|
Post by Dr Gas on Jul 7, 2015 2:46:45 GMT
Hey man! Like, he he he, I am all for living on a different planet: My fave film of all time, yuk, yuk, yuk, is Easy Rider, but my agents, Cheech and Chong ain't here to help me understand all that fancy Dan wording y'all used there.
Luckily, I knowed the words mahself but methinks you may have gone too far for regular forum users.
Maybe I should just have said that using prosaic language tends to lose interest in your argument/debate, rather than prove your point (irony of using prosaic recognised, but I have assumed you would understand it )
I thought it was a very good response to a debate. Only one word (tautology) was not an everyday word. I'm sure we can all google it, just like we have for all the players recently transferred who we have never heard of before. If you think posts should be dumbed-down, who do you think they should be dumbed-down for? Perhaps anyone viewing from OTIB? Perhaps I should have responded directly to the post to which I was referring, i.e. Gashead 79 on 3.7,15 at 9.12 am:, viz.
"Oh and I will also admit to not being sure on some of your terminology! No doubt everybody else is fully conversant though........"
If you re-read my post, I think you will realise that it was somewhat tongue in cheek, For one thing, Cheech and Chong did not appear in easy Rider, so for me to imply that they did was an anomaly but then again that was soooooooo long ago not many on here would remember or be aware of that.
My point remains though: OK, to you, one word, "tautology" was a potential unknown, however, others may not have your extent of vocabulary.
I have a hearing defect but learned to read and have relied on reading since before I started school, over 50 years ago. I know the meanings of a multitude of words, including many thousands that I do not use in everyday conversation, as I know they may not be understood........and also because I am genuinely not sure how they should be pronounced.........oh, and plus the fact I live in 'artcliffe
I do not think I dumb down my conversations. In fact I find it a rather supercilious attitude to think that something is dumbed down by using less spectacular vocabulary.
Ironically, three of my favourite posters have been involved in this offshoot of this thread, i.e. you, Huggy, and Gashead79. I think we would all understand each other over a pint.....for while at least; however, I have a Phd in gibberish so may not be involved so long as you others
|
|
|
Post by Dr Gas on Jul 7, 2015 2:49:40 GMT
Ok, I'll say it. I wish we hadn't signed him. The baggage he brings is too much for me I'm afraid. Sorry, this one is difficult for me to get on board with. Well done the rest of you, you are better people than me. I suppose you could say that DC brought Ellis back from the brink and so must see something worth salvaging. Also as I understood it he was cleared by a jury? Admittedly it's better not to be brought before a jury as the evidence must have been reasonably strong, and not guilty does not equal innocent, but let's hope DC is right. But not strong enough to convict.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Gas on Jul 7, 2015 2:55:52 GMT
Actually, while I'm at it... Have a look at almost every other thread on here about potential new signings. Players are lazy, too old, unfit, bad attitude, drunks, gamblers, greedy, ill motivated, injury prone etc... Until we sign them, then it's "get behind them 100%" Me, I'd like us to only sign cheap, fit, model pro, footballers. I realize that's not always possible but it's good to set the bar high isn't it?DC did a purty good job of that last season methinks?
|
|
|
Post by beaver132 on Jul 7, 2015 4:21:31 GMT
I suppose you could say that DC brought Ellis back from the brink and so must see something worth salvaging. Also as I understood it he was cleared by a jury? Admittedly it's better not to be brought before a jury as the evidence must have been reasonably strong, and not guilty does not equal innocent, but let's hope DC is right. But not strong enough to convict. You're right, not enough to convict and that's enough for me. I've walked both sides as a prosecutor and jury member, and if the evidence isn't strong enough they walk free. The system works in the majority of cases
|
|
|
Post by beaver132 on Jul 7, 2015 4:24:53 GMT
I suppose you could say that DC brought Ellis back from the brink and so must see something worth salvaging. Also as I understood it he was cleared by a jury? Admittedly it's better not to be brought before a jury as the evidence must have been reasonably strong, and not guilty does not equal innocent, but let's hope DC is right. Which offence are you referring to? The match fixing or sexual assault? The situation with Ellis is different because the club were supporting their own young lad which imo they are duty bound to do. Maybe I'm wrong Hugo, certainly haven't looked it up, but understood that he was on trial for one or both? If not, then even less evidence against him. That said, and despite my own comments, I share your unease, not really 'like' us in recent years to gamble like this. Hopefully he will justify his second chance.
|
|