Yeah..Quote:
Originally Posted by RathfarnhamHoop
That's clearly "setting out the facts" alright!Quote:
I gather there was more than one for what it’s worth ...
Printable View
Yeah..Quote:
Originally Posted by RathfarnhamHoop
That's clearly "setting out the facts" alright!Quote:
I gather there was more than one for what it’s worth ...
Have you actually anything to add to your case other than personal attacks, TL?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lilywhites
How do they work? Do you want to tell us?
Because everything you've said so far is misguided -
Saying he was the only applicant for the job, based on one rumour on twitter. Then suggesting a leading national sports journalist is being fed wrong information when he says something different - but no reason given on your part to disagree. As RH notes, that tweet clearly starts "If it's true..." - which means JamesDundalk (who could be you, for all we know) doesn't know either
Saying you can't compare his existing role with the new one, and then asking what his existing role is anyway
Saying a Master's in Sports Management doesn't qualify him for the role, but not saying why, and then ignoring EG's post of course description, which suggests it is a good fit
Saying you never mentioned Rovers bias, when in fact you did so here.
Saying he doesn't have the requisite business contacts (but you've given no evidence of that one way or the other)
Saying he's not up to the job because of what other people did in other roles (probably your most bizarre argument of the lot)
Saying external candidates should have been sought (but ignoring the very possible reality that the FAI could have a hiring freeze on, or indeed the fact that there were no qualified external applicants. Because who would give up a job to go work with the FAI around about now?)
Then when you can't argue that way, you turn to ad hominem arguments -
Saying I'm thick when I don't agree with you (hardly a relevant argument, I'm sure you'll agree)
Saying I'm happy with the appointment (when I never said I was)
Saying I'm throwing around insults (when I haven't been, but you have been)
Saying I don't read anything (but then you ask why I'm happy with the appointment, when I never said I was)
So you haven't brought a single logical argument to the debate - but I'm the thick one?
You haven't a ****ing clue what you're talking about, but you're still mickey swinging away in the belief that your ill-informed views are the absolute truth and everyone else must somehow be wrong.
I don't know the ins and outs of the appointment either - but then I'm not acting like I know it all.
You are though.Quote:
I don't know the ins and outs of the appointment either - but then I'm not acting like I know it all.
Got bored after two lines of your post so skipped to the end.
I'll leave you and RH to entertain yourselves.
Yeah, that pretty much sums up your approach on all this.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lilywhites
Ignore when people (ie pretty much everyone on here) challenge you and try engage you in a debate about your points, and instead waddle off with your own bizarre viewpoint still to hand.
You and RH are "everyone" now, yeah. Ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Everyone on the thread - including WeAreRovers, Lim till i die, Eminence Grise, nigel-harps1954 and Charlie Darwin.
All arguing against you.
Nobody's on your side here.
Of course that would be your interpretation of it. Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
For a start, Lim til I Die called you a driveller, ffs.
Did he?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lilywhites
Where do you see that?
2 posts under your drivel on page 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
He hasn't even mentioned Scanlon on this thread.
Or is it 3 posts under your drivel?
Again, hard evidence not your strong suit, TL.
You're the one who mentioned LTID as pro Scanlon when he hasn't even mentioned him. Making up stuff, as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
You decided to list nearly everyone who's posted on the thread so far but you basically have RH on your side. That says it all.
What about WAR, who provides a reputable source contradicting your claim that only one person applied for the role?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lilywhites
What about Eminence Grise, who outlines the contents of a course in Sports Management to show how it might be relevant to the job at hand, and who highlights your acute unreasonableness in this discussion?
What about nigel and Charlie, who've indirectly and directly queried your view of the role?
But you've ignored all those to flag one poster who doesn't even mention me!
That says it all...
For what it's worth, you're chatting out of your hole.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lilywhites
Refusing to engage in a rational debate, admitting to not reading a response and continuing to tell someone they're wrong, despite not reading their response, is the absolute height of ignorance.
He provided a link to an article that is behind a paywall. I don't subscribe to the Indo. I asked for the relevant bit to be posted here to see what it says...Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I was aware of what was on the Sports Management course. EG was responding directly to Nigel Harps on that, not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Nigel only asked about qualifications.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Charlie was very reasonable in his posts, unlike yourself and RH who continue to just ramble on.
I didn't read that reply because it was a book and he's going round in rings with his argument. Couldn't be bothered.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954
Cheers Nigel.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954
I'll leave it at that so. If that doesn't get through, nothing will. (And I think "nothing will" is the actual answer)
Best of luck to Scanlon in his new role. I've no idea who he is or how he'll do. Maybe he'll be rubbish. But it won't be because of how John McGuinness did anyway.
Exactly. You haven't a clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I've never said otherwise.
But I do have a clue when it comes to arguing against your logic.
You haven't a clue about Scanlon either. But you're the one actively arguing against his appointment. Despite not having a clue about his job, experience, how many people applied, etc.
That's the difference.
I would agree, and have said as much albeit in longwinded or clumsey manner. Anticipating potential tunnel vision reaction, as has been born out subsequently in this thread, wasnt anti-SRFC or a 'manipulation of posters'. It was simply expecting some people to baulk at the appointment. Which was more a recognition of how some could react against a SRFC connection. I wasnt sure from whom, especially with marionbohs absence these days. I was less surprised by RH stamping his feet at the very suggestion that it was possible!Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
For the record I just want to state that I consider all arguments between Rathfarnham Hoop and Dundalk fans (and let's face it is their any other content on foot these days) to be painful, worst kind of internet argument, pointless, drivel.
Carry on everyone!