 49 and have had girlfriends of 23, 24, 27 and 38 the last few years. Now I've settled with a girl of 32, which works very well. But yes, you do find a lot of their frames of reference a mystery. I just find that in most social settings, I realise I'm the oldest person in the room, even when I was sure someone else was at least five years older.

I don't think anything. I simply don't know how her negotiating was, or what she could have got, or how good or bad Boris was or what he could have got if he'd been better. I just wondered how you know. Or are you just guessing?

I very probably am, but I can't see by what evidence you think she was a bad negotiator and he would have done better. It just seems to be decision you've made. This is the kind of"cult of Boris" thing that I asked about before, where people on his side seem to view him as infallible and can't accept that he's ever done anything that wasn't perfect. The only other leader of a party I see getting that kind of blinkered adulation from his fanbase is Trump.

Come on guys, Will you stop putting up ridiculous arguments that manage to put Duckhunter in the right? I'm finding it hard to deal with. I'm sure even he's confused by it.