What If ...

[Ramondo]

Rattea asked the question 'what if'?.

One of the most important questions in mankind's history. Without it we'd still be living in wood huts.

But people who criticise him for jumping on people's opinions immediately jump in on this one, criticising him for being negative. It's a straight forward question, nothing negative about it. It would seem to be a valid one, regards of whether it comes true or not.

A naive post from a camp follower. Straightforward post my a... . ( in the context of all his other posts).

Ask yourself why so many no longer post on here.
Rattea's disreputable attitude to others and
his role as a mod leave a nasty taste.

If the other mods had anything about them they would have got rid.[/quote]

A somewhat blinkered view.

You are judging the post based on previous posts. You've just done it again there. People have ignored what is a perfectly reasonable q

[dcfcdavecov]

A somewhat blinkered view, no?

The question is a negative one. End of a very short story.

[Ramondo]

A somewhat blinkered view, no?

The question is a negative one. End of a very short story.

No Dave, it isn't.

It's a question. When we pose any question there is the potential for it be seen as negative because it usually challenges something.

So if we are going to condemn someone for questioning something then where does that lead us.

Does Rats have a negative view of the club right now? Yes, he has made that clear. Does that mean he can't ask a 'what if' question? No it doesn't.

Can I remind a few people that if we go back a couple of years with the same owners and similar budget levels, many people coming onto this forum were putting forward nothing but constant negativity about the way the club was being run. In contrast, Rattea was positive. Now the team are playing well, those negatives views of the owners have all but disappeared. We don't see any more 'Yanks out' threads, no more protests laying wreaths outside the

[Rapid]

it's not a question of negativity ray, it's a question of a personal vendetta against sam rush.

I think the question was a reasonable one whether it's negative or not, hence I took it on it's merit and gave a appropriate reply.

but do you believe there was no ulterior motive behind it?

[Ramondo]

it's not a question of negativity ray, it's a question of a personal vendetta against sam rush.

I think the question was a reasonable one whether it's negative or not, hence I took it on it's merit and gave a appropriate reply.

but do you believe there was no ulterior motive behind it?

But that's just speculation. If we keep applying that to the motives behind posts then we spend more time on that than we do on the important stuff. Which has happened on this thread.

We all know Rats isn't a fan of Rush but there were many that had massive problems with Appleby and Glick, as well as Clough. They posted accordingly, in the same way that Rats posts negatively about Rush.

It doesn't really matter. I don't agree with him but I may be wrong in the long run or he might be. I just think that when a debatable question is posed, it's better to debate that question rather than wasting valuable time discussing the reasons behind it.

[dcfcdavecov]

A somewhat blinkered view, no?

The question is a negative one. End of a very short story.

No Dave, it isn't.

It's a question. When we pose any question there is the potential for it be seen as negative because it usually challenges something.

So if we are going to condemn someone for questioning something then where does that lead us.

Does Rats have a negative view of the club right now? Yes, he has made that clear. Does that mean he can't ask a 'what if' question? No it doesn't.

Can I remind a few people that if we go back a couple of years with the same owners and similar budget levels, many people coming onto this forum were putting forward nothing but constant negativity about the way the club was being run. In contrast, Rattea was positive. Now the team are playing well, those negatives views of the owners have all but disappeared. We don't see any more 'Yanks out' threads,

[Ramondo]

A somewhat blinkered view, no?

The question is a negative one. End of a very short story.

No Dave, it isn't.

It's a question. When we pose any question there is the potential for it be seen as negative because it usually challenges something.

So if we are going to condemn someone for questioning something then where does that lead us.

Does Rats have a negative view of the club right now? Yes, he has made that clear. Does that mean he can't ask a 'what if' question? No it doesn't.

Can I remind a few people that if we go back a couple of years with the same owners and similar budget levels, many people coming onto this forum were putting forward nothing but constant negativity about the way the club was being run. In contrast, Rattea was positive. Now the team are playing well, those negatives views of the owners have all but disapp

[blackandwhite56]

A somewhat blinkered view, no?

The question is a negative one. End of a very short story.

No Dave, it isn't.

It's a question. When we pose any question there is the potential for it be seen as negative because it usually challenges something.

So if we are going to condemn someone for questioning something then where does that lead us.

Does Rats have a negative view of the club right now? Yes, he has made that clear. Does that mean he can't ask a 'what if' question? No it doesn't.

Can I remind a few people that if we go back a couple of years with the same owners and similar budget levels, many people coming onto this forum were putting forward nothing but constant negativity about the way the club was being run. In contrast, Rattea was positive. Now the team are playing well, those negatives views of the owners have all but disappeared. We don't see any more 'Yanks out' threads,

[swaledale]

It was a pointless question anyhow, ifs buts and maybes, anyhow Steve's got it covered with Eustace and mascarell end of!

[Ramondo]

Posters are free to respond in whatever way they think fit.

If that is the case, why does anybody have a problem with how Rattea responds?