Go on Russia....sort out Lharsson and his mates

[coppercrutch]

It's pretty poor labelling anyone as either of those things. Despite what anyone is labelled, we are all Hearts fans after all.

 

It's also boring in th extreme. Major snorecore.

 

I agree. If people stop the 'mini hun' labelling then we can all be happy. Until that happens however I will feel a need to point out the inaccuracies and hypocrisy of certain posts.

 

No harm in that. I am a new age crusader !!

[Pants Shaton]

I care very deeply about Norwich City, thank you very much - just as I do about Heart of Midlothian. All I'm guilty of is an unusual stance based on my own personal background, and profound dislike of tribalism and/or hate. Tomaschek made a big difference to one of my favourite Hearts sides: the Niemi/Cameron/Jackson/McSwegan vintage of 99/0, and I generally felt he was the invisible cog which made the wheel turn.

 

Supporting a football club is not a rational pursuit.

 

Supporting a football club is a form of tribalism; how could it not be?

 

Otherwise you could constantly change your club based on where you currently live; the team the majority of your friends/colleagues support; the team which currently plays the 'best football'; or the team which is currently most successful.

 

The fact is you don't. The minimum requirement for being a fan of a club is to remain faithful to that club and not support its direct competition.

 

I can't help but feel that by applying reason fastidiously (even reducing down our 4-0 semi win to salary ratios and overall spend) to an area of life where, for most people, reason is temporarily suspended, you squeeze a great deal of enjoyment out of the experience.

 

Tribalism in a footballing context (where it avoids bigotry, prejudice and violence) seems a healthy outlet for normal human impulses. Scottish football without tribalism is just a bunch of overpaid halfwits kicking an inflated leather sphere.

[Therapist]

Everyone on here sees right through you're little game, so don't go thinking otherwise.

 

Whatever.

 

I'm sure you're right. At least in your own mind.

[Guest JamboRobbo]

Whatever.

 

I'm sure you're right. At least in your own mind.

 

Wow. A post that didn't mention Rangers, Celtic, Linfield or England.

 

Congratulations.

[Therapist]

Wow. A post that didn't mention Rangers, Celtic, Linfield or England.

 

Congratulations.

 

Did you know that Rangers and Linfield play in the same colours, and that the former competes with Celtic in the Scottish Premier League. I will not have much more time on here today as I am heading to Edinburgh airport soon to catch a flight to East Midlands airport in England as I am at the British round of MotoGP for the next two days.

 

Is that better?

[topcat]

Did you know that Rangers and Linfield play in the same colours, and that the former competes with Celtic in the Scottish Premier League. I will not have much more time on here today as I am heading to Edinburgh airport soon to catch a flight to East Midlands airport in England as I am at the British round of MotoGP for the next two days.

 

Is that better?

 

You missed a trick

[Guest JamboRobbo]

Did you know that Rangers and Linfield play in the same colours, and that the former competes with Celtic in the Scottish Premier League. I will not have much more time on here today as I am heading to Edinburgh airport soon to catch a flight to East Midlands airport in England as I am at the British round of MotoGP for the next two days.

 

Is that better?

 

Dont' know about better. But certainly a lot more in character with everything else you post.

[Guest Dipped Flake]

Have kept out of these sort of posts for a while as they do my head in. There are certain posters that I hope just post their rangers-leaning nonsense just to wind people up and if the rest of us, the vast majority of Hearts supporters that hate all that rubbish just ignore them then maybe they will just fade away. I can't be bothered anymore arguing on their threads, or should that be thhhhhhhhhreads and I suggest the rest do the same.

all IMHO of course, feel free to do as you like:)

[Samster]

 

Free speech is alive and well in Samster's world.

 

And how exactly does one determine "favouring"?

 

Commenting positively on a media/press story about [insert OF club]?

 

Commenting positively on [insert OF club]'s performance(s)?

 

Saying one was happy that [insert OF club] beat [insert OF club]?

 

Saying one hopes that [insert OF club] beats one of their European opponents?

 

Saying [insert player] who plays for [insert OF club] is very good.

 

Your suggestion is as stupid as it is ill-conceived and unworkable, and I humbly suggest you get a grip.

 

Regrading my use of smilies in connection with the coefficient, this was intended to be ironic. None of the dingbats who cite the coefficient as one of the reasons why they want a result to turn out in a particular way actually understand how it workd. It was not an indication that I support Rangers FC. I trust this clarifies matters to the questioner's satisfaction. But if it doesn't....tough.

 

Don't give me any of that free speech crap, everyone is allowed that on this board.

 

You indulge in trolling of the highest order, which I thought was not allowed, to try and get a rise out of people. And hey, congratulations it works.

 

All the Lharsson this and Bhoruc that is just pathetic.

[PresidentRomanov]

Wow. A post that didn't mention Rangers, Celtic, Linfield or England.

 

Congratulations.

 

Wow. A post that didn't moan about Vlad.

 

Congratulations.

[coppercrutch]

Don't give me any of that free speech crap, everyone is allowed that on this board.

 

You indulge in trolling of the highest order, which I thought was not allowed, to try and get a rise out of people. And hey, congratulations it works.

 

All the Lharsson this and Bhoruc that is just pathetic.

 

?10,000 cash payment. Lets get the lawyers set up. Subject - There is no such thing as free speech on this board.

 

I have the proof. In fact lets make it ?20,000. Why not easy money for me. Money where mouth is.

 

Lets go. Usual keyboard full of it all and not prepared to actually have the balls to admit when they are wrong.

 

There is no free speech on this board. That is a fact. 100%.

 

Admit it or end up looking like a grade 'A' loser for the rest of your time on this board.

 

Good day.

 

[topcat]

?10,000 cash payment. Lets get the lawyers set up. Subject - There is no such thing as free speech on this board.

 

I have the proof. In fact lets make it ?20,000. Why not easy money for me. Money where mouth is.

 

Lets go. Usual keyboard full of it all and not prepared to actually have the balls to admit when they are wrong.

 

There is no free speech on this board. That is a fact. 100%.

 

Admit it or end up looking like a grade 'A' loser for the rest of your time on this board.

 

Good day.

 

 

I'd redefine your terms before talking about large bets.

If your hypothesis is

There is no free speech on this board

 

The Antihypothesis is

There is some free speech on this board

 

Which, without wanting to prejudge your debate, looks easier to support

[coppercrutch]

I'd redefine your terms before talking about large bets.

If your hypothesis is

There is no free speech on this board

 

The Antihypothesis is

There is some free speech on this board

 

Which, without wanting to prejudge your debate, looks easier to support

 

Ah. So it's some free speech now eh.

 

The poster said 'Everyone is allowed that on this board'.

 

That being 'free speech'

 

There is no free speech on this board and everyone knows it. Show me the ****ing money if you disagree....

 

I don't reckon I will be heading to the bank in the near future.

[coppercrutch]

Anyway the point of my drunken rant is that anyone who thinks of this place as a 'bastion of free speech' needs their head examined.

 

Whether this hiding of various opinions is for the right reasons or not is besides the point.

 

Back to the epoint. Russian are a good team but they are very unlikely to win this tournament.

 

They had about 5 chances last night to get a scary score that would have put the ****ters up all the other teams. Instead they fannied about. A winning team would not have done that. IMO.

[Pants Shaton]

I'd redefine your terms before talking about large bets.

If your hypothesis is

There is no free speech on this board

 

The Antihypothesis is

There is some free speech on this board

 

Which, without wanting to prejudge your debate, looks easier to support

 

Surely the opposite of no free speech would be total free speech, not some?

 

The concept of limited free speech is, arguably, oxymoronic.

[Toggie88]

The above has got to me one of the most retarded arguments ever on this bored.

[Toggie88]

Surely the opposite of no free speech would be total free speech, not some?

 

The concept of limited free speech is, arguably, oxymoronic.

 

Who ****ing cares?

[Pants Shaton]

Who ****ing cares?

 

Evidently you.

[Makween]

Conspiracy theory of the year.

 

Hands down.

 

The " " smiley is 2 characters long.

 

The word "Therapist" has 9 letters in it.

 

The word "Therapist" has 3 syllables in it.

 

3 is the square root of 9.

 

The number used to represent a square number is...2!!!!!!!!!

 

COINCIDENCE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

Seriously, the roundabout logic of some posters on this thread is hilarious. Has it slipped anyone's notice that there isn't actually anything inherently bigoted in having Unionist views? I'll leave you all to work out the irony of holding such a view for yourselves.

 

As for "mini Tim" characteristics, one thing that I've noticed from the Dhims is that they like to accuse any and every viewpoint which differs from their own as being "Hunnish" - there are very many people on Kickback who seem similar.

[K1874M]

The " " smiley is 2 characters long.

 

The word "Therapist" has 9 letters in it.

 

The word "Therapist" has 3 syllables in it.

 

3 is the square root of 9.

 

The number used to represent a square number is...2!!!!!!!!!

 

COINCIDENCE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Seriously, the roundabout logic of some posters on this thread is hilarious. Has it slipped anyone's notice that there isn't actually anything inherently bigoted in having Unionist views? I'll leave you all to work out the irony of holding such a view for yourselves.

 

As for "mini Tim" characteristics, one thing that I've noticed from the Dhims is that they like to accuse any and every viewpoint which differs from their own as being "Hunnish" - there are very many people on Kickback who seem similar

.

 

Well said.

 

Only just read this thread and its pretty funny. C.Harris has made some fine points too.

[shaun.lawson]

Ah. So it's some free speech now eh.

 

The poster said 'Everyone is allowed that on this board'.

 

That being 'free speech'

 

There is no free speech on this board and everyone knows it. Show me the ****ing money if you disagree....

 

I don't reckon I will be heading to the bank in the near future.

 

Claptrap. Free speech rules OK, on Kickback as much as anywhere else. If people accuse those they disagree with of being 'mini Huns', then unless it's escaped your notice, they are utilising their right to free speech in the process - just as your admirable efforts to provoke and seek controversy, which I always enjoy reading, are all part of your right to free speech too.

[shaun.lawson]

Personally speaking I comment on these sort of threads because I find them interesting. It is intriguing to see different viewpoints on certain matters.

 

Many times when I open other threads people have already posted what I was going to say so I don't feel the need:

 

For example a thread titled "Is Clum rank?".

 

There is no need for me even to view that thread as I am certain my view will have been already stated.

 

Or another thread such as "Is Neilson a **** footballer ?"

 

Again there is no need for me even to view that thread as I am certain my view will have been already stated.

 

Threads about mini huns, the OF, SFA bias, team selection, managers, the media, the economy, Vlad, the stadium, player ratings etc.... all interest me. There may be some decnt ponts and debate on those threads. A lot of the other threads are just filled with ****.

 

Anyway that is just me, anyone else in the same boat ?

 

Whereas here, I entirely agree. Each to their own, I suppose.

[shaun.lawson]

Supporting a football club is not a rational pursuit.

 

Supporting a football club is a form of tribalism; how could it not be?

 

Otherwise you could constantly change your club based on where you currently live; the team the majority of your friends/colleagues support; the team which currently plays the 'best football'; or the team which is currently most successful.

 

The fact is you don't. The minimum requirement for being a fan of a club is to remain faithful to that club and not support its direct competition.

 

I can't help but feel that by applying reason fastidiously (even reducing down our 4-0 semi win to salary ratios and overall spend) to an area of life where, for most people, reason is temporarily suspended, you squeeze a great deal of enjoyment out of the experience.

 

Tribalism in a footballing context (where it avoids bigotry, prejudice and violence) seems a healthy outlet for normal human impulses. Scottish football without tribalism is just a bunch of overpaid halfwits kicking an inflated leather sphere.

 

Sorry GMAN, only just saw this. In many ways, you're right - but this isn't to say that I'm not perfectly capable of being irrational myself. Choosing both Hearts and Norwich to support was, you might argue, irrational; and being stuck on both for life is also arguably irrational. Rooting for whoever was playing Portugal at Euro 2008, and delighting in their downfall on Thursday, was hardly the height of reason on my part either.

 

However, there is a line whereby tribalism ceases to be harmless, and becomes something much more unpleasant. Back in the 50s and early 60s, many Hearts and Hibs fans used to go to the other's home games every other week - and they were hardly any less in love with their clubs for doing so. Then segregation came in, and everything changed. But I know I'm not alone among football fans across the UK for glorying in the rivalry, but feeling aghast at some of the things that sometimes go with it - and personally, really like being able to go on other messageboards and being able to debate footie without all the "Hibees are gay", "107 years" stuff that would otherwise get in the way.

 

Moreover, I was certainly always able to celebrate wins against Hibs prior to Romanov's arrival. That I take such a detached stance now is, surely, just part of the disconnect so many Jambos feel: because I've effectively renounced Romanov's ways of doing things, so it's only natural if I can't get that excited about any success under his watch. That I am so detached is undoubtedly a form of protection on my part, and can only be understood in the context of my abusive upbringing, as well as my being the grandson of a Holocaust survivor. It shouldn't be hard to understand why I've evolved as I have given such a background, but we're all individuals, and are all bound to have various different reactions based on experience and, simply, who we are as people.

[MacDonald Jardine]

Sorry GMAN, only just saw this. In many ways, you're right - but this isn't to say that I'm not perfectly capable of being irrational myself. Choosing both Hearts and Norwich to support was, you might argue, irrational; and being stuck on both for life is also arguably irrational. Rooting for whoever was playing Portugal at Euro 2008, and delighting in their downfall on Thursday, was hardly the height of reason on my part either.

 

However, there is a line whereby tribalism ceases to be harmless, and becomes something much more unpleasant. Back in the 50s and early 60s, many Hearts and Hibs fans used to go to the other's home games every other week - and they were hardly any less in love with their clubs for doing so. Then segregation came in, and everything changed. But I know I'm not alone among football fans across the UK for glorying in the rivalry, but feeling aghast at some of the things that sometimes go with it - and personally, really like being able to go on other messageboards and being able to debate footie without all the "Hibees are gay", "107 years" stuff that would otherwise get in the way.

 

Moreover, I was certainly always able to celebrate wins against Hibs prior to Romanov's arrival. That I take such a detached stance now is, surely, just part of the disconnect so many Jambos feel: because I've effectively renounced Romanov's ways of doing things, so it's only natural if I can't get that excited about any success under his watch. That I am so detached is undoubtedly a form of protection on my part, and can only be understood in the context of my abusive upbringing, as well as my being the grandson of a Holocaust survivor. It shouldn't be hard to understand why I've evolved as I have given such a background, but we're all individuals, and are all bound to have various different reactions based on experience and, simply, who we are as people.

 

Wrong: the crowds changed necessitating segregation.

There was a lot of trouble at Hearts/Hibs games before segregation came in.

 

Without trying to belittle anything I really don't understand the last paragraph.

What has your background got to do with Romanov's methods?

[Makween]

Wrong: the crowds changed necessitating segregation.

There was a lot of trouble at Hearts/Hibs games before segregation came in.

 

Without trying to belittle anything I really don't understand the last paragraph.

What has your background got to do with Romanov's methods?

 

Shaun's fifteen page reply may take a while. I'd make myself a cup of tea, if I was you.

[shaun.lawson]

Wrong: the crowds changed necessitating segregation.

There was a lot of trouble at Hearts/Hibs games before segregation came in.

 

Without trying to belittle anything I really don't understand the last paragraph.

What has your background got to do with Romanov's methods?

 

It has to do with why I always veer towards reason rather than emotion when looking at things, even in the case of a club I love and support. So Romanov's had no 'hold' over me: I can't stand what he's done, and say so, whereas others might keep schtum because they don't like criticising something that's precious to them.

 

I stand corrected on the first point, by the way - and I guess any thesis looking at why crowds changed would really have to look at social changes in the 60s and especially the 70s. Which fear not, even I'm not about to bore everyone to sleep on here by attempting!

[shaun.lawson]

Shaun's fifteen page reply may take a while. I'd make myself a cup of tea, if I was you.

 

Au contraire, Sir.

[MacDonald Jardine]

It has to do with why I always veer towards reason rather than emotion when looking at things, even in the case of a club I love and support. So Romanov's had no 'hold' over me: I can't stand what he's done, and say so, whereas others might keep schtum because they don't like criticising something that's precious to them.

 

I stand corrected on the first point, by the way - and I guess any thesis looking at why crowds changed would really have to look at social changes in the 60s and especially the 70s. Which fear not, even I'm not about to bore everyone to sleep on here by attempting!

 

Thanks for replying.

Out of interest what exactly do you object to with Romanov?

Did you feel the same with Burley in charge?

And if so how would you like Hearts to be run?

[topcat]

Surely the opposite of no free speech would be total free speech, not some?

 

Obviously "total" would be the opposite of "none"

 

However "some" would be the reverse of "none", in that that either the statement or the reverse is true

 

Total and none could both be false and to ignore that leads you into the kind of false dichotomy that's all to common on here.

 

The concept of limited free speech is, arguably, oxymoronic.

 

Only if you take freedom to only imply absolute freedom. As speech is by its very nature at least limited by the constraints of language it is the concept of unlimited free speech that appears to be oxymoronic.

[coppercrutch]

Obviously "total" would be the opposite of "none"

 

However "some" would be the reverse of "none", in that that either the statement or the reverse is true

 

Total and none could both be false and to ignore that leads you into the kind of false dichotomy that's all to common on here.

 

 

 

Only if you take freedom to only imply absolute freedom. As speech is by its very nature at least limited by the constraints of language it is the concept of unlimited free speech that appears to be oxymoronic.

 

And in plain English..................

[Makween]

And in plain English..................

 

Literal translation : "I'm having a pointless argument to show everyone how clever I am".

[coppercrutch]

Literal translation : "I'm having a pointless argument to show everyone how clever I am".

 

I see.

 

I understand now - Have to admit I sometimes do it myself....

 

However I try to keep it fairly simple !!

[topcat]

Literal translation : "I'm having a pointless argument to show everyone how clever I am".

 

Hobo!

[Guest JKBMod 9]

Just a friendly reminder; please do not debate the fairness of moderator actions. Free speech is allowed to the extent that it does not contravene the forum rules.

 

Alas, action has unfortunately already been taken in this regard; please don't get yourself in trouble.

 

-9

[jambonian]

I'm sorry, have I stumbled across a Euro2008 forum here!? Thought it was a Hearts one, silly me!

[Pants Shaton]

Sorry GMAN, only just saw this. In many ways, you're right - but this isn't to say that I'm not perfectly capable of being irrational myself. Choosing both Hearts and Norwich to support was, you might argue, irrational; and being stuck on both for life is also arguably irrational. Rooting for whoever was playing Portugal at Euro 2008, and delighting in their downfall on Thursday, was hardly the height of reason on my part either.

 

However, there is a line whereby tribalism ceases to be harmless, and becomes something much more unpleasant. Back in the 50s and early 60s, many Hearts and Hibs fans used to go to the other's home games every other week - and they were hardly any less in love with their clubs for doing so. Then segregation came in, and everything changed. But I know I'm not alone among football fans across the UK for glorying in the rivalry, but feeling aghast at some of the things that sometimes go with it - and personally, really like being able to go on other messageboards and being able to debate footie without all the "Hibees are gay", "107 years" stuff that would otherwise get in the way.

 

Moreover, I was certainly always able to celebrate wins against Hibs prior to Romanov's arrival. That I take such a detached stance now is, surely, just part of the disconnect so many Jambos feel: because I've effectively renounced Romanov's ways of doing things, so it's only natural if I can't get that excited about any success under his watch. That I am so detached is undoubtedly a form of protection on my part, and can only be understood in the context of my abusive upbringing, as well as my being the grandson of a Holocaust survivor. It shouldn't be hard to understand why I've evolved as I have given such a background, but we're all individuals, and are all bound to have various different reactions based on experience and, simply, who we are as people.

 

Fair as always.

 

The tribal aspect to supporting a football club can, I believe, be relatively harmless fun. The reworking of Seven Nation Army at Hampden was a genuine moment of spontaneous football comedy. In years to come we might shudder at how backwards it seems but I don't think it was dangerous homophobia. How you can't find 107 amusing, I really don't understand - as you say we're all different. As I think you've said before though, the rivalry helps define us.

 

Much as I regard Romanov as a malignant little *****, I didn't savour the highlights of 2005/2006 any less because they were bankrolled by him. The days of a team of local lads gelling together and remaining loyal to a club (if such a time ever existed) are well behind us. I suspect we either get used to that or resign ourselves to enjoying our football a lot less.

[Guest gorgie kev]

Just a friendly reminder; please do not debate the fairness of moderator actions. Free speech is allowed to the extent that it does not contravene the forum rules.

 

Alas, action has unfortunately already been taken in this regard; please don't get yourself in trouble.

 

-9

 

It's like being in Zimbabwe

[shaun.lawson]

Fair as always.

 

The tribal aspect to supporting a football club can, I believe, be relatively harmless fun. The reworking of Seven Nation Army at Hampden was a genuine moment of spontaneous football comedy. In years to come we might shudder at how backwards it seems but I don't think it was dangerous homophobia. How you can't find 107 amusing, I really don't understand - as you say we're all different. As I think you've said before though, the rivalry helps define us.

 

Much as I regard Romanov as a malignant little *****, I didn't savour the highlights of 2005/2006 any less because they were bankrolled by him. The days of a team of local lads gelling together and remaining loyal to a club (if such a time ever existed) are well behind us. I suspect we either get used to that or resign ourselves to enjoying our football a lot less.

 

No no, I do find 107 amusing! That one of Scotland's Big Five has failed to win the national Cup competition in 107 years of trying is both extraordinary, and very very funny. I just don't feel the need to go on and on about it - not least because if we do, that surely puts us on the same level as those Hibs fans with nothing but 7-0, 6-2 or Albert Kidd to say whenever they meet a Jambo...

 

I also found Seven Nation Army very amusing too - indeed, a big reason I got so into football was because fans can often be so original, and so funny. Except that nowadays, vitriol and hatred for its own sake seems to happen more, and humour, less, which is a huge pity in my view. As for Romanov: well, sure. More and more clubs will be taken over by wealthy foreigners with no obvious emotional connection to the club - but if they don't trample over the club's history, treat its employees and fans like **** and generally behave with a bit of dignity, then I'd be fine with it. The problem with Vlad is he's generally done the reverse: hence the disconnect.

[shaun.lawson]

Thanks for replying.

Out of interest what exactly do you object to with Romanov?

Did you feel the same with Burley in charge?

And if so how would you like Hearts to be run?

 

Good questions, all. What do I object to with Romanov? It's that, while presiding over ever increasing levels of debt which lock us into his ownership for better or worse, his modus operandi - namely, showcasing - is wholly at odds with the club developing a successful, winning team. Putting players from his own country in the shop window was, plainly, a very big motivation behind his interest in Scottish football in the first place - but as it leads him to dictate the selection of certain players, it's prevented us from appointing a proper manager, and left us drifting along going nowhere fast.

 

The bottom line is, I don't think he's prepared to stop showcasing: meaning I don't think any decent manager will come here. And without a manager, we've seen all kinds of cliques in the squad, poor morale, poor fitness and attitudes and so on: again, surely because many players know that Hearts winning football matches is not the club's top priority. We're effectively being run remotely from another country, by someone who isn't hands on enough to ensure we're run efficiently, but interferes enough to mess up our chances of developing a consistent team. Not a happy combination, to put it mildly.

 

Ultimately, what this has all led to is a sense that we can't connect with Hearts players any more: they're just eleven faceless automatons who turn up, put on a maroon jersey, collect their wages and go home. Football has to be about more than that - and is in the case of most other clubs across the UK. I didn't feel like this under Burley because we still had a spine we could identify with - Gordon, Pressley, Webster, Hartley - and the signings we made were bought or loaned because they were quality: it had very little to do with any shop window. As a very good young manager, Burley's presence legitimised what we were doing, and reassured the supporters that Vlad was both good for the club, and really meant business. But the moment he got full control, the trouble started, leading to where we are now.

 

How would I run the club? Note that I'd be perfectly OK were a benign overseas owner who understood and didn't mess with the club's traditions (for example Randy Lerner) to buy us: but of course, it's very hard to tell beforehand whether a prospective buyer has benign intentions, and there's next to no chance of a Lerner type buying us given how little money there is in Scottish football anyway. So what I'd look to do instead is be humble, learn the lessons of the past decade or so and live within our means: only spending around 60% of turnover on wages, and accepting that we could only challenge the OF by destroying ourselves in the process.

 

So I'd be focusing on youth, developing a Scottish core to the identity of the club, appointing a decent, up-and-coming boss and leaving him to get on with it - and would be targeting European football two out of every three years, and a Cup final here or there too. Doubtless, many Jambos would decry my 'lack of ambition', but on the contrary, I'm as ambitious as they come. But only in a manner that's sustainable, and didn't store up bucketloads of trouble for the medium and long term. Ultimately, my aim would be to turn Hearts into a counterpart to Rosenborg Trondheim, set to take advantage when the OF inevitably leave for a Super League; and while they remained, a third force who people admired, and never lost touch with either its community, or the fans who are its lifeblood.

[PresidentRomanov]

Am I the only one who can't bring myself to read Shuan's replies anymore?

[Makween]

Am I the only one who can't bring myself to read Shuan's replies anymore?

 

I was planning on quoting Shaun's replies and then posting a quick summary to prove that he could've said everything that he wanted to say in about five sentences maximum, but never quite get around to it because I basically can't be arsed reading through each and every treatise of his to do so.

[shaun.lawson]

I was planning on quoting Shaun's replies and then posting a quick summary to prove that he could've said everything that he wanted to say in about five sentences maximum, but never quite get around to it because I basically can't be arsed reading through each and every treatise of his to do so.

 

What, you mean like my two paragraph reply to MacDonald Jardine which you warned him about beforehand?

 

In any case, between us three, this means Kickbackers have a choice between my treatises; PickyBum's tired attempts at windups which, unlike the originator of this thread, are neither funny, original nor effective; and your.... well, what is it you contribute, exactly? Do you exist just to annoy?

[Makween]

What, you mean like my two paragraph reply to MacDonald Jardine which you warned him about beforehand?

 

In any case, between us three, this means Kickbackers have a choice between my treatises; PickyBum's tired attempts at windups which, unlike the originator of this thread, are neither funny, original nor effective; and your.... well, what is it you contribute, exactly? Do you exist just to annoy?

 

Six lines of text. Well done, Shaun, keep up the good work.

 

In answer to your question, no. I do not exist just to annoy.