Rousing defence of Kenwrong

[chicoazul]

They were - how does that equate to claiming that the majority of Evertonians are in favour? It's no more accurate than to say the majority of those asked didn't vote for DK, therefore the majority of Evertonians are not in favour. There's no basis for drawing either conclusion, I'm surprised guys like you & Chico would try to claim otherwise.

Please feel free to point out where I've said about the majority of Evertonians being in favour of the move mate. I just merely pointed out that that...sack it, it's clearly not sinking in.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

I think we can close on that. Marvellous stuff (clearly as it matches my viewpoint). When you beat back all the hyperbole wrote by so many it comes down to this.



Fair enough mate.


Some to the point comments here:

Liverpool Daily Post.co.uk - Everton FC - Everton FC News - Everton for sale to the right bidder

Including:



Which I was trying to make before but probably not very clearly.

Can't say the thoughts of Ian Ross sway me too much really. But neither he nor Kenwright are quoted as saying the club is for sale. The nearest Ross goes is "Bill Kenwright has made it clear at each and every AGM going back five years that he will continue to sit down and discuss the club’s future with any individual or group which boasts integrity and financial clout" which could merely be part of Kenwrights 24/7 search for investment. The whole article smacks of "rhetoric & assumptions" - it can be read however you want to, without actually making a liar of anybody at the club.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

Please feel free to point out where I've said about the majority of Evertonians being in favour of the move mate. I just merely pointed out that that...sack it, it's clearly not sinking in.

What the blank have you been arguing about then? That's the only point I made in response to somebody elses statement to that effect & then I've been ambushed by those of you desperate to defend the integrity of the vote - which wasn't at issue in the first place.

 

[chicoazul]

What the blank have you been arguing about then? That's the only point I made in response to somebody elses statement to that effect & then I've been ambushed by those of you desperate to defend the integrity of the vote - which wasn't at issue in the first place.

Mate, I don't think I could have made it any clearer.

You brought up the point of the non voters not voting due to DK being so bad and then tried to twist the absent voters into the overall numbers of those not voting to move but got your arse handed to you on a plate by Suits, I mean DunkIrkSpirit, over the fundamental flaws in your logic.

Come on, just admit it and move on.

 

[Gwladys St. Glory]

Godamnit Chico, you said you'd bored yourself with this...

ChicoLiar OUT!!

 

[chicoazul]

Godamnit Chico, you said you'd bored yourself with this...

ChicoLiar OUT!!

I don't debate often mate, as you can see I'm not all that at it.

But I want this constant KenWRONG campaign to be put level, so it doesn't reoccur. Unless merited like.

 

[bluebastardo]

I've been segregated from real life today and don't have time to read 28 pages.
What happened?

 

[Gwladys St. Glory]

I actually have a question for you concerning Bill\the board and DK...

If DK is approved and Bill\the board then sell up either before we've even kicked a ball in Kirkby or before at least 5 years afterwards...what will be your opinion on that, regardless of who buys.

I'm not trying to wind you up, it's a very serious question.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

Mate, I don't think I could have made it any clearer.

You brought up the point of the non voters not voting due to DK being so bad and then tried to twist the absent voters into the overall numbers of those not voting to move but got your arse handed to you on a plate by Suits, I mean DunkIrkSpirit, over the fundamental flaws in your logic.

Come on, just admit it and move on.

Read it again if that's what you think. It cropped up back at around post 14? & developed from there. I think it was Teppic who claimed something like "the people have spoken", as though the majority of Evertonians were in favour & I responded that "the people" who had voted in favour were in fact only the largest minority of those that were asked by the Board. Therefore it is inaccurate to extrapolate that to represent the majority of Evertonians, in fact as inaccurate as the very thing you are accusing me of. One cannot reasonably draw from the result of the poll the conclusion that there is a clear majority either for or against the DK proposal amongst the mass of Evertonians. If you can't see that logic then I can't think of a more straight forward way to explain it.

Quite separately, one can comment on the fact that such small vote in favour - a majority of those who voted, but only a minority of those asked - indicates a lack of enthusiasm for the proposal. You could compare this with the far greater enthusiasm for KD, for example. However, I accept this is a little subjective, you may consider that getting nearly half of those asked to support the proposal to be an enormous success, as I said it's a subjective view.

The first point is simply a matter of fact, the second one of opinion, I felt it reasonable to express mine.

 

[chicoazul]

I've been segregated from real life today and don't have time to read 28 pages.
What happened?

Not much really. I've bored the opposition to submission.

I actually have a question for you concerning Bill\the board and DK...

If DK is approved and Bill\the board then sell up either before we've even kicked a ball in Kirkby or before at least 5 years afterwards...what will be your opinion on that, regardless of who buys.

I'm not trying to wind you up, it's a very serious question.

Depends on whether it was the right investment, if it were someone who is going to pump funds into the club and more importantly it was sustainable then I wouldn't have a problem.

 

[chicoazul]

Read it again if that's what you think. It cropped up back at around post 14? & developed from there. I think it was Teppic who claimed something like "the people have spoken", as though the majority of Evertonians were in favour & I responded that "the people" who had voted in favour were in fact only the largest minority of those that were asked by the Board. Therefore it is inaccurate to extrapolate that to represent the majority of Evertonians, in fact as inaccurate as the very thing you are accusing me of. One cannot reasonably draw from the result of the poll the conclusion that there is a clear majority either for or against the DK proposal amongst the mass of Evertonians. If you can't see that logic then I can't think of a more straight forward way to explain it.

Quite separately, one can comment on the fact that such small vote in favour - a majority of those who voted, but only a minority of those asked - indicates a lack of enthusiasm for the proposal. You could compare this with the far greater enthusiasm for KD, for example. However, I accept this is a little subjective, you may consider that getting nearly half of those asked to support the proposal to be an enormous success, as I said it's a subjective view.

The first point is simply a matter of fact, the second one of opinion, I felt it reasonable to express mine.

It was an incorrect view as you don't have that information. If they werent so enthused about the proposed move then you could argue that they would be more motivated to vote to preserve the status quo which they didn't.

It was a mute point that's pointed out and certainly dragged out too long now.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

It was an incorrect view as you don't have that information. If they werent so enthused about the proposed move then you could argue that they would be more motivated to vote to preserve the status quo which they didn't.

It was a mute point that's pointed out and certainly dragged out too long now.

Was that the other option on the ballot paper? You never did say.

I don't know what you mean about a lack of information. The statistics are there, it's only the way you view them which is subjective. I think less than half of those asked deciding to vote in favour isn't a very enthusiastic response & you, presumably, think it is.

 

[chicoazul]

Was that the other option on the ballot paper? You never did say.

I don't know what you mean about a lack of information. The statistics are there, it's only the way you view them which is subjective. I think less than half of those asked deciding to vote in favour isn't a very enthusiastic response & you, presumably, think it is.

What do you think the other option was mate, come on. They didn't give them a ballot paper with both options being Kirkby.

As for the latter point, you tried to attribute those not voting as being of the idea that the move was so bad. Which, time after time, I've told you that is a bad assertion. For the reasons why, read my previous post but please put this bit to bed as you're making yourself look silly over it now.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

What do you think the other option was mate, come on. They didn't give them a ballot paper with both options being Kirkby.

As for the latter point, you tried to attribute those not voting as being of the idea that the move was so bad. Which, time after time, I've told you that is a bad assertion. For the reasons why, read my previous post but please put this bit to bed as you're making yourself look silly over it now.

You're always criticising people for making assumptions & when I ask you a straightforward question about the ballot you advise me to make an assumption. If you don't know the answer just say so, but perhaps your responses shouldn't then be based upon your assumptions either.

You're completely misinterpreting my comments, I have not attempted to make any assumptions about those who haven't voted. I've simply stated that my view of the results was & is that a positive response of less than 50% of those asked doesn't seem all that positive to me. You seem desperate to disagree with something I'm not saying, which really is silly.

 

[chicoazul]

You're always criticising people for making assumptions & when I ask you a straightforward question about the ballot you advise me to make an assumption. If you don't know the answer just say so, but perhaps your responses shouldn't then be based upon your assumptions either.

You're completely misinterpreting my comments, I have not attempted to make any assumptions about those who haven't voted. I've simply stated that my view of the results was & is that a positive response of less than 50% of those asked doesn't seem all that positive to me. You seem desperate to disagree with something I'm not saying, which really is silly.

shakes head in disbelief*

What was the options? Move to Kirkby/Dont move to Kirkby.

Would it be safe to assume the ballot reflected those options?

Wait, was there other options?