| sir les,what is your agenda? 00:23 - Nov 22 with 20474 views | brad |
we have neil warnock in charge now,why not give it to him till the end of the season,why do you want to give J.F.H, the job,he is unproven,we could go down if this shambles contiues! |  | | |  |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 08:56 - Nov 23 with 2063 views | DWQPR |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 20:27 - Nov 22 by Jamie |
Except JFH is clearly the outstanding candidate..
And is also Lee Hoos ultimately putting forward candidates to the board.. |
It took over fifty posts on this subject for someone to at last make the point I would have made. Based on Clive's fans forum report Lee Hoos is very much involved with the search for a new manager. This is the bloke who at Burnley identified Eddie Howe as a decent manager, who lets not forget brought a couple of forwards to that club in the names of Charlie Austin and Danny Ings and then appointed Sean Dyche as his replacement and the season we both went up Burnley were one of the favourites for relegation. Hoos has a good feel for a manager and is suspect that LF will be very much leaning on him for his experience. Therefore I have every confidence this time round that the decision will not be based on colour, creed or personality but on ability and potential. And I have this belief as TF will not be involved in the process, at last he is delegating to those with the knowledge. | |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 09:00 - Nov 23 with 2055 views | Mvpeter |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 08:44 - Nov 23 by isawqpratwcity |
Does not follow. The most you can draw is that he is in favour of some discrimination, not that he not against discrimination at all.
Hope that helps. |
The proposition that he is against discrimination and the proposition that he is for the Rooney rule are mutually exclusive.
You cannot be against discrimination (which encompasses 100% of discrimination) if you are for some discrimination (which is contained with the 100%). Logical fact. | |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 09:02 - Nov 23 with 2049 views | Mvpeter |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 08:56 - Nov 23 by DWQPR |
It took over fifty posts on this subject for someone to at last make the point I would have made. Based on Clive's fans forum report Lee Hoos is very much involved with the search for a new manager. This is the bloke who at Burnley identified Eddie Howe as a decent manager, who lets not forget brought a couple of forwards to that club in the names of Charlie Austin and Danny Ings and then appointed Sean Dyche as his replacement and the season we both went up Burnley were one of the favourites for relegation. Hoos has a good feel for a manager and is suspect that LF will be very much leaning on him for his experience. Therefore I have every confidence this time round that the decision will not be based on colour, creed or personality but on ability and potential. And I have this belief as TF will not be involved in the process, at last he is delegating to those with the knowledge. |
Finally an official that you can reasonably assume to know what he's doing. | |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 09:21 - Nov 23 with 2028 views | isawqpratwcity |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 09:00 - Nov 23 by Mvpeter |
The proposition that he is against discrimination and the proposition that he is for the Rooney rule are mutually exclusive.
You cannot be against discrimination (which encompasses 100% of discrimination) if you are for some discrimination (which is contained with the 100%). Logical fact. |
Sorry, but you're wrong. Let me remind you of what you said:
"He is pro Rooney rule. He's not against discrimination at all."
He may not be against SOME discrimination, but it does not follow that he is not against ALL discrimination.
Logical fact.
Hope that helps. |  |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 09:32 - Nov 23 with 2021 views | Mvpeter |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 09:21 - Nov 23 by isawqpratwcity |
Sorry, but you're wrong. Let me remind you of what you said:
"He is pro Rooney rule. He's not against discrimination at all."
He may not be against SOME discrimination, but it does not follow that he is not against ALL discrimination.
Logical fact.
Hope that helps. |
Ah so now the claim becomes ALL discrimination. Pulled right out of your posterior.
'He's not against discrimination at all' is objectively different to 'he's not against any discrimination' or 'he's for all discrimination.' Logical fact. Words have meanings.
He's not against discrimination under any circumstances (that's what the phrase 'at all' means you see) He's against it in some circumstances.
'He may not be against SOME discrimination, but it does not follow that he is not against ALL discrimination. '
Actually if you're not against some particular discrimination then it does follow that you are not against all discrimination as some particular falls under the umbrella of all.
Logical fact. | |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 09:53 - Nov 23 with 1992 views | BrianMcCarthy |
The Rooney Rule only guarantees an interview for at least one minority candidate. That point has been made already. And, as there is no quota or limit enforced on how many people get interviewed in total, it does not even deny an interview to a non-minority candidate. I don't see, then, how being in favour of the Rooney Rule implies being in favour of some, all or any discrimination. |  |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 09:54 - Nov 23 with 1988 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 08:56 - Nov 23 by DWQPR |
It took over fifty posts on this subject for someone to at last make the point I would have made. Based on Clive's fans forum report Lee Hoos is very much involved with the search for a new manager. This is the bloke who at Burnley identified Eddie Howe as a decent manager, who lets not forget brought a couple of forwards to that club in the names of Charlie Austin and Danny Ings and then appointed Sean Dyche as his replacement and the season we both went up Burnley were one of the favourites for relegation. Hoos has a good feel for a manager and is suspect that LF will be very much leaning on him for his experience. Therefore I have every confidence this time round that the decision will not be based on colour, creed or personality but on ability and potential. And I have this belief as TF will not be involved in the process, at last he is delegating to those with the knowledge. |
Very good point. Sorry that I didn't think to mention it. | |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 09:59 - Nov 23 with 1979 views | Mvpeter |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 09:53 - Nov 23 by BrianMcCarthy |
The Rooney Rule only guarantees an interview for at least one minority candidate. That point has been made already. And, as there is no quota or limit enforced on how many people get interviewed in total, it does not even deny an interview to a non-minority candidate. I don't see, then, how being in favour of the Rooney Rule implies being in favour of some, all or any discrimination. |
'The Rooney Rule only guarantees an interview for at least one minority candidate.'
This is discrimination. It is making decisions and actions based on race. And by design of the system. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 10:05 - Nov 23 with 1969 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 09:59 - Nov 23 by Mvpeter |
'The Rooney Rule only guarantees an interview for at least one minority candidate.'
This is discrimination. It is making decisions and actions based on race. And by design of the system. |
I don't believe so at all. If someone from a minority background gained an advantage at the expense of someone from a non-minority background, then fair enough - it would be. But that doesn't happen under the RR as they're not even taking 'someone's place in the interview panel. They're getting an opportunity, but there's no cost. [Post edited 23 Nov 2015 10:05]
| |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 10:08 - Nov 23 with 1962 views | isawqpratwcity |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 09:32 - Nov 23 by Mvpeter |
Ah so now the claim becomes ALL discrimination. Pulled right out of your posterior.
'He's not against discrimination at all' is objectively different to 'he's not against any discrimination' or 'he's for all discrimination.' Logical fact. Words have meanings.
He's not against discrimination under any circumstances (that's what the phrase 'at all' means you see) He's against it in some circumstances.
'He may not be against SOME discrimination, but it does not follow that he is not against ALL discrimination. '
Actually if you're not against some particular discrimination then it does follow that you are not against all discrimination as some particular falls under the umbrella of all.
Logical fact. |
'He is not against ALL discrimination' is very different to 'He is not against discrimination AT ALL'. You may have meant the first, but you wrote the second. That is why you are wrong.
Hope that helps. | |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 10:10 - Nov 23 with 1957 views | TheBlob |
Does Pedant Corner only appear on mondays? |  |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? (n/t) on 10:10 - Nov 23 with 1956 views | Antti_Heinola |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 09:21 - Nov 23 by isawqpratwcity |
Sorry, but you're wrong. Let me remind you of what you said:
"He is pro Rooney rule. He's not against discrimination at all."
He may not be against SOME discrimination, but it does not follow that he is not against ALL discrimination.
Logical fact.
Hope that helps. |
[Post edited 23 Nov 2015 10:11]
|  |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 10:16 - Nov 23 with 1942 views | Antti_Heinola |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 10:05 - Nov 23 by BrianMcCarthy |
I don't believe so at all. If someone from a minority background gained an advantage at the expense of someone from a non-minority background, then fair enough - it would be. But that doesn't happen under the RR as they're not even taking 'someone's place in the interview panel. They're getting an opportunity, but there's no cost. [Post edited 23 Nov 2015 10:05]
|
Exactly - it's about *opportunity*. No one loses out.
It seems to have had a limited success in the US, but I honestly can't see it as being anything other than a 'good thing'. It's simply a rule saying: 'please at least consider a minority candidate.'
When there's such a big issue with minority coaches and managers getting a chance in the English game (and the stats and anecdotal suggest there most certainly is), then it seems sensible to me.
I think under some chairmen there is still the feeling that minorities cannot be leaders - a bit like the old despicable Ron Noades thing about black players being good athletes, but they need white players to provide the brains. I don't think it's quite as insidious as that, but it's definitely a kind of hangover racism that still persists to some degree. | |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 10:17 - Nov 23 with 1941 views | WestminsteRs |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 08:07 - Nov 22 by Dorse |
I imagine they think Les sits at his desk writing interview questions about sun cream protection factors and Aswad.
Mind you, this would still be an improvement over previous recruitment campaigns. |
 |  | | |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 10:20 - Nov 23 with 1934 views | Mvpeter |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 10:08 - Nov 23 by isawqpratwcity |
'He is not against ALL discrimination' is very different to 'He is not against discrimination AT ALL'. You may have meant the first, but you wrote the second. That is why you are wrong.
Hope that helps. |
No I wrote and meant the second. I made that crystal clear in the post you replied to.
He is not against discrimination (the concept) at all. To any extent. Under any circumstances. He is for it when it suits him. | |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 10:22 - Nov 23 with 1930 views | isawqpratwcity |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 10:10 - Nov 23 by TheBlob |
Does Pedant Corner only appear on mondays? |
Nope, fun's whenever you find it! | |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 10:27 - Nov 23 with 1915 views | TheBlob |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 10:22 - Nov 23 by isawqpratwcity |
Nope, fun's whenever you find it! |
Well yeah.
When you say you like tomato ketchup instead of sauce tartare you're guilty of discrimination.
I prefer pickled onions myself.
Mmmmmmmmmm........vinegar. | |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 10:27 - Nov 23 with 1911 views | Mvpeter |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 10:16 - Nov 23 by Antti_Heinola |
Exactly - it's about *opportunity*. No one loses out.
It seems to have had a limited success in the US, but I honestly can't see it as being anything other than a 'good thing'. It's simply a rule saying: 'please at least consider a minority candidate.'
When there's such a big issue with minority coaches and managers getting a chance in the English game (and the stats and anecdotal suggest there most certainly is), then it seems sensible to me.
I think under some chairmen there is still the feeling that minorities cannot be leaders - a bit like the old despicable Ron Noades thing about black players being good athletes, but they need white players to provide the brains. I don't think it's quite as insidious as that, but it's definitely a kind of hangover racism that still persists to some degree. |
The stats show over representation. 4.5% of managers in England are black. 3% of English people are black. If we want to go down the road of perfect representation we should be asking where the Asian players and managers are.
The discrepancy between number of black players and managers is generational. It's always going to be 20 years behind the representation of players because it's the generations of 20 years ago that are becoming managers now. | |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 10:37 - Nov 23 with 1892 views | TheBlob |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 10:27 - Nov 23 by Mvpeter |
The stats show over representation. 4.5% of managers in England are black. 3% of English people are black. If we want to go down the road of perfect representation we should be asking where the Asian players and managers are.
The discrepancy between number of black players and managers is generational. It's always going to be 20 years behind the representation of players because it's the generations of 20 years ago that are becoming managers now. |
When was the last time you saw an Inuit football manager?
This bullshit exercise in semantics is incredibly patronising. | |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 10:42 - Nov 23 with 1881 views | Mvpeter |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 10:37 - Nov 23 by TheBlob |
When was the last time you saw an Inuit football manager?
This bullshit exercise in semantics is incredibly patronising. |
'This bullshit exercise in semantics is incredibly patronising.'
Sorry mate what do you mean by that? | |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 11:11 - Nov 23 with 1858 views | isawqpratwcity |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 10:20 - Nov 23 by Mvpeter |
No I wrote and meant the second. I made that crystal clear in the post you replied to.
He is not against discrimination (the concept) at all. To any extent. Under any circumstances. He is for it when it suits him. |
"He is not against discrimination (the concept) at all." [my italics]
What does at all mean in that sentence? Nothing. You only put it there to try to slip past your original mistake. If you mean discrimination as a concept, as a whole, then you should have written 'He is not against all discrimination', or even just 'He is not against discrimination'. Either statement would then be disproved by an example of a discrimination that he is against.
'He is not against discrimination at all' means that there isn't one member, not even one, of the set of things called discrimination that he is not against, which is plainly preposterous and certainly does not follow from giving an example of a discrimination that he favours. | |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 11:19 - Nov 23 with 1830 views | Antti_Heinola |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 10:27 - Nov 23 by Mvpeter |
The stats show over representation. 4.5% of managers in England are black. 3% of English people are black. If we want to go down the road of perfect representation we should be asking where the Asian players and managers are.
The discrepancy between number of black players and managers is generational. It's always going to be 20 years behind the representation of players because it's the generations of 20 years ago that are becoming managers now. |
25 years ago only 4.5% of pro footballers were black, then? | |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 11:36 - Nov 23 with 1804 views | Mvpeter |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 11:19 - Nov 23 by Antti_Heinola |
25 years ago only 4.5% of pro footballers were black, then? |
About 10%
Agreed it doesn't account for all of the discrepancy but that's a hell of a chunk of it in one fell swoop. Also don't forget that management often follows 5-10 years of coaching. I'd be interested to know those figures. Then we look at training. How are black players trained? Most are signed by clubs in Europe with great facilities and so progress well. How are black managers trained? Usually in their own countries where qualifications may be valued, rightly, as lesser. We are comparing the number of black players from around the world in 2015 with the number of black managers from UEFA countries who played 20-25 years ago.
I don't doubt there's aspects of racism too but to make flat comparisons is wrong. | |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 11:40 - Nov 23 with 1790 views | Antti_Heinola |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 11:36 - Nov 23 by Mvpeter |
About 10%
Agreed it doesn't account for all of the discrepancy but that's a hell of a chunk of it in one fell swoop. Also don't forget that management often follows 5-10 years of coaching. I'd be interested to know those figures. Then we look at training. How are black players trained? Most are signed by clubs in Europe with great facilities and so progress well. How are black managers trained? Usually in their own countries where qualifications may be valued, rightly, as lesser. We are comparing the number of black players from around the world in 2015 with the number of black managers from UEFA countries who played 20-25 years ago.
I don't doubt there's aspects of racism too but to make flat comparisons is wrong. |
yeah that's why i said anecdotal evidence too - based on experiences from young black coaches.
The fact that we're even debating it almost proves there's an issue - that some of our fans think Ramsey was appointed because he was black shows there's still an issue. | |
| |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 11:44 - Nov 23 with 2646 views | Mvpeter |
| sir les,what is your agenda? on 11:11 - Nov 23 by isawqpratwcity |
"He is not against discrimination (the concept) at all." [my italics]
What does at all mean in that sentence? Nothing. You only put it there to try to slip past your original mistake. If you mean discrimination as a concept, as a whole, then you should have written 'He is not against all discrimination', or even just 'He is not against discrimination'. Either statement would then be disproved by an example of a discrimination that he is against.
'He is not against discrimination at all' means that there isn't one member, not even one, of the set of things called discrimination that he is not against, which is plainly preposterous and certainly does not follow from giving an example of a discrimination that he favours. |
'He is pro Rooney rule. He's not against discrimination at all.'
That is my original comment. How can my original post have been put there to hide my original mistake.
Clearly the confusion has arisen because you don't know what 'at all' means. Let me explain again. It means to any extent, under any circumstances, in any way. I should have written it the way I did as that is the correct English for what I wished to say. Writing statements so that you can disprove them is not my intention no matter how much you wish that was so.
'He is not against discrimination at all' means that there isn't one member, not even one, of the set of things called discrimination that he is not against'
No. Look up the term. 'He is not against discrimination at all' means that he is not against discrimination under any circumstances, he is against it under certain beneficial to him circumstances.
Hitler is not against murder at all even if he was against the murder of Germans because murder as a concept is something he employed. [Post edited 23 Nov 2015 14:13]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
