Well, if you examine the sentence, I spoke neither for you nor me.

Accuse me of a vague generalisation if you like, but don't get picky and get it wrong.

Posted By: the101ers on March 7th 2009 at 17:08:23

Message Thread

imo the board got us here - they continue to avoid any sniff of ambition (n/m) (NCFC) - 1902, Mar 7, 17:02:38
- They gave the managers the backing over and above what they could afford and failed (NCFC) - Duke Of Cock, Mar 7, 17:04:05
  - what? (NCFC) - UScanary, Mar 7, 17:13:27
    - replace the word "ambition" with "money" (n/m) (NCFC) - Charles21, Mar 7, 17:19:28
      - also true - it's their job to generate and find it too (n/m) (NCFC) - 1902, Mar 7, 17:20:37
        
        from where? (n/m) (NCFC) - Charles21, Mar 7, 17:25:29
  - agreed (n/m) (NCFC) - Charles21, Mar 7, 17:07:22
  - what managers ???? that's half my point (n/m) (NCFC) - 1902, Mar 7, 17:05:10
    - The managers that, at the time, most of us here were happy with when they were appointed. (n/m) (NCFC) - the101ers, Mar 7, 17:06:01
      - speak for yourself mate - not for me (n/m) (NCFC) - 1902, Mar 7, 17:07:13
        
        Well, if you examine the sentence, I spoke neither for you nor me. (NCFC) - the101ers, Mar 7, 17:08:23
        
        don't assume it was most of 'us' then (n/m) (NCFC) - 1902, Mar 7, 17:11:31
        
        Why - are you not included in us? (NCFC) - the101ers, Mar 7, 17:13:43
        
        I remember most thought Grant was cheap option & Roeder was about 3rd choice (n/m) (NCFC) - 1902, Mar 7, 17:18:28
        
        That may well be true, but you have avoided my contention... (NCFC) - the101ers, Mar 7, 17:22:16
        
        well so what? (NCFC) - Charles21, Mar 7, 17:07:56

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.