Nigel Pearson sacked?

Wacker The Attacker

TheCitizen wrote: »

Neil Lennon followed by Big Sam head the market.

Paul Lambert at 33\1.

Sanity_Saviour

ricero wrote: »

A failure as a father raising such a vile human being as a son. Good riddance to both.

it's amazing how much people on the internet know about famous people's privates lives and private thoughts

Milkers

CSF wrote: »

he drunkenly laughed at someone making a racist slur during an orgy.

I mean who hasn't done that after all?

CSF

Milkers wrote: »

I mean who hasn't done that after all?

Clearly I wasn't saying it was an ok thing to do. Is twisting arguments something you do regularly or just a Wednesday afternoon thing when the sun isn't as nice as the day before?

dirtyden

He did a decent job, but no more than that. They had a great end to the season but that was preceded by a disastrous start. They also spent quite a bit of money (~20 million net spend). They probably over achieved slightly overall. His behaviour though was not what you want from the manager of your club, telling a fan to F**K off and die, choking an opposition player on the sideline and the behaviour of his players on what was supposed to be a public relations building trip to the owners homeland was really poor. Posters have indicated that a father should not be responsible for the actions of his son which is fair enough, but when that adult son is an employee of the father on a very important trip for the business and behaves like that he must hold some responsibility.

fullstop

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

A real pity, did a wonderful job to get Leicester out of trouble and one of the last remaining managers in the PM with any sort of personality. Have to applaud his open disdain for the reporters as well, good to see.

You know what, if there were no reporters there wouldn't be half the money there is in football. We all know they're not the nicest bunch, but Pearson just took pleasure in acting like a complete dick with not only them, but fans and opposition players. Good riddance.

Pro. F

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

Unfortunate that there is a preference among football clubs (and members of this forum bizarrely, but then again why else do you have to resort to giving your opinions on soccer forums!) for managers who will put their head down, say nothing, stick to being shamefully PC, be utterly vacuous for the sake of the cameras and be mediocre than managers who will speak their mind and do well.

So if you don't like an obnoxious manager then you must like vacuous, mediocre managers? Yeah, good logic there.

Pearson never said anything particularly interesting or entertaining in those interviews and press conferences, he was just surly without enough wit or intelligence to make his crankiness entertaining.

Pighead

Pro. F wrote: »

So if you don't like an obnoxious manager then you must like vacuous, mediocre managers? Yeah, good logic there.

Pearson never said anything particularly interesting or entertaining in those interviews and press conferences, he was just surly without enough wit or intelligence to make his crankiness entertaining.

Took the words right out of my keyboard. There is a middle ground between utterly vacuous and utterly obnoxious. Pearson wasn't even particularly honest or open in any of his interviews. Generally he was just rude.

Sanity_Saviour

fullstop wrote: »

You know what, if there were no reporters there wouldn't be half the money there is in football. We all know they're not the nicest bunch, but Pearson just took pleasure in acting like a complete dick with not only them, but fans and opposition players. Good riddance.

Doesn't matter he's a football manager hired to win football games and, in the case if Leicester, keep them up.

He ticked both boxes. There is no obligation to pander to the very people who are dragging your name through the mud, that's absurd!

Sanity_Saviour

Pro. F wrote: »

So if you don't like an obnoxious manager then you must like vacuous, mediocre managers? Yeah, good logic there.

Pearson never said anything particularly interesting or entertaining in those interviews and press conferences, he was just surly without enough wit or intelligence to make his crankiness entertaining.

I'm not really sure what you're on about here I haven't said any of those things, you seem to have done what overly emotional people do and put words in my keyboard.

I've said there's a preference for vacuous managers on this forum. Do a thematic analysis of the posts and you'll see for yourself.

I never said he was entertaining here i said I enjoyed his disdain towards reporters, nothing about wit or anything like whatever it is you pretended I said.

Honestly, you need to be sure you've actually understood what it is you're angry about!

Sanity_Saviour

Pighead wrote: »

Took the words right out of my keyboard. There is a middle ground between utterly vacuous and utterly obnoxious. Pearson wasn't even particularly honest or open in any of his interviews. Generally he was just rude.

What has being honest or open got to do with it?

Pighead

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

What has being honest or open got to do with it?

You indicated Pearson was refreshing as he spoke his mind unlike the majority of other premier league managers.

Generally people who speak their mind can be described as honest and open. You say Pearson has personality but in my opinion its an awful one. He comes across as paranoid, aggressive and extremely petty.

Sanity_Saviour

Pighead wrote: »

You indicated Pearson was refreshing as he spoke his mind unlike the majority of other premier league managers.

Generally people who speak their mind can be described as honest and open. You say Pearson has personality but in my opinion its an awful one. He comes across as paranoid, aggressive and extremely petty.

Oh ok thank you for that definition of speaking your mind.

What I was saying was that he sais

Pighead

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

Oh ok thank you for that definition of speaking your mind.

What I was saying was that he sais

No problem defining that for you. Surely you'd agree that people who speak their mind would be considered open?

Could you return the favour and tell me what 'sais' means?

Sanity_Saviour

Pighead wrote: »

You indicated Pearson was refreshing as he spoke his mind unlike the majority of other premier league managers.

Generally people who speak their mind can be described as honest and open. You say Pearson has personality but in my opinion its an awful one

. He comes across as paranoid, aggressive and extremely petty.

Oh ok thank you for that definition of speaking your mind.

What I was saying was he says what he thinks of reporters and gives responses to.any perceived negative thing he's done.

There is a tendency to attach negative traits to someone's personality when you dislike them.

However, when these alleged slights are related to his behaviour with reporters, with whom he shows an open disdain for (or incident with a player who subsequently shrugged it off as nothing), then it's not really a fair evaluation of his personality then!

Sanity_Saviour

Pighead wrote: »

No problem defining that for you. Surely you'd agree that people who speak their mind would be considered open?

Could you return the favour and tell me what 'sais' means?

I think we both know that was a typo :pac:

Paully D

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

A real pity, did a wonderful job to get Leicester out of trouble and one of the last remaining managers in the PM with any sort of personality. Have to applaud his open disdain for the reporters as well, good to see.

Great manager, and there is no doubt that Leicester will go down unless they get someone like Sam Allardyce in.

There's loads of managers in the Premier League with personality. Mourinho, Wenger, Van Gaal, Sherwood, Pulis, Pardew etc for example all certainly have a personality, for better or worse. Pearson's "personality" stretched as far as regaling tales of pure fantasy, boasting about how "hard" he was, and being needlessly idiotic and somewhat paranoid in interviews.

It's also worth remembering and only fair to point out that while Leicester went on an excellent run to end the season, Pearson had them in trouble for a long, long time too. In fact, he oversaw 18 losses in their first 29 games registering a whopping 4 wins in that period. If he's getting all the credit for keeping them up, he needs to take some of the blame for having them so far off the pace in the first place.

Great manager? Jesus wept. There's hyperbole and then there's that. He has kept a side up in the Premier League. He now joins other managerial heavyweights in an illustrious club that includes Alex McLeish, Pepe Mel, John Carver, Ricky Sbragia, Paolo Di Canio, and Paul Sturrock.

Ulysses Gaze

Pighead wrote: »

You indicated Pearson was refreshing as he spoke his mind unlike the majority of other premier league managers.

Generally people who speak their mind can be described as honest and open. You say Pearson has personality but in my opinion its an awful one. He comes across as paranoid, aggressive and extremely petty.

And Jose "It's a Conspiracy" Mourinho is not the same. He's just as bad, bringing the game into disrepute, (still) moaning about the ghost goal at Anfield from 10 years ago, still taking cheap shots at Guardiola.

And people find him entertaining?

Sanity_Saviour

Paully D wrote: »

There's loads of managers in the Premier League with personality. Mourinho, Wenger, Van Gaal, Sherwood, Pulis, Pardew etc for example all certainly have a personality, for better or worse. Pearson's "personality" stretched as far as regaling tales of pure fantasy, boasting about how "hard" he was, and being needlessly idiotic and somewhat paranoid in interviews.

I think if these are the managers you've pointed out to me that have "personalities", it says more than anything I can say.

Paully D wrote: »

It's also worth remembering and only fair to point out that while Leicester went on an excellent run to end the season, Pearson had them in trouble for a long, long time too. In fact, he oversaw 18 losses in their first 29 games registering a whopping 4 wins in that period. If he's getting all the credit for keeping them up, he needs to take some of the blame for having them so far off the pace in the first place.

Great manager? Jesus wept. There's hyperbole and then there's that. He has kept a side up in the Premier League. He now joins other managerial heavyweights in an illustrious club that includes Alex McLeish, Pepe Mel, John Carver, Ricky Sbragia, Paolo Di Canio, and Paul Sturrock.

Ok, but it would be ingenuous to compare the two given the circumstances around how he kept them up. Leicester were dead and buried by all accounts and possibly in spite of him, but mostly likely as a result of him, passion was instilled in the team and they won 7 out of their last 8 (?). I do not believe any of the aforementioned managers did exactly that unfortunately.

Laughably you have also included John Carver on that list as well who had a win percentage of 15%!

In addition, you can only compare like-for-like, so I think keeping Leicester up given the circumstances was a great achievement which he should be praised for. It's correct to say the middle quarters of the season was extremely poor, but he did beat United 5-3 along the way. The only time the table matters is at the end of May, and he fulfilled his obligations to keep Leicester in the top 17 places.

I also understand you do not hold Pearson in high regard, so you can understand how prior bias may come into your overall judgement of the man.

Sanity_Saviour

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

And Jose "It's a Conspiracy" Mourinho is not the same. He's just as bad, bringing the game into disrepute, (still) moaning about the ghost goal at Anfield from 10 years ago, still taking cheap shots at Guardiola.

And people find him entertaining?

i don't understand how you've managed to bring mourinho into this, it's like a pool v United thing all over again

Sanity_Saviour

CSF wrote: »

Said at the time that he wouldn't be there long after the thing with his son.

Hope Lambert gets the job. More for Lambert than for Leicester.

Just saw this.

I couldn't imagine a more dead cert for relegation than if Lambert managed Leicester next season, what a poor excuse for a manager

Sand

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

And Jose "It's a Conspiracy" Mourinho is not the same. He's just as bad, bringing the game into disrepute, (still) moaning about the ghost goal at Anfield from 10 years ago, still taking cheap shots at Guardiola.

And people find him entertaining?

Jose wins things. Pearson doesn't. That makes Jose smarter, funnier and more entertaining than Pearson regardless of what Jose says because journalists are intimidated by successful managers. Journalists need the manager, the manager doesn't need them - as LVG has delighted in reminding reporters several times this year.

CSF

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

Just saw this.

I couldn't imagine a more dead cert for relegation than if Lambert managed Leicester next season, what a poor excuse for a manager

Decent bloke though. And sure, what do I care about the fate of Leicester next season?

Sanity_Saviour

CSF wrote: »

Decent bloke though. And sure, what do I care about the fate of Leicester next season?

Decent bloke oh god, there actually isn't a more dour man on the planet!

Billy86

That_Guy wrote: »

Just listening to the BBC. The same media outlet who hammered Pearson at nearly every opportunity now suddenly think that it's a disgrace that he's given the chop.

Bizarre.

That_Guy, meet the media. Media, That_Guy.

Billy86

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

A real pity, did a wonderful job to get Leicester out of trouble and one of the last remaining managers in the PM with any sort of personality. Have to applaud his open disdain for the reporters as well, good to see.

Unfortunate that there is a preference among football clubs (and members of this forum bizarrely, but then again why else do you have to resort to giving your opinions on soccer forums!) for managers who will put their head down, say nothing, stick to being shamefully PC, be utterly vacuous for the sake of the cameras and be mediocre than managers who will speak their mind and do well.

Great manager, and there is no doubt that Leicester will go down unless they get someone like Sam Allardyce in.

A football club these days is as much as business as it is a football club. Like it or lump it, it doesn't change the fact.

Billy86

Pro. F wrote: »

So if you don't like an obnoxious manager then you must like vacuous, mediocre managers? Yeah, good logic there.

Pearson never said anything particularly interesting or entertaining in those interviews and press conferences, he was just surly without enough wit or intelligence to make his crankiness entertaining.

Well, if he doesn't get another managerial role over the summer at least we know he is always welcome alongside Giles and Dunphy on RTE. :pac:

bucketybuck

Billy86 wrote: »

Well, if he doesn't get another managerial role over the summer at least we know he is always welcome alongside Giles and Dunphy on RTE. :pac:

Ha! Now there's a litmus test for you. If you want to claim Pearson has personality just imagine him trying to smirk his way through a punditry session. The likes of Strachan for example is a manager with actual personality and wit who can show it when needed, but Pearson would be an absolute disaster in front of a camera. And not in an entertaining way.

Pro. F

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

... you seem to have done what overly emotional people do and put words in my keyboard.

You seem to have used an ad hominem.

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

I'm not really sure what you're on about here I haven't said any of those things, ...

I've said there's a preference for vacuous managers on this forum. Do a thematic analysis of the posts and you'll see for yourself.

I never said he was entertaining here I said I enjoyed his disdain towards reporters, nothing about wit or anything like whatever it is you pretended I said.

No, that is not true. You have left out the fact that you also said he was "one of the last remaining managers in the PM with any sort of personality." Having personality would signify that a person is interesting or entertaining. So I pointed out the obvious fact that Pearson is neither.

Now, you trying to pretend that you didn't say the things that are written in your OP is interesting and entertaining.

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

Honestly, you need to be sure you've actually understood what it is you're angry about!

Just because I think your post was idiotic does not mean I'm angry. I've got no reason to be angry, so I'm not.

Ranchu

The lesson here is to do lots of media training before managing in the premier league because lots of people, including your employer might value how you are publicly perceived over your ability at your actual job.

efb

Ranchu wrote: »

The lesson here is to do lots of media training before managing in the premier league because lots of people, including your employer might value how you are publicly perceived over your ability at your actual job.

In the Premier League- it's part of your job

bucketybuck

Ranchu wrote: »

The lesson here is to do lots of media training before managing in the premier league because lots of people, including your employer might value how you are publicly perceived over your ability at your actual job.

Isn't it strange that the public face of a multi-million pound organisation requires an ability to be media savvy?

How very strange indeed, especially since that business doesn't at all revolve around media investment and huge sponsorship deals. I can't figure it out at all...

syngindub

Billy86 wrote: »

Well, if he doesn't get another managerial role over the summer at least we know he is always welcome alongside Giles and Dunphy on RTE. :pac:

I thought Giles was gone from panel?

Oranage2

He seems to be a law onto himself and stuck in the nineteen eighties with his still of management with the like of malkey and them.

Seems to be decent enough manager however and keeping Leicester up was no easy feat, especially when it's worth over 80 million having premiership football the season just past and next. But his lack of PR Skills will see he'll never really get a job in a middle upper Prem team.

Billy86

syngindub wrote: »

I thought Giles was gone from panel?

Moved to Toronto in January, I knew he was on the way out but I didn't know he had been left off the panel for some recent games. He is 74 though, so I guess it was time... Dunphy also turns 70 next month, and good old Bill (RIP) was 76 when he passed a few weeks back. They were great entertainment through the 90s and even some of the early 00's, but that group should have been put out to pasture a good decade ago.

I had even said not very long ago that they needed urgent replacement, not just because of how out of touch they had become with the modern game, but because all three of them were literally a risk to never wake up from their sleep.

Who took his place, Sadlier? I really liked his work in the WC, and though I'm not a big fan of Cunningham he does at least know his stuff and Sadlier seemed to get a lot more out of him in the summer. Hopefully one or two of our recently retired/ready-to-retire players of the last decade or so is able to chime in as well, just to help keep the misery of "everything used to be better in every conceivable way" Whelan and Houghton off. Not too likely, but I really liked some of the coverage of World Cup games with Dara/Sadlier and any combo of guys that did not involve Giles or Dunphy. If I recall there were a few games covered by Sadlier/Cunningham/Friedel that were better than anything of the sort on RTE in years and years. Friedel is likely unobtainable long term though, as he is pretty high profile and acquitted himself very well on UK TV during the WC, as well as on MotD during the season.

Anyway, back on topic...

Ranchu

bucketybuck wrote: »

Isn't it strange that the public face of a multi-million pound organisation requires an ability to be media savvy?

How very strange indeed, especially since that business doesn't at all revolve around media investment and huge sponsorship deals. I can't figure it out at all...

Hence why I highlighted the point that having media training is now essential. The Cloughy days are gone, unfortunately.

Sanity_Saviour

Pro. F wrote: »

You seem to have used an ad hominem

Hi Pro. F. I'm not really sure that's an ad hominem. Overly emotional in this scenario is related to conversational style, and the words that you used were more laden with emotion than other posts in this thread, which would confirm that this post was overly emotional. I do think your response to this observation tells its own story though!

Pro. F wrote: »

No, that is not true. You have left out the fact that you also said he was "one of the last remaining managers in the PM with any sort of personality." Having personality would signify that a person is interesting or entertaining. So I pointed out the obvious fact that Pearson is neither.

Now, you trying to pretend that you didn't say the things that are written in your OP is interesting and entertaining.

Ah ha you appear to have created your own definition of personality again.

Interesting and entertaining are personal and subjective evaluations of a person or thing. Personality, however, is an innate set of traits unique to a person, in this case Nigel Pearson. Your own subjective evaluation of a person has nothing to do with his personality (especially if you don't like him in the first place as this will then provoke emotional responses and more negative evaluations).

I do think he was one of the last remaining managers with any personality though as his responses to reporters were unique to him (which is a reflection of personality) rather than the usual sycophantic responses you get to elicit the least aversive response (which isn't reflective of unique personality)

Two general things: (i) You have stated am trying to pretend I didn't say "the things written in my "OP". Not sure how you managed to get to that conclusion, possibly based on skewing the definition of what personality is. I did state what I meant by that statement you said I ignored (?) so hopefully you'll be able to understand a bit more now.

(ii)Are you actually telling me that, by not complying to your incorrect definition of personality (interesting and entertaining), I am actually lying? Oh wow that is bizarre!

Pro. F wrote: »

Just because I think your post was idiotic does not mean I'm angry. I've got no reason to be angry, so I'm not

Ah ha, using such strong language as idiotic does actually signify you've had an emotional response to the post, i.e. angry.

I agree with Pearson's rebuttals to journalists, it has become apparent you do not find him agreeable. That's really all there is to it there's no benefit in twisting my posts and using your own definitions when it's as simple as that!

Sanity_Saviour

Pro. F wrote: »

So if you don't like an obnoxious manager then you must like vacuous, mediocre managers? Yeah, good logic there

Just had another thought about this, how did you manage to get to this conclusion that this is what I meant?

A preference for one thing over another thing implies that is liked more than the other not that there's nothing in between.

What I meant by a thematic analysis is that when you compare posts talking about the two (not using obnoxious obviously because, once again, that's a subjective evaluation people who don't like someone else uses) types of managers (also it would be incorrect to say that all managers fall into those 2 categories, that would be ridiculous!) that I've laid out, there appears to be a preference towards the more sycophantic, vacuous and mediocre managers.

It makes a lot more sense to stick to strict definitions than to reword other people's posts for your own benefit

yabadabado

give it a rest ffs.

Sanity_Saviour

yabadabado wrote: »

give it a rest ffs.

Pro. F

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

Hi Pro. F. I'm not really sure that's an ad hominem. Overly emotional in this scenario is related to conversational style, and the words that you used were more laden with emotion than other posts in this thread, which would confirm that this post was overly emotional. I do think your response to this observation tells its own story though!

Trying to pretend that my argument is overly affected by emotion is an obvious attempt to invalidate my argument by reference to character. So yes, an ad hominem.

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

Ah ha you appear to have created your own definition of personality again.

Interesting and entertaining are personal and subjective evaluations of a person or thing. Personality, however, is an innate set of traits unique to a person, in this case Nigel Pearson. Your own subjective evaluation of a person has nothing to do with his personality (especially if you don't like him in the first place as this will then provoke emotional responses and more negative evaluations).

I do think he was one of the last remaining managers with any personality though as his responses to reporters were unique to him (which is a reflection of personality) rather than the usual sycophantic responses you get to elicit the least aversive response (which isn't reflective of unique personality)

Two general things: (i) You have stated am trying to pretend I didn't say "the things written in my "OP". Not sure how you managed to get to that conclusion, possibly based on skewing the definition of what personality is. I did state what I meant by that statement you said I ignored (?) so hopefully you'll be able to understand a bit more now.

(ii)Are you actually telling me that, by not complying to your incorrect definition of personality (interesting and entertaining), I am actually lying? Oh wow that is bizarre!

If you want to say that by calling Pearson one of the last remaining managers with "any sort of personality" you didn't mean that he had a personality that was in some way worthy of attention, but rather just in any way distinguishing, then fair enough. I can't prove otherwise even if it does look like the obvious implication of your words.

However, your claim that he was one of the last remaining managers with any sort of distinguishing traits to his personality (which your use of the word "personality" in this context rests on) is clearly wrong. There is Mourinho with his attention seeking antics and pointed insincerity; Pelligrini with his calmness and honesty; Van Gaal with his pomposity, emotional outbursts and desire to preach in detail; Rodgers with his rickety edifice of pop psychology; Allardyce and Pulis with their grumpy chips on their shoulders about English hoof-ball; Pardew with his immaturity and so on.

What is true is that the vast majority of modern managers are the same when it comes to talking up their own team's ability, bemoaning adverse circumstances and, in doing so, trying to project themselves as the right man for the job. And in that message Pearson was no different to the rest of them. He just delivered the same bog standard themes in a particularly rude way.

So the thing that was noteworthy about Pearson's personality was its obnoxiousness (oh noes, a subjective evaluation!), not its uniqueness.

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

Ah ha, using such strong language as idiotic does actually signify you've had an emotional response to the post, i.e. angry.

Sure, I'm a raging storm of unbalancing emotions. You can't ever think or say something is idiotic while remaining calm.

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

Just had another thought about this, how did you manage to get to this conclusion that this is what I meant?

A preference for one thing over another thing implies that is liked more than the other not that there's nothing in between.

What I meant by a thematic analysis is that when you compare posts talking about the two (not using obnoxious obviously because, once again, that's a subjective evaluation people who don't like someone else uses) types of managers (also it would be incorrect to say that all managers fall into those 2 categories, that would be ridiculous!) that I've laid out, there appears to be a preference towards the more sycophantic, vacuous and mediocre managers.

It makes a lot more sense to stick to strict definitions than to reword other people's posts for your own benefit

By neglecting to mention the alternative options to rude or bland managers your post implied that the posters on this forum actively like bland managers, rather than just tolerate them.

K-9

CSF wrote: »

I can't stand him, but if he's sacked for the actions of his son that is just wrong.

With that said, I'd say there's more to it and it probably has more to do with what the sacking of his son did to the relationship between the manager and the board.

Maybe he didn't agree with how Leicester dealt with it?

Sanity_Saviour

Pro. F wrote: »

Trying to pretend that my argument is overly affected by emotion is an obvious attempt to invalidate my argument by reference to character. So yes, an ad hominem.

Not quite sure how you manages to get to this conclusion (again!) as I never stated I was made any attempt to "invalidate your argument". I was merely making an observation about your conversational/posting style. It's important to stick to facts here, reading minds and making incorrect assumptions leads to incorrect conclusions, especially using words like "obvious about what other people are saying.

Pro. F wrote: »

Sure, I'm a raging storm of unbalancing emotions. You can't ever think or say something is idiotic while remaining calm

Did I say that or did you say that? I made an observation about an adjective which is more emotionally-laden language, not sure what this sentence means.

Pro. F wrote: »

By neglecting to mention the alternative options to rude or bland managers your post implied that the posters on this forum actively like bland managers, rather than just tolerate them.

These words you keep using, "implied" in this context. Just look at the words I'm saying, not what you believe or perceive that I'm saying! I didn't say posters on this forum like bland managers, or in fact even use the word rude (Did you make that up as well?). I said there is a preference for the sycophantic, vacuous and mediocre managers (the actual words I used). It is so maladaptive to start rewording strict definitions and my own actual thoughts!

I'll talk about your confused definition of personality when I have a bit more time, but you have managed to have understood the concept, but yet appear somewhat confused about how every individual has a unique personality and how Pearson has more personality that the majority of managers in the Premirt League.

Pro. F

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

Not quite sure how you manages to get to this conclusion (again!) as I never stated I was made any attempt to "invalidate your argument". I was merely making an observation about your conversational/posting style. It's important to stick to facts here, reading minds and making incorrect assumptions leads to incorrect conclusions, especially using words like "obvious about what other people are saying.

Did I say that or did you say that? I made an observation about an adjective which is more emotionally-laden language, not sure what this sentence means.

These words you keep using, "implied" in this context. Just look at the words I'm saying, not what you believe or perceive that I'm saying! I didn't say posters on this forum like bland managers, or in fact even use the word rude (Did you make that up as well?). I said there is a preference for the sycophantic, vacuous and mediocre managers (the actual words I used). It is so maladaptive to start rewording strict definitions and my own actual thoughts!

I'll talk about your confused definition of personality when I have a bit more time, but you have managed to have understood the concept, but yet appear somewhat confused about how every individual has a unique personality and how Pearson has more personality that the majority of managers in the Premirt League.

You don't need to overtly state something for it to be obviously true. You can pretend that I and others imagined the clear implications of the various things you said, and you can pretend that my counter arguments are hard to understand, but that is all obviously just an act. You don't understand things when it doesn't suit you to understand them (therefor requiring tedious explanation of every little point) and you don't see the clear implications of your words (that plenty of others can) whenever anybody shows the flaws in the arguments those words present. All plays straight out of the distract-and-derail-method of debate. All very tedious and all very obvious.

pmasterson95

Pro & Sanity sitting in a tree..........

Sanity_Saviour

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

Not quite sure how you manages to get to this conclusion (again!) as I never stated I was made any attempt to "invalidate your argument". I was merely making an observation about your conversational/posting style. It's important to stick to facts here, reading minds and making incorrect assumptions leads to incorrect conclusions, especially using words like "obvious about what other people are saying.

Did I say that or did you say that? I made an observation about an adjective which is more emotionally-laden language, not sure what this sentence means.

These words you keep using, "implied" in this context. Just look at the words I'm saying, not what you believe or perceive that I'm saying! I didn't say posters on this forum like bland managers, or in fact even use the word rude (Did you make that up as well?). I said there is a preference for the sycophantic, vacuous and mediocre managers (the actual words I used). It is so maladaptive to start rewording strict definitions and my own actual thoughts!

I'll talk about your confused definition of personality when I have a bit more time, but you have managed to have understood the concept, but yet appear somewhat confused about how every individual has a unique personality and how Pearson has more personality that the majority of managers in the Premirt League.

I thought I had stumbled on to a thread about Pro. F, but then I noticed some reference to some Pearson guy in the last line...

Nalz

Pro. F wrote: »

All plays straight out of the distract-and-derail-method of debate. All very tedious and all very obvious.

Distracting, derailing and tedious do come to mind when reading some of the more recent posts in this thread. Not sure if alot of posters would want to read them. Or maybe I'm just cranky cas I'm lying here sick in bed!

Sanity_Saviour

Pro. F wrote: »

You don't need to overtly state something for it to be obviously true. You can pretend that I and others imagined the clear implications of the various things you said, and you can pretend that my counter arguments are hard to understand, but that is all obviously just an act. You don't understand things when it doesn't suit you to understand them (therefor requiring tedious explanation of every little point) and you don't see the clear implications of your words (that plenty of others can) whenever anybody shows the flaws in the arguments those words present. All plays straight out of the distract-and-derail-method of debate. All very tedious and all very obvious.

oh dear.

I hope you can see the irony in all of this, this post is bizarre and I really hope you don't believe any of this. Just because it's your opinion that it's true doesn't make it so. It's important to understand that different people have different opinions (subjectivity!) than you.

In short, Pearson: Had personality and I liked that. Pro. F: does not like Pearson. Stop inventing things I say/mean/implied(?), it's actually maladaptive and will likely wind you up.

Al Capwned

Did ye hear nigel Pearson was sacked lads?
Mad.

pmasterson95

Al Capwned wrote: »

Did ye hear nigel Pearson was sacked lads?
Mad.

Who the **** is that?