Who’s At Fault?

[NaeMairNeeps]

The only possible use I can think of for this thread is to help players like Considine who always get the blame but don't perhaps contribute as much to the f'uck ups as they get the blame for.

Otherwise it's really sad.

Sad maybe, but at least those o' us fa' are actually interested in contributin' are exchangin views on the fitba, and nae takin potshots at each ither's character like in many ither threads.

Dinna like it? ... ignore it. Commentin negatively only serves tae keep it at the top o' the list.

[Redbull666]

Sad maybe, but at least those o' us fa' are actually interested in contributin' are exchangin views on the fitba, and nae takin potshots at each ither's character like in many ither threads.

Dinna like it? ... ignore it. Commentin negatively only serves tae keep it at the top o' the list.

I'm also confused by folk leaving a comment just to say it's a pointless or sad thread. Why not just ignore it? As for McInnes getting points...it's about who on the pitch is at fault for the goals conceded. We could include glaring misses too if it was more general. I think there's plenty of scope for giving McInnes pelfers on the match thread and justifiably so.

[its_a_goal]

Should Logan not get 10 points for the most ridiculous foul for the penalty when there was absolutely no danger.

[Devanha Red]

I'm always baffled by the suggestion if you don't like something you should just ignore it. Absolute idiocy of the highest order that. It's like saying if you dinna like the government just ignore them and let them crack on with it unchallenged 😄

[NaeMairNeeps]

I'm always baffled by the suggestion if you don't like something you should just ignore it. Absolute idiocy of the highest order that. It's like saying if you dinna like the government just ignore them and let them crack on with it unchallenged ��

Difference is, you only have one government .... so of course you should voice displeasure and opposition. This is a forum with thousands of threads .... you can choose which to read respond to, and which do not interest you.

[Redbull666]

I'm always baffled by the suggestion if you don't like something you should just ignore it. Absolute idiocy of the highest order that. It's like saying if you dinna like the government just ignore them and let them crack on with it unchallenged 😄

I agree, that would be idiotic...and cowardly. I didn't say that though, I was talking about a thread on a footie forum. Your attempt to try and compare people not liking a thread (that if ignored will have no impact on their life) to ignoring a government they may dislike (that will likely affect every aspect of their life) is a whole new level of retardidity. For you that's an impressive accomplishment. There...if that was you trying to get a bite...I've duly obliged

[Devanha Red]

To put it simply. People are perfectly entitled and justified to post in any thread they want to without being 'shut down' by self appointed forum polizei. Whether it's to agree with a point made, disagree or even just to voice their opinion on how banal and futile they find a thread.

A forum isn't an echo chamber or at least it shouldn't be. There be dragons.

[NaeMairNeeps]

To put it simply. People are perfectly entitled and justified to post in any thread they want to without being 'shut down' by self appointed forum polizei. Whether it's to agree with a point made, disagree or even just to voice their opinion on how banal and futile they find a thread.

A forum isn't an echo chamber or at least it shouldn't be. There be dragons.

Yes, I agree .... but there are threads that I personally find uninteresting, and even irrelevant.

However, although I am free to post on them, I choose to ignore them for the benefit of others who find them of value ... I generally don't go on those threads to derail them, clutter them, and decry their value ... (admittedly there will be one or two examples) ... that simply fυcks things up for folks who would otherwise participate, contribute appropriately and enjoy them ... and that would indeed be even more 'sad' and 'pointless' than this here thread has been dubbed.

That, without expanding and serving to further derail and clutter this thread, is the point I am making.

I did not 'demand' anyone ignores a thread, but ffs if it bothers folk as much as it appears to, then it is a 'suggestion' which may be of benefit to them ... and others.

[Devanha Red]

Another one I smirk at is the suggestion if somebody doesn't find a thread interesting they just "ignore it".

The exact same advice could be handed straight back. If you don't like a post in a thread then to misquote Dionne Warwick "scroll on by".

I understand it can be frustrating. I myself came very close to locking the 'sevco' thread but in the end I decided against it. We can't be too Stalinist about these matters. Everybody is entitled to their say after all. It's the Aberdeen way.

SF

[NaeMairNeeps]

Another one I smirk at is the suggestion if somebody doesn't find a thread interesting they just "ignore it".

The exact same advice could be handed straight back. If you don't like a post in a thread then to misquote Dionne Warwick "scroll on by".

I understand it can be frustrating. I myself came very close to locking the 'sevco' thread but in the end I decided against it. We can't be too Stalinist about these matters. Everybody is entitled to their say after all. It's the Aberdeen way.

SF

Sorry, I'm confused now .... what have you done with the forum member known as Devanha Red who on at least two occasions advocated the 'locking' of threads? Shaks ma heid.