Tim Watsford ? Any Truth to this

tigeress said:
For all the wrong reasons!
Click to expand...
Yep.
You would think a bloke who was the CEO of a club with such a poor record over his tenure would keep his head down and work hard, but no, let’s invite the damn cameras in for an all exclusive on how to come last. I bet at the CEO get togethers he is the one they all laugh at behind his back, and then there would be some going how the hell does ol’mate keep his job? Oh that’s right he has one basic principle covered, we are apparently so rich and profitable.
I don’t know what this new bloke is like, I will have to rely on the sensational board and pres we have to make the correct decisions.
 
Kelce68 said:
He's done a lot more than that as I pointed out.

I also said it many of us are looking forward to a change.

Im growing tired of responding to people cherrypicking posts and replying to strawman arguments.

So, once more, I was specifically, and deliberately, referring to the financial component only. A part, albeit a significant one, of his job description.
Click to expand...

you asked a question along the lines “would you rather be broke? “.., I answered that scenario is just about impossible these days…

if you want to label that as “cherry-picking “ then that’s on you ..,and it certainly isn a “straw man”
 
Tom Shines said:
Apparently the guy hasn’t even been approached by anyone at the Wests Tigers ..,another swing and a miss from The Mole…
Click to expand...
According to Wests Life podcast- given their strike rate expect him to be appointed CEO this afternoon
 
boonboon said:
According to Wests Life podcast- given their strike rate expect him to be appointed CEO this afternoon
Click to expand...

like the Mole’s strike rate is better ?

Its been out there over 24 hours now … anyone else jumping on the story?
 
Tom Shines said:
you asked a question along the lines “would you rather be broke? “.., I answered that scenario is just about impossible these days…

if you want to label that as “cherry-picking “ then that’s on you ..,and it certainly isn a “straw man”
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

It is, by definition, a straw man argument.

I simply asserted that he has done a fine job financially, of which there is objective, irrefutable evidence.

You argued that it's near on impossible to be broke because of, what, NRL handouts apparently? Besides the fact that assertion is laughably wrong, you made no reference to my original point which was in regards to the job he has done given the tools at his disposal and the situation, financially, the club was in prior to, and then comparatively, at this stage of his tenure as CEO.

Furthermore, by choosing to zero in on the phrase 'rather be broke', which was a clear colloquialism, rather than the post at large, including the examples I provided to support my original argument, you essentially wrote the definition on how to cherrypick in a post.

If you're gonna respond and refute your use of logical fallacies, you should at least know what they are.
 
Kelce68 said:
Incorrect.

It is, by definition, a straw man argument.

I simply asserted that he has done a fine job financially, of which there is objective, irrefutable evidence.

You argued that it's near on impossible to be broke because of, what, NRL handouts apparently? Besides the fact that assertion is laughably wrong, you made no reference to my original point which was in regards to the job he has done given the tools at his disposal and the situation, financially, the club was in prior to, and then comparatively, at this stage of his tenure as CEO.

Furthermore, by choosing to zero in on the phrase 'rather be broke', which was a clear colloquialism, rather than the post at large, including the examples I provided to support my original argument, you essentially wrote the definition on how to cherrypick in a post.

If you're gonna respond and refute your use of logical fallacies, you should at least know what they are.
Click to expand...

Im explained to you the reasons for my post … you can continue to ignore them .. but at the end of the day it’s my response … not yours…if you have interpreted it incorrectly than that’s on you…

What is the definition of “straw man argument “ that are you relying on … i would be keen to see this and how my response applies to fit this definition…

I will stand by what I have said….namely with the NRL grants these days there would need to be a level of incompetence from management to send any NRL club broke …if that continues to annoy you than even better ..
 
Tom Shines said:
Im explained to you the reasons for my post … you can continue to ignore them .. but at the end of the day it’s my response … not yours…if you have interpreted it incorrectly than that’s on you…

What is the definition of “straw man argument “ that are you relying on … i would be keen to see this and how my response applies to fit this definition…

I will stand by what I have said….namely with the NRL grants these days there would need to be a level of incompetence from management to send any NRL club broke …if that continues to annoy you than even better ..
Click to expand...
It doesn't annoy me, you're just incorrect.

Seems a little strange that you're now replying that you'd take pleasure in your incorrect post annoying me. Seems a little mean.

If you can't handle being corrected on matters you're not well versed in, it isn't the fault of the person who corrects you. A complete person can acknowledge when they're corrected and move on.

It is also not me attacking you personally if I happen to correct you on your use of a logical fallacy.
 
Kelce68 said:
It doesn't annoy me, you're just incorrect.

Seems a little strange that you're now replying that you'd take pleasure in your incorrect post annoying me. Seems a little mean.

If you can't handle being corrected on matters you're not well versed in, it isn't the fault of the person who corrects you. A complete person can acknowledge when they're corrected and move on.

It is also not me attacking you personally if I happen to correct you on your use of a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

How can I be incorrect around my intentions in respect of MY post?

you asked a question and I answered it…go back and read your first post that I responded to….

you given up on the straw man argument?
 
Last edited:
Tom Shines said:
How can I be incorrect around my intentions in respect of MY post?

you asked a question and I answered it…go back and read your first post that I responded to….

you given up on the straw man argument?
Click to expand...
I explained it at length in my first response to you. As it happens, I was referring to 3 separate replies to my original post, of which yours was one.

Im going to leave it there now though, because I don't fancy bogging up this thread any further.

Nobody is interested in back and forth silliness, especially when one party is simply arguing for the sake of it.
 
Kelce68 said:
I explained it at length in my first response to you. As it happens, I was referring to 3 replies in my original post, yours was just one.

Im going to leave it there now though, because I don't fancy bogging up this thread any further.

Nobody is interested in back and forth silliness, especially when one party is simply arguing for the sake of it.
Click to expand...

Apology accepted
 
With all due respect, Benji’s in charge now.
So it wouldn’t make a difference to our on field results in 2024 if we had Me Squiggles as our CEO.
 
Vicious said:
With all due respect, Benji’s in charge now.
So it wouldn’t make a difference to our on field results in 2024 if we had Me Squiggles as our CEO.
Click to expand...
That's correct. He has stuffed us for years to come, I feel for the next guy that has to turn it around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 641 (members: 31, guests: 610)
Forever online: Tigergran, Geo
Back
Top