Are we cursed?

Bus 2 Terrigal said:
You really aren’t great with nuance, are you.
This is a wonderful rant but has nothing to do with the post it purports to answer 🥴

The knee jerk response on this forum to revert to extreme Western Suburbs/Balmain tropes when anyone dares to talk about the fine detail of how the club is set up/presented etc ... is quite depressing.
Click to expand...

Is this post concerning the Wests Tigers or Wests Ts 😂
 
Bus 2 Terrigal said:
If you read back through the posts I said I cared about protecting the Balmain legacy in response to @cochise who said he didn’t.

I find that incredibly sad. I mean you don’t wipe out 2x92 years of magnificent history just because some lily liveried types get triggered if we aren’t robotically mouthing from the exact same hymn sheet. To openly acknowledge our legacy should never be seen as a threat to the here and now.

I would like to think I/we can all be Wests Tigers fans without being told by others how to be a Wests Tigers fan.
Click to expand...
You really don't see that having 3 competing agendas gets us nowhere.

Decisions should be made in the interests of Wests Tigers. Constantly going back to satisfy old Magpies/Balmain administrators or fans has always held us back.

The home ground issue for arguments sake. If they dumped Campbelltown, you'd be indignant, even if it was the best thing for the club.

You are willing to take a worse solution as long as it preserves your personal nostalgia. This is where you and BZN lose everyone.
 
Bus 2 Terrigal said:
You really aren’t great with nuance, are you.
This is a wonderful rant but has nothing to do with the post it purports to answer 🥴

The knee jerk response on this forum to revert to extreme Western Suburbs/Balmain tropes when anyone dares to talk about the fine detail of how the club is set up/presented etc ... is quite depressing.
Click to expand...
😂

Quit deflecting.

There is nothing novel or unique about your opinions.

Nor is there some magical, hidden, intricate messaging or subtle viewpoint that only you are conveying.

Those opinions are ENTIRELY predictable and derivative. What you think is nuanced and specific, has been dusted off and rolled out 436 times before you over the years.

You're just another number in a long line of Magpies and Balmain sycophants longing for the days of old.

That's why you can count your supporters in this discussion on one hand. You're in the dwindling minority.

Once again, you dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge away from ACTUALLY responding to the criticism levelled at your approach and approaches like it.

The bottom line is this;

The majority don't want mention of Balmain or Wests Magpies anymore. The majority want a unified entity, including reserve grade.

You can either accept that, or keep yelling at the clouds about the Magpies until the sun sets.

Your call.
 
I do wonder why those who think the forum discussions on this topic are terrible and should be stopped keep on propagating and fertilising the conversation. Hypocrites.
 
coivtny said:
I do wonder why those who think the forum discussions on this topic are terrible and should be stopped keep on propagating and fertilising the conversation. Hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Any criticism of the other side that also keeps propagating the conversation? Are those people indeed seeking the interactions that you are now calling out? Takes two to tango
 
Kelce68 said:
I did, that's why I asked who you were referring to.

You called people, who you didn't identify, as 'hypocrites'.

Who, exactly, are those people then?
Click to expand...
For a start, I control my content, not you. But I will answer you this way. If you go back in this thread to earlier this morning I called out one poster for this (#156). My point is some members make it clear they find the thread distasteful yet, when it goes quiet, they give it a little push along. That's hypocritical. If that behaviour fits you, then you're a hypocrite. You decide.
 
coivtny said:
For a start, I control my content, not you.
Click to expand...
Did I suggest you shouldn't?

Nice strawman.

coivtny said:
But I will answer you this way. If you go back in this thread to earlier this morning I called out one poster for this (#156). My point is some members make it clear they find the thread distasteful yet, when it goes quiet, they give it a little push along. That's hypocritical. If that behaviour fits you, then you're a hypocrite. You decide.
Click to expand...
Ok, cool, so basically, you're a coward.

You obviously had particular posters in mind when you made the observation you did, but you, still, refuse to name them.

Consider your cowardly snipe irrelevant and ignored.

Back to the discussion then....
 
coivtny said:
For a start, I control my content, not you. But I will answer you this way. If you go back in this thread to earlier this morning I called out one poster for this (#156). My point is some members make it clear they find the thread distasteful yet, when it goes quiet, they give it a little push along. That's hypocritical. If that behaviour fits you, then you're a hypocrite. You decide.
Click to expand...
Soft. Name and shame.
 
The dinosaur brothers just run cover. Never a well constructed point. Never discuss making the club better. Just defend blindly. Trained seals.

I wonder if they'd be this staunch if it was Balmain running the club? Hmmm....unlikely. credibility lost gents.
 
Kelce68 said:
Did I suggest you shouldn't?

Nice strawman.


Ok, cool, so basically, you're a coward.

You obviously had particular posters in mind when you made the observation you did, but you, still, refuse to name them.

Consider your cowardly snipe irrelevant and ignored.

Back to the discussion then....
Click to expand...
Good for you. Your opinion of me is of zero importance. You can’t post on here without personal attacks. My definition of a coward is someone who makes personal attacks from the safety of the keyboard. So, if the cap fits, wear it.
 
Kelce68 said:
😂

Quit deflecting.

There is nothing novel or unique about your opinions.

Nor is there some magical, hidden, intricate messaging or subtle viewpoint that only you are conveying.

Those opinions are ENTIRELY predictable and derivative. What you think is nuanced and specific, has been dusted off and rolled out 436 times before you over the years.

You're just another number in a long line of Magpies and Balmain sycophants longing for the days of old.

That's why you can count your supporters in this discussion on one hand. You're in the dwindling minority.

Once again, you dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge away from ACTUALLY responding to the criticism levelled at your approach and approaches like it.

The bottom line is this;

The majority don't want mention of Balmain or Wests Magpies anymore. The majority want a unified entity, including reserve grade.

You can either accept that, or keep yelling at the clouds about the Magpies until the sun sets.

Your call.
Click to expand...
Once again, you’ve overreacted deluxe.

My posts can very rarely be accused of “yelling at the clouds about the Magpies”. I seem to spend most of my time arguing for the right of posters to mention whatever the hell they want to without being bludgeoned by the Orwellian groupthink.

The majority, as you say, may well want to live in Kelce’s World but that doesn’t mean the minority can’t answer posts when they are fed to them. I haven’t ever started a thread (not from memory anyhow), so everything I’ve posted has been in response. Hardly the MO of someone shoving his opinions onto anyone.

People can have different opinions on things yet still be housed under the same big top. Not sure why you are so threatened by that 🤔
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

... and 2 more.
Total: 930 (members: 52, guests: 878)
Back
Top