The truth

[Acey]

Noticed you used the word hope... you obviously do not believe

 

Vlads a ****** ...deal with it! the clubs a shambles and he will feck us when the time is right for him to do so!

 

It's probably because I'm not half as bothered as the gang on here. For want of a better term, I'll borrow Therapist's catchphrase, "hand-wringers".

 

Vlad is a hero. The club's always been a shambles.

[Jammy T]

As we know,

There are known knowns.

There are things we know we know.

We also know

There are known unknowns.

That is to say

We know there are some things

We do not know.

But there are also unknown unknowns,

The ones we don't know

We don't know.

 

Hope that explains it clearly.

 

Sadly true

 

I think the problem is, if people still backing Vlad are right - there is nothing to worry about

 

If people not backing Vlad are right - there is a hell of a lot to worry about.

[Billy52]

It certainly fits the "is Vlad picking the team?" debate of the past three years.

 

I like these also:

 

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.

Edward R. Murrow

 

It may well be that our means are fairly limited and our possibilities restricted when it comes to applying pressure on our government. But is this a reason to do nothing? Despair is not an answer. Neither is resignation. Resignation only leads to indifference, which is not merely a sin but a punishment.

Elie Wiesel

 

You've got to rattle your cage door. You've got to let them know that you're in there, and that you want out. Make noise. Cause trouble. You may not win right away, but you'll sure have a lot more fun.

Florynce Kennedy

 

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

George Orwell

 

Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.

Harry S Truman

 

Nothing is complete and thus nothing is exempt from criticism.

James Luther Adams

 

Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed -- and no republic can survive.

John F. Kennedy

 

You do not become a "dissident" just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career. You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast out of the existing structures and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of society.

Vaclav Havel

 

All very dramatic and profound for a football team and a football forum, but some of these ring so true with regard to the Romanovs, whatever side of the fence you're on.

 

George, You let the **** in!

[Jammy T]

Oh hey, it's the "Told You So" club.

 

I sincerely hope that Vlad comes good, just to ram it right into your smug faces.

 

I'm not sure there is any told you so stuff on this thread

 

Just an invitation to post examples of whether whatever truth an individual believes matches the starting observation

 

"A bit of fun" as one of the most reasoned posters on this board mentioned

[Billy52]

It's probably because I'm not half as bothered as the gang on here. For want of a better term, I'll borrow Therapist's catchphrase, "hand-wringers".

 

Vlad is a hero. The club's always been a shambles.[/QUO

 

Vlad is not a hero. he has used you and thousands of others to achieve his money grabbing, Mod Editmethods' where he could make a fortune and ruin the club completely. All because Mod Edit like you gave him the time of day.

[Acey]

I'm not sure there is any told you so stuff on this thread

 

Just an invitation to post examples of whether whatever truth an individual believes matches the starting observation

 

"A bit of fun" as one of the most reasoned posters on this board mentioned

 

You're fooling nobody, matey.

[Jammy T]

You're fooling nobody, matey.

 

I have an opinion of what the truth is - yes

 

I think the quote fits with the truth - it certainly fits with elements of the truth

 

But what I believe ultimately to be what will happen with Romanov and this club has not happened yet. Neither have I put forward any of the examples on this thread that might be argued to fit

 

So I cant personally, in any way claim, any told you so on this issue. But I dont think anyone else has either

 

I dont see myself as trying to fool anyone

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Good analogy.

 

However how do you apply it to, take for example, some of the most notorious former Pro Vlad supporters who now are just as violently opposed to him now as they were formerly for him. Remembering how these guys would rip apart any criticism of Vlad, lead the anti - Riccarton 3 brigade etc?

 

I am more interested in how these guys made such an about face.

 

That would be more pyschologically enlightening.

 

Ever head of JM Keynes? "When the facts change, I change my mind".

 

I still don't want Vlad to leave. I still don't see evidence that his intention is to deliberately ruin the club. However, there is now both empirical as well as past evidence that running the club as he does doesn't produce the desired results. Therefore, I'm calling on him to appoint the manager stated on 1 January (not Frail). I will withhold my cash from the club if he doesn't do so because to me that would be a con.

[kevmacd]

I'm an eternal optimist - well, actually, I've always preferred to be pessimistic as then you can only ever be proved right or pleasantly surprised, but I guess I must be an optimist as I still 'believe' that Vlad is good for Hearts in the long run. I do, however, feel like I'm part of an ever dwindling minority.

 

I think Vlad was ridiculed by the general public and press when he first arrived. He has also been violently opposed by the press (in a ridiculous number of baseless, negative articles), the SFA (in changing the rules to allow them to fine Vlad, in Gordhun Smith vehemently anti-Lithuanian pre-season rant, which was widely supported by the press) and by the General public (having been boo'd by the away end on his last visit to Tynie - I mean, 'eh?'!).

 

I don't think that this then automatically follows that he must, therefore, have been speaking the truth all along, but it certainly would support the OP's theory if Vlad does appoint an 'independent' management team (as to appoint any other kind of team at this stage would be to commit financial suicide), wipe the existing debt (by converting loan to stocks as has been mooted), build the new stand and associated businesses, and eventually end up with a large amount of stock in a football club which is successfull both on and off the field, giving him a far superior outcome in financial, social and political terms - not to mention in terms of corporate reputation - than any other outcome that has been speculated upon by fans, general public and journalists who (much to their collective chagrin) have no insight into Vlad's plans whatsoever!

 

I say, why listen to these baseless theories and prophecies of doom when they are not based on anything more solid than any of the stuff eminating from JKB's shed? Why give them further weight, in your own mind, than the statements coming from Hearts! I know a lot of people feel more comfortable prophecising doom - I think, psychologically, there's a feeling of "if I say it, it won't happen", but the collective effect is to create an atmosphere of complete mistrust - this is something, I believe, that the SFA/Weegie Press have been trying to achieve since day one (V Day?) and all we are doing is helping them (the Scotsman had an article 2 weeks ago based on the results of a negative/anti Vlad poll on JKB! I've never once seen them quote a positive poll, not a poll from any other supporters' websites).

 

And I dinnae care if you think my position warrants abuse - I'm still firmly of the opinion that Vlad only bought us to make money, and he can only do that if he does the rebuild and increases turnover sufficiently to repay the debt and to give his (currently worthless) stock a decent value.

 

Yes - I admit it. I still BELIEVE! (haven't renewed my ST yet but fully intend to do so)

[Guest JamboRobbo]

You're fooling nobody, matey.

 

Neither are you.

[topcat]

You might be right

I probably am.

 

I'd never heard of this guy until I read this quote.

To be honest I'm not entirely surprised.

 

I'm not sure that pessimism shines out of the quote though.

 

Its more an analysis of how truth unfolds - if disputed.

 

Is it a pessmistic statement of itself?

 

Not entirely.

 

It's hardly unique to Schopenhauer either. The idea that visionaries and prophets will be mocked as fools or dismissed as madmen but that eventually the world will see that they're right has been a solace to people who thought of themselves as visionaries and prophets since the dawn of time.

 

It's both pessimistic on a personal level (I'm doomed to be misunderstood) and optimistic on another level (Inevitably they'll see I was right all along).

 

What tends to be ignored though is that far larger numbers of people who were dismissed as fools and madmen and in the long term turn out to have actually been fools and madmen all along.

 

Or in the words of Marx (Groucho not Karl)

"This man may look like an idiot and sound like an idiot, but don't let that fool you folks. He really is an idiot"

[Jammy T]

I probably am.

 

To be honest I'm not entirely surprised.

 

Not entirely.

 

It's hardly unique to Schopenhauer either. The idea that visionaries and prophets will be mocked as fools or dismissed as madmen but that eventually the world will see that they're right has been a solace to people who thought of themselves as visionaries and prophets since the dawn of time.

 

It's both pessimistic on a personal level (I'm doomed to be misunderstood) and optimistic on another level (Inevitably they'll see I was right all along).

 

What tends to be ignored though is that far larger numbers of people who were dismissed as fools and madmen and in the long term turn out to have actually been fools and madmen all along.

 

Or in the words of Marx (Groucho not Karl)

"This man may look like an idiot and sound like an idiot, but don't let that fool you folks. He really is an idiot"

 

A nice spikey reply. I like that.

 

The obvious visionary being Gallileo

 

Who is the visionary here though?

 

Romanov?

 

If so, I think the quote is out of step. He has largely, by those that oppose him, suffered anger first then ridicule second.

 

For example most people were angry at the Burley incident, and now ridicule the continuing search for our new manager.

 

I once argued that Romanov might be a visionary. An eastern european one that we maybe couldnt get our Scottish heads around.

 

I think I even used Gallileo as an example of how such people might be ridiculed and misunderstood

 

Maybe I was right.

 

It doesnt feel that I was right though

[Acey]

Neither are you.

 

Ok then. I appear to be fooling myself quite successfully, as I have no idea what you're on about.

 

This thread is an, "I told you so" thread. The whole gang (HoG, you, Jammy T, FWJ etc) are here, and the gist of it is, "You used to rip us, now it is we who are right and glorious".

 

Jammy T is fooling nobody; this is an "I told you so" thread. Sad.

[Taffin]

My take on it was it was the motions Vlad was going through.

 

The truth being he was making a mess.

 

He firsty ridiculed it, mud flinging towards the Sun, the SFA.

 

Violently opposed, getting rid of players and further messing it up in anger.

 

Acceptance to his errors and is now trying to sort things.

 

I sincerely hope that he is onto the last one.

[Jammy T]

Ok then. I appear to be fooling myself quite successfully, as I have no idea what you're on about.

 

This thread is an, "I told you so" thread. The whole gang (HoG, you, Jammy T, FWJ etc) are here, and the gist of it is, "You used to rip us, now it is we who are right and glorious".

 

Jammy T is fooling nobody; this is an "I told you so" thread. Sad.

 

If ever there was evidence of the wee internet persona to the left hand side of a posting being debated as opposed to the post itself this is it.

 

Its interesting that you sum up why you disregard it so succinctly.

 

You essentially say anything posted by those listed is not worth really thinking about.

 

The source is more important than the content.

 

I dont think a brick of a new stand will ever be built at Tynecastle and I do think we will end up at Murrayfield without a new stadium, or an intention by Romanov to build one, at some stage

 

I cant possibly be saying "told you so" on this thread because this event hasnt happened yet.

 

More to the point the opening post was completely neutral and, as many have pointed out, attempts can be made to apply the theory to both side of the argument.

 

Now, if you were to turn round and say this is just a rubbish thread which you have no interest in - then you might just be right.

 

But surely it cannot be the case that any thread started by any of the people listed is "sad"?

[topcat]

A nice spikey reply. I like that.

 

I'm glad

 

The obvious visionary being Gallileo

 

Certainly one of the best known

 

It's worth remembering though that his assumption that the orbits of the planets is circular would later be disproved when Kepler showed that the planest actually moved in eliptical orbits so Gallileo's theory of the solar system, while better than the popes, was also wrong.

 

And that is probably where the more pertinent lesson to be learned about truth lies. Even if you appear to be proved right you may well just be proved less wrong than whatever the other option being considered was.

 

In your original quote Schopenhauer outlines three stages that a "truth" passes through Ridcule, Opposition and Acceptance.

 

He fails to mention that this process can run also in reverse it was once self-evident that the earth was at the centre of everything, this truth was opposed during the renaissance and you would be ridiculed if you put this idea forward today.

 

What's more, people had advanced helio-centric theories in Ancient Greece thousands of years earlier showing that Schopenhauers maxim was far too simplistic

 

In such a world as this we can never actually know for sure that what the truth that we think we know is indeed the truth. This idea can lead to the deeply depressing conclusions that we never truly know anything or the bizarre idea that my truth and your different truth can be equally valid which implies a denial of objective reality.

 

Some people, thanks in part to the likes of Schopenhauer, spend a lot of time worrying about that kind of thing. More practical types will settle for accepting the potential reality that best suits their observations as a reasonable working hypothesis and continually re-evaluate that choice as new observations are made.

 

Who is the visionary here though?

 

Romanov?

 

If so, I think the quote is out of step. He has largely, by those that oppose him, suffered anger first then ridicule second.

 

For example most people were angry at the Burley incident, and now ridicule the continuing search for our new manager.

 

The Schopenhauer quote wasn't about people but about truths (by which he presumably means versions of the truth). So rather than Romanov you should apply it to his prediction that he would turn Hearts into a big club. This was ridiculed, opposed and then as we relegated Rangers to the UEFA cup spots was beginning to be accepted in a big way before the process went into reverse. It may change direction again.

 

Or possibly apply it to the stadium development plans which were ridiculed at first and then as planning hurdles began to be cleared were opposed. You get the feeling that some people will continue to claim it's a hoax until they are actually sat in it.

 

Or apply it to the January the 1st statement which was ridiculed and has continued to be opposed even as results on the pitch have shown strong evidence that something had genuinely changed. Again even if we see a big name appoitnmetn tomorrow there will be people claiming that Hearts had no intention of looking around till May anyway.

 

Or apply it to the notion that this was Hibs year in the cup. That was originally ridiculed and...well that one was just ridiculed.

 

I once argued that Romanov might be a visionary. An eastern european one that we maybe couldnt get our Scottish heads around.

 

I think I even used Gallileo as an example of how such people might be ridiculed and misunderstood

 

As I explained above Gallileo for all his merits still got stuff wrong.

 

Maybe I was right.

 

It doesnt feel that I was right though

 

Like most such predictions you were probably "partly right".

 

It was Gallileo's courage to stand up to the pope that truly marks him out from other figures in the history of Astronomy as much as his contribution to the subject.

 

There are Visionaries who don't have the courage, ability, skill, commitment or good fortune to do anything about their visions they are known are dreamers.

 

It remains to be seen whether Vlad will have the requisite ability, resources, commitment, humility and luck to get things back on track but it is unlikely that looking for parallells in the history of renaissance astronomy is a good way of finding out.

[Jammy T]

Nice reply TC

 

OK, do you think any kind of physchology or philosophy can be applied to Vlad in ascertaining whether the truth is that he is either good for us, or wrong for us (as a football club)

 

Factually we dont know for sure - no matter how much it is debated that it is self evident.

 

So can are there any pointers out there? From your own knowledge and experience?

[topcat]

If ever there was evidence of the wee internet persona to the left hand side of a posting being debated as opposed to the post itself this is it.

 

Its interesting that you sum up why you disregard it so succinctly.

 

You essentially say anything posted by those listed is not worth really thinking about.

 

The source is more important than the content.

 

You would of course surely concede though that the source is part of the context and so plays a part in the interpretation of the context.

 

It is indeed possible for the source to semantically outweigh the context. For example I could read a post from those listed by Acey and see it as an being serious or read the exact same words posted by Acey and recognise it instantly as humorous parody. The same process could work in reverse

 

I would dispute Acey is essentially saying anything posted by those listed is not worth really thinking about. Although in the case of one of those listed I would agree if he were saying that.

 

Posts by yourself, JR et al do tend to have a common agenda usually something along the lines of

 

I dont think a brick of a new stand will ever be built at Tynecastle and I do think we will end up at Murrayfield without a new stadium, or an intention by Romanov to build one, at some stage

 

And it would be ingenuous of you to believe that this will not colour people interpretation of any ambiguity in your posts.

 

Again I'd have read it completely differently if Acey had posted it

 

And If Billy52 or anybody calling themselves "Daz" had apparently started a thread by quoting Schopenhauer I'd assume that their account had been hacked.

 

I cant possibly be saying "told you so" on this thread because this event hasnt happened yet.

 

Well spotted. It would of course be more correct to say "because no overwhelming evidence indicating that this will happen has been observed yet."

 

More to the point the opening post was completely neutral and, as many have pointed out, attempts can be made to apply the theory to both side of the argument.

 

It couldn't be completely neutral because it came from you.

 

Now, if you were to turn round and say this is just a rubbish thread which you have no interest in - then you might just be right.

 

It's actually not a bad thread for a forum that has been getting a bit stale of late and surely if he had no interest in it then surley he wouldn't have posted.

 

But surely it cannot be the case that any thread started by any of the people listed is "sad"?

 

It is pretty accurate for one of those people though.

[Jammy T]

You would of course surely concede though that the source is part of the context and so plays a part in the interpretation of the context.

 

Only where there is ambiguity as regards what is posted IMO

 

It is indeed possible for the source to semantically outweigh the context. For example I could read a post from those listed by Acey and see it as an being serious or read the exact same words posted by Acey and recognise it instantly as humorous parody. The same process could work in reverse

 

I would dispute Acey is essentially saying anything posted by those listed is not worth really thinking about. Although in the case of one of those listed I would agree if he were saying that.

 

Posts by yourself, JR et al do tend to have a common agenda usually something along the lines of

 

agenda is a weighted word - implicity negative in the context used

 

And it would be ingenuous of you to believe that this will not colour people interpretation of any ambiguity in your posts.

 

yup - where there is ambiguity

 

Again I'd have read it completely differently if Acey had posted it

 

And If Billy52 or anybody calling themselves "Daz" had apparently started a thread by quoting Schopenhauer I'd assume that their account had been hacked.

 

Well spotted. It would of course be more correct to say "because no overwhelming evidence indicating that this will happen has been observed yet."

 

still, all this thread attempted to do was view the issues we have in a different context - I never attempted to tell anyone so in this thread

 

It couldn't be completely neutral because it came from you.

 

if it was unambiguous it could - and equally it depends in who you consider the thread came from. Jammy T or the person behind Jammy T. Jammy T is just a personna, and may or may not always accurately reflect the real person behind the personna

 

It's actually not a bad thread for a forum that has been getting a bit stale of late and surely if he had no interest in it then surley he wouldn't have posted.

 

unless he had more interest attempting to undermine the thread because of the source of the posts

 

It is pretty accurate for one of those people though.

 

I cant do the clever stuff with separating quotes

[Guest JamboRobbo]

Posts by yourself, JR et al do tend to have a common agenda usually something along the lines of

 

Don't drag me into this. My only agenda is HMFC being successfull on the football park on a Saturday.

[Guest JamboRobbo]

It is pretty accurate for one of those people though.

 

Subtle digs at people without having the balls to name them. Classy.

[Charlie-Brown]

Truth is a function of time - just ask Galileo or Copernicus or Giordano Bruno. Todays 'truth' might not be tomorrows 'truth' - new knowledge often brings a change of understanding and a fundamental change of 'truth'....everything is relative there is no such thing as absolute truth.

[bighusref]

"A bit of fun" as one of the most reasoned posters on this board mentioned

 

Woosh! Someone else must have mentioned it, you cannot mean me!

[topcat]

Nice reply TC

 

OK, do you think any kind of physchology or philosophy can be applied to Vlad in ascertaining whether the truth is that he is either good for us, or wrong for us (as a football club)

 

Factually we dont know for sure - no matter how much it is debated that it is self evident.

 

So can are there any pointers out there? From your own knowledge and experience?

 

I don't know much about psychology (though I can spell it) but I do know a bit about logic and I would suggest that the question is flawed principally because it is a false dichotomy.

 

It presupposes that one of two statements is true "Vlad is good for us (as a football club)" or "Vlad is wrong for us (as a football club)".

 

I would also argue that both statements can be safely rejected if they're going to be taken in absolute terms.

 

So the proper logical response is "Compared to what?" (Commonly known on JKB as the 'what's the alternative?' argument).

 

It also ignores the deeper more interesting question of quite what "we" want (as a football club).

 

Even if we could predict what's going to happen next and compare it to a counterfactual alternative reality without Romanov involvement how would we say which one was better. If your hypothetical alternative is particularly utiopian (or dystopian) then it's easy but otherwise it may depend on your answers to some, all or none of these questions

 

How important is playing at Tynecastle?

Would "we" rather have finished 3rd,4th and 5th(for example) as opposed to 2nd, 4th and 7th? .

Does it matter how many Scottish players we have?

Does having people who read the Record take the mickey out of your team upset you?

How important is it that Hearts at least attempt to grow into a bigger outfit?

Do you like Rollercoasters?

Do you care about the headline debt figures or the underlying economic relationship with the investors?

 

My answers to these and many more questions will be different from yours which will be different from the next person. Precisely describing what Hearts supporters want is a practically impossible task.

 

I would go as far as to suggest that most of the debates on this forum fundamentally boil down to questions of taste as opposed to questions of fact.

[topcat]

Subtle digs at people without having the balls to name them. Classy.

 

I didn't think HoG would need named

 

He's obviously the biggest ****on that list

[Acey]

I didn't think HoG would need named

 

He's obviously the biggest **** on that list

 

 

Btw, you did me a disservice, topcat, when you said:

 

I would dispute Acey is essentially saying anything posted by those listed is not worth really thinking about.

 

That was exactly what I was saying.

[topcat]

Truth is a function of time - just ask Galileo or Copernicus or Giordano Bruno. Todays 'truth' might not be tomorrows 'truth' - new knowledge often brings a change of understanding and a fundamental change of 'truth'....everything is relative there is no such thing as absolute truth.

 

That's right up there with "This Statement is false".

[topcat]

Don't drag me into this. My only agenda is HMFC being successfull on the football park on a Saturday.

 

Sorry

 

Whether your agenda is open, hidden, conscious, unconscious or purely imagined by the reader it will have an impact on how the reader attributes meaning to your words. It was intended to illustrate a point of semiotics as opposed to be a personal comment.

[magicTs]

Truth is a function of time - just ask Galileo or Copernicus or Giordano Bruno. Todays 'truth' might not be tomorrows 'truth' - new knowledge often brings a change of understanding and a fundamental change of 'truth'....everything is relative there is no such thing as absolute truth.

 

The truth is I detested Romanov yesterday, I detest him today and I will detest him tomorrow and the day after.........

[Charlie-Brown]

That's right up there with "This Statement is false".

 

Our understanding & knowledge is incomplete, therefore truth can only ever be incomplete & provisional, if truth is provisional then it has the possibility of changing, if truth is changeable it therefore cannot be absolute. Science proved this centuries ago!

 

Therefore truth is (possibly) changeable over time.

[Charlie-Brown]

The truth is I detested Romanov yesterday, I detest him today and I will detest him tomorrow and the day after.........

 

But you didn't always detest him, once upon a time you didn't even know of him, in future you may not always detest him - therefore it is not truth but just your provisionally changeable opinion.

[topcat]

Our understanding & knowledge is incomplete, therefore truth can only ever be incomplete & provisional, if truth is provisional then it has the possibility of changing, if truth is changeable it therefore cannot be absolute. Science proved this centuries ago!

 

Therefore truth is (possibly) changeable over time.

 

You're confusing perception with truth.

 

This is the central fallacy of epistemic relativism

[Charlie-Brown]

You're confusing perception with truth.

 

This is the central fallacy of epistemic relativism

 

Well in that case then truth is that nothing is separate - everything is part of everything else & inter-connected.

[stuart500]

I'm an eternal optimist - well, actually, I've always preferred to be pessimistic as then you can only ever be proved right or pleasantly surprised, but I guess I must be an optimist as I still 'believe' that Vlad is good for Hearts in the long run. I do, however, feel like I'm part of an ever dwindling minority.

 

I think Vlad was ridiculed by the general public and press when he first arrived. He has also been violently opposed by the press (in a ridiculous number of baseless, negative articles), the SFA (in changing the rules to allow them to fine Vlad, in Gordhun Smith vehemently anti-Lithuanian pre-season rant, which was widely supported by the press) and by the General public (having been boo'd by the away end on his last visit to Tynie - I mean, 'eh?'!).

 

I don't think that this then automatically follows that he must, therefore, have been speaking the truth all along, but it certainly would support the OP's theory if Vlad does appoint an 'independent' management team (as to appoint any other kind of team at this stage would be to commit financial suicide), wipe the existing debt (by converting loan to stocks as has been mooted), build the new stand and associated businesses, and eventually end up with a large amount of stock in a football club which is successfull both on and off the field, giving him a far superior outcome in financial, social and political terms - not to mention in terms of corporate reputation - than any other outcome that has been speculated upon by fans, general public and journalists who (much to their collective chagrin) have no insight into Vlad's plans whatsoever!

 

I say, why listen to these baseless theories and prophecies of doom when they are not based on anything more solid than any of the stuff eminating from JKB's shed? Why give them further weight, in your own mind, than the statements coming from Hearts! I know a lot of people feel more comfortable prophecising doom - I think, psychologically, there's a feeling of "if I say it, it won't happen", but the collective effect is to create an atmosphere of complete mistrust - this is something, I believe, that the SFA/Weegie Press have been trying to achieve since day one (V Day?) and all we are doing is helping them (the Scotsman had an article 2 weeks ago based on the results of a negative/anti Vlad poll on JKB! I've never once seen them quote a positive poll, not a poll from any other supporters' websites).

 

And I dinnae care if you think my position warrants abuse - I'm still firmly of the opinion that Vlad only bought us to make money, and he can only do that if he does the rebuild and increases turnover sufficiently to repay the debt and to give his (currently worthless) stock a decent value.

 

Yes - I admit it. I still BELIEVE! (haven't renewed my ST yet but fully intend to do so)

 

A refreshing post.

 

I think that there are still plenty people on here who would agree with that but really dont bother to post as it's a pointless exercise trying to out shout the wrist-slitters, moaners and self appointed "saviours" of our club, for whom Vlad is the anti-christ, who refuse to believe that things can be turned around given time and a little patience.

[topcat]

Well in that case then truth is that nothing is separate - everything is part of everything else & inter-connected.

 

Is that absolutely true?

[Charlie-Brown]

Is that absolutely true?

 

It is Tao.

[Seymour M Hersh]

It is Tao.

 

Sounds more like the String Theory that some Physicists believe unifies all the forces of nature!!

[Jammy T]

I don't know much about psychology (though I can spell it) but I do know a bit about logic and I would suggest that the question is flawed principally because it is a false dichotomy.

 

It presupposes that one of two statements is true "Vlad is good for us (as a football club)" or "Vlad is wrong for us (as a football club)".

 

I would also argue that both statements can be safely rejected if they're going to be taken in absolute terms.

 

So the proper logical response is "Compared to what?" (Commonly known on JKB as the 'what's the alternative?' argument).

 

It also ignores the deeper more interesting question of quite what "we" want (as a football club).

 

Even if we could predict what's going to happen next and compare it to a counterfactual alternative reality without Romanov involvement how would we say which one was better. If your hypothetical alternative is particularly utiopian (or dystopian) then it's easy but otherwise it may depend on your answers to some, all or none of these questions

 

How important is playing at Tynecastle?

Would "we" rather have finished 3rd,4th and 5th(for example) as opposed to 2nd, 4th and 7th? .

Does it matter how many Scottish players we have?

Does having people who read the Record take the mickey out of your team upset you?

How important is it that Hearts at least attempt to grow into a bigger outfit?

Do you like Rollercoasters?

Do you care about the headline debt figures or the underlying economic relationship with the investors?

 

My answers to these and many more questions will be different from yours which will be different from the next person. Precisely describing what Hearts supporters want is a practically impossible task.

 

I would go as far as to suggest that most of the debates on this forum fundamentally boil down to questions of taste as opposed to questions of fact.

 

Spelling japes?

 

There are some basic fundamentals though that all Hearts fans would agree upon.

 

Hearts going bust - bad

Hearts spending fortunes of money without achieving any measure of sucess with that money - bad (the measurement of success being difficult in Scotland but what has nearly always applied to Hearts in recent history is success = europe qualification and "a good run in the cups")

Hearts increasing merchandising incomes - good

 

Disagree with that list of course if you wish

 

The finer detail of what each Hearts fan thinks is right or wrong for the club or is good or bad will of course differ. And none of any of these differences mean each individual fan is right or wrong

 

Whilst you may or may not think there is any sike-o-logical backdrop upon which decisions can be made about whether Romanov is right or wrong for Hearts in respect of the base requirements of our passion for a football club, I do think the Romanov camp are heavily into psychological "relationship" with the fans.

 

Interesting thread - as much for the overt and covert preconceptions within posts - as the subject matter itself

 

Probably withering to a close but the message appears to be, not only can no persuasive judgement be made about Romanov based upon fact, but neither can any decisive insight be gained from studying his actions from a different perspective

 

So whether the original quote is right or not, applicable or not, it does appear that not until whatever we argue and debate about Romanov on here becomes self evident to all, will we know collectively what, if anything, we need to do.

[John Gentleman]

Let's stick to the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle, ie. the reality rather than the philosophy of what constitutes 'truth'.

 

It's been passed down from generation to generation and has stood the test of time:

 

"If something seems too good to be true, then in all probability it is".

 

The best predictor of the future is the modus operandi used in the past.

 

Vladimir Romanov is totally and utterly incapable of changing his ways. He's a hard-wired, boilerplated, megalomaniac control freak.

 

IMHO.

[rossthejambo]

have to say im someone who still believes that VR will change his ways. apparently if you think that these days you are "wrong".

 

have to say im with Acey on this one in thinking that this is an "I told you so" thread and its quite disappointing tbh.

 

however i dont think my arguements are quite as intelligent as some of the previous posts