Paul Warne

[Archied]

1 hour ago, jono said:

Huge credit to you for just coming on a talking about it. Because you’ve had the grace to do that I’ll have much more enjoyment and satisfaction exchanging views and opinions with you. Perhaps in turn,  you might see why others plea patience. ? 

Warne is only the second manager in the entire modern history of the club who has had 50+ games in charge of DCFC  and have a plus 50% win rate. 

Another poster said it was valid to have concerns given his relative inexperience at this level. I agree. The thing is, the contest of the championship needs to play out, that has just started, it isn’t perfect but it’s very solid considering circumstances. 

There was a point last week when I changed my view a little bit regards @DCFC Kicks from thinking he was probably a fan of a rival or just on a total wind up and kind of moved him in my head to someone worth trying to work out where he was comming from on stuff  but that’s just my gut feeling I could be wrong🤷🏻‍♂️

[tomsdubs]

I think what yesterday showed was what could be if Warne was healthily backed, had a few of the right key players finding confidence after a fragile start. Would say there is something to build on if Ozoh was ours. We need to be consistent now and set up every game with the same confidence.

[Nuwtfly]

53 minutes ago, Comrade 86 said:

How do you feel about folk being called door handles? Is that an insult in your opinion and if not, why not? And would you say that responding to a post where the same poster was being labelled 'a weeping sore on the arse of the forum' with a laughter emoji might constitute bullying?, that is both the post and your reaction to it. For reference, you levelled these same accusations at me for responding to one of your posts with a simple CBA, but I can assure you you have my undivided attention now.

What then are the metrics you're using for judging others that somewhat mysteriously, don't apply to you or those whose stance matches your own? I only ask as I've never seen you white knighting for any pro-Warne posters on the receiving end of precisely the same treatment that apparently causes you such concern. 

I would rather people didn't, myself included. Seeing as I'm not actually calling any individual a door-handle in the post you're quoting though I think I get a pass this time. It is obviously an insult if I call you that, I don't think you need that pointing out.

I also think that the weeping sore comment is wrong - another error from me by reacting to it! I suspect @May Contain Nutswould probably regret that if asked about it. My response to it was definitely fueled by the emotion of the same moment that caused me to have a pop at Tyler for his conduct. I already owned up to this previously whilst in conversation with yourself and apologized to Tyler for this privately, FYI.

I don't really know how to reply to your last paragraph. You're insinuating that I only pull up people who are Pro-Warne rather than Anti-Warne, which is just not true. You probably just notice the ones you notice based on what does and doesn't stick out to you, for reasons that are your own.

White-knighting is a really strange insinuation though. I'm not going to get into that on this thread because I can see that you're trying to bait me into an argument with that little jibe. 

You're welcome to message me privately if you want to discuss further. No point clogging up this thread with it. But I would genuinely recommend you follow your own previous advice to me if my posts are causing you issue.

 

Edited September 1 by Nuwtfly

[May Contain Nuts]

1 hour ago, Comrade 86 said:

How do you feel about folk being called door handles? Is that an insult in your opinion and if not, why not? And would you say that responding to a post where the same poster was being labelled 'a weeping sore on the arse of the forum' with a laughter emoji might constitute bullying?, that is both the post and your reaction to it. For reference, you levelled these same accusations at me for responding to one of your posts with a simple CBA, but I can assure you you have my undivided attention now.

What then are the metrics you're using for judging others that somewhat mysteriously, don't apply to you or those whose stance matches your own? I only ask as I've never seen you white knighting for any pro-Warne posters on the receiving end of precisely the same treatment that apparently causes you such concern. 

A weeping boil, actually.

A rather accurate visual image based on said poster's interactions with myself over the course of a number of years where they've sought to do nothing but undermine, pick at, talk down to and hold dominion over my posts using extreme levels of pedantry and moral theorising. And I'm far from the only one, which is what prompted the the posts you're refering to in the first place.

Or in other words, being an absolute whatchamacallit. I think everyone should have the right to react to such treatment every now and then.

(Very) occasionally biting back at such actions and such an attitude pursued against me by such a character is not bullying.

Typically I'd consider myself a reactor rather than an instigator, which isn't to say I've never been guilty of starting thing without proper cause.

Some posters you can work through it with - I'd like to think we're in that position despite some of our earlier interactions - but some you can't. I try to keep the reactions to said poster to a minimum but it's not always possible. 

 

Edited September 1 by May Contain Nuts

[Abu Derby]

Paul Warne has a long term plan and he’s implementing it. All good things will come to those who wait. 

[Tyler Durden]

13 minutes ago, May Contain Nuts said:

A weeping boil, actually.

A rather accurate visual image based on said poster's interactions with myself over the course of a number of years where they've sought to do nothing but undermine, pick at, talk down to and hold dominion over my posts using extreme levels of pedantry and moral theorising. And I'm far from the only one, which is what prompted the the posts you're refering to in the first place.

Or in other words, being an absolute whatchamacallit. I think everyone should have the right to react to such treatment every now and then.

(Very) occasionally biting back at such actions and such an attitude pursued against me by such a character is not bullying.

Typically I'd consider myself a reactor rather than an instigator, which isn't to say I've never been guilty of starting thing without proper cause.

Some posters you can work through it with - I'd like to think we're in that position despite some of our earlier interactions - but some you can't. I try to keep the reactions to said poster to a minimum but it's not always possible. 

 

Ironic that for someone accusing another forum member of being a pedant you find it critically important to differentiate between calling someone a weeping boil and a weeping sore. 

I'm glad you've posted that as all you've done is undermine whatever feeble argument you have and also show to the rest of the forum what kind of person you truly are. 

[May Contain Nuts]

33 minutes ago, Nuwtfly said:

I also think that the weeping sore comment is wrong - another error from me by reacting to it! I suspect @May Contain Nutswould probably regret that if asked about it. 

As above - sort of, sort of not! Sometimes things need saying, I regret replying to a known WUM, and I apologise for dragging you and others into it. 

No point saying anything more on the subject anyway, nobody really wants or needs to read it.

Edited September 1 by May Contain Nuts

[Comrade 86]

2 minutes ago, Nuwtfly said:

I would rather people didn't, myself included. Seeing as I'm not actually calling any individual a door-handle in the post you're quoting though I think I get a pass this time. It is obviously an insult if I call you that, I don't think you need that pointing out.

I also think that the weeping sore comment is wrong - another error from me by reacting to it! Definitely fueled by the emotion of the same moment that caused me to have a pop at Tyler for his conduct. I already owned up to this previously whilst in conversation with yourself and apologized to Tyler for this privately, FYI.

I don't really know how to reply to your last paragraph. You're insinuating that I only pull up people who are Pro-Warne rather than Anti-Warne, which is just not true. You probably just notice the ones you notice based on what does and doesn't stick out to you, for reasons that are your own.

White-knighting is a really strange insinuation though. I'm not going to get into that on this thread because I can see that you're trying to bait me into an argument with that little jibe. 

You're welcome to message me privately if you want to discuss further. No point clogging up this thread with it. But I would genuinely recommend you follow your own previous advice to me if my posts are causing you issue.

 

Burt presumably you don't deny using the term in respect of the poster in question? It seems odd to me that you state it is irrelevant in this instance when it's pretty clear what instance I'm actually I'm referring to.

As for your offer to engage further via DM and your rationale for doing so, there seems to be no issue clogging up the forum when it's others standing accused, the last few pages of this thread being a prime example. As such, I shall politely decline. 

FWIW, which I now know to be very little, if you and others really want peace and tranquility in our rosy little garden, then perhaps you might lead by example and not accusation? You might be pleasantly surprised and find folk reciprocate. Your choice, of course.

[Comrade 86]

19 minutes ago, May Contain Nuts said:

A weeping boil, actually.

A rather accurate visual image based on said poster's interactions with myself over the course of a number of years where they've sought to do nothing but undermine, pick at, talk down to and hold dominion over my posts using extreme levels of pedantry and moral theorising. And I'm far from the only one, which is what prompted the the posts you're refering to in the first place.

Or in other words, being an absolute whatchamacallit. I think everyone should have the right to react to such treatment every now and then.

(Very) occasionally biting back at such actions and such an attitude pursued against me by such a character is not bullying.

Typically I'd consider myself a reactor rather than an instigator, which isn't to say I've never been guilty of starting thing without proper cause.

Some posters you can work through it with - I'd like to think we're in that position despite some of our earlier interactions - but some you can't. I try to keep the reactions to said poster to a minimum but it's not always possible. 

 

I've not noticed the trail of abuse you've suffered at said poster's hands, though it's conceivable that I may have missed it. All I've seen is little more than some mild piss taking and certainly nothing akin to the reaction it elicited. That said, perhaps now would be a sensible point for hostilities, real and imagined, to cease and on that note, I shall practice what I preach and leave you gentlemen to your own devices.

[Nuwtfly]

11 minutes ago, Comrade 86 said:

Burt presumably you don't deny using the term in respect of the poster in question? It seems odd to me that you state it is irrelevant in this instance when it's pretty clear what instance I'm actually I'm referring to.

As for your offer to engage further via DM and your rationale for doing so, there seems to be no issue clogging up the forum when it's others standing accused, the last few pages of this thread being a prime example. As such, I shall politely decline. 

FWIW, which I now know to be very little, if you and others really want peace and tranquility in our rosy little garden, then perhaps you might lead by example and not accusation? You might be pleasantly surprised and find folk reciprocate. Your choice, of course.

Not only do I not deny it, I literally reference it in the second paragraph of my reply to you. I was in the wrong in that instance and apologised, but I do stand by my reasons for doing so.

I’ll definitely have a look at my conduct on here and have a think about how my posts and responses might be perceived, but seeing as you are pretty much the only poster I consistently clash with due to, for me at least, the manner of your responses to me, I suspect it’s more of a smaller scale problem. The craziest part is that I think you’re pretty spot on in your assessment of the football club 9/10, but it’s situations like this where I find myself getting wound up. 

Like I said, I’ll take on your advice and suggest you do the same. 

[May Contain Nuts]

1 minute ago, Comrade 86 said:

I've not noticed the trail of abuse you've suffered at said poster's hands, though it's conceivable that I may have missed it. All I've seen is little more than some mild piss taking and certainly nothing akin to the reaction it elicited. That said, perhaps now would be a sensible point for hostilities, real and imagined, to cease and on that note, I shall practice what I preach and leave you gentlemen to your own devices.

No worries Comrade, there's no reason for you to have been paying us two that much attention tbf! Especially when much of it is spread months and years apart.

 

 

[Comrade 86]

3 minutes ago, Nuwtfly said:

Not only do I not deny it, I literally reference it in the second paragraph of my reply to you. I was in the wrong in that instance and apologised, but I do stand by my reasons for doing so.

I’ll definitely have a look at my conduct on here and have a think about how my posts and responses might be perceived, but seeing as you are pretty much the only poster I consistently clash with due to, for me at least, the manner of your responses to me, I suspect it’s more of a smaller scale problem. The craziest part is that I think you’re pretty spot on in your assessment of the football club 9/10, but it’s situations like this where I find myself getting wound up. 

Like I said, I’ll take.n your advice and suggest you do the same. 

See above response to Nuts.

Now, can you point me towards the nearest echo chamber please? They sound heavenly! 😉

[Spender]

7 hours ago, Jourdan said:

But it’s everywhere. Only yesterday I lost a bet because I tipped Plymouth to beat Stoke and my brother said it was down to my lack of football knowledge and that I should have listened to him.

I can only say that either your brother has a point or you have a bad gambling problem 😆

[Red Ram]

1 hour ago, europia said:

A simple forum protocol would perhaps work in most scenarios:  Disagree with or criticise a post, but don't attack the poster. 

Just a thought. 

Play the ball, not the man/woman. That should be the basic principle.

[GeneralRam]

11 hours ago, May Contain Nuts said:

You're in danger of confusing patience with blind faith, there's not a straight divide between the two positions though. Some simply people need a lot more evidence than others before they're going to believe that things are going to work out.

Ignoring the idiotic / insulting stuff there have over the past 2 season been plenty of erudite posts from people expressing their in depth and evidence based concerns over Warne and what the future holds under him, and for long spells of time Warne wasn't offering up anywhere near enough for those concerns to be addressed, nor were the posters in or edging toward the blind faith territory able to offer up a similar level of debate as to exactly why such levels of patience should be shown.

That situation did even itself out and there have been some excellent and detailed justifications for continued belief in Warne - and obviously it's easier when we start winning games, no matter the performances themselves often still lacking -  but the people now are giving it the big "I told you so. We just needed to be patient" line who were just sat there shouting down people making criticisms without actually being able to counter them are no more justified in their position than anyone else.

Personaly I feel like yesterday's game could be a watershed moment, it was a performance that did infact address quite a few of my concerns but are some still lingering, and I've seen what I thought of as progress from Warne before only for it to turn out to be a false dawn.

As for the other recent 'development' on this thread - at least give @GeneralRam (who might not have see the post screenshotting him) the right of reply. That was not long after the Stevenage game and directly after we'd put in another rubbish performance in cup game against lower league opposition (there was a high scoring win against Northampton in between). Warne's attitude in his interview with Radio Derby after the Stevenage game massively got people's backs up, and rightly so. Context as always is important, especially when dredging up isolated posts from nearly a year ago.

I still don't like Warne and I still don't want him as manager. His post match interviews when we lose wind me up and don't get me started and the utter dross of football he subjects everyone to. 

But.... He still got us up out of league one and I'm not expecting much this season. I think the only time I've posted this year is "it's gonna be a long season" in multiple threads when we've been crap, which is partly to poke the bear and wind people up, but it's by far from the abuse I use to post last year about the bloke.

Half the stuff I post is to get a reaction and wind people up but that post in that screenshot wasn't if I'm being honest. I was pissed he was going to keep his job.

Edited September 1 by GeneralRam

[jono]

17 hours ago, May Contain Nuts said:

People have 100% been shouted down - just because it hasn't been successful doesn't mean the effort to do so wasn't there.

 

Hilarious. Do tell me in English .. if people have been “shouted down” but “unsuccessfully” .. doesn’t that mean they haven’t been shouted down ? Surely therefore it is what an argument is. Two sides exchanging views ?  And isn’t continuing effort just standing up for one’s own contention when the other party has an equal right to reply … Or is it that in your world we aren’t allowed to argue back when someone makes an incendiary statement because you’d then claim they were bullies ? 

[May Contain Nuts]

4 hours ago, jono said:

Hilarious. Do tell me in English .. if people have been “shouted down” but “unsuccessfully” .. doesn’t that mean they haven’t been shouted down ? Surely therefore it is what an argument is. Two sides exchanging views ?  And isn’t continuing effort just standing up for one’s own contention when the other party has an equal right to reply … Or is it that in your world we aren’t allowed to argue back when someone makes an incendiary statement because you’d then claim they were bullies ? 

Shouted down, shut down, same thing. It's just a matter of your chosen parlance.

Calling out people as red dogs (who historically haven't allowed to post on the Derby sections and have been sometimes been blocked from joining the forum), accusing people of draining everybody's enthusiasm, accusing them of trying to destabilise the club with negative comments online etc - those aren't examples of two sides exchanging views. 

Anyway, whatever. I've been happy to accept that part of the issue is caused by OTT comments, you seem convinced they're entirely the cause of it.

There's not really anything left to say when that's your attitude.

Edited September 2 by May Contain Nuts

[i-Ram]

On 01/09/2024 at 14:03, The Running Man said:

Well in my opinion, there is absolutely something wrong with wanting us to lose, which you asked me to show (no doubt expecting me not to have a repsonse!) and I did. Not going to argue with the rest of your points though.

People are welcome to not like the manager, not like the way we are playing, etc but if you want us to lose, you're a word that you probably aren't allowed to use on this forum, and I definitely do not consider them a Derby supporter.

Well it’s good to disagree.

As with everything in life, sometimes it’s ok to hope for a little setback if you think it might improve the overall position in the long term.

I did expect you to respond, and that’s why I asked you. I didn’t expect you to go researching back through one year of posts though to get your bit of evidence 😂 

As has been said previously, we are all different, and have different viewpoints and beliefs. Nothing wrong with that and I wouldn’t think anyone a ban’able word just because they didn’t agree with me.

Edited September 2 by i-Ram

[The Running Man]

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

Well it’s good to disagree.

As with everything in life, sometimes it’s ok to hope for a little setback if you think it might improve the overall position in the long term.

I did expect you to respond, and that’s why I asked you. I didn’t expect you to go researching back through one year of posts though to get your bit of evidence 😂 

As has been said previously, we are all different, and have different viewpoints and beliefs. Nothing wrong with that and I wouldn’t think anyone a ban’able word just because they didn’t agree with me.

There was no searching involved. I had the screenshot saved in a folder from when it happened, because I knew one day that someone would try and argue over their existence. 🤣

There's no doubt been other similar posts since, but I just have not happened upon them.

[Day]

17 hours ago, GeneralRam said:

I think the only time I've posted this year is "it's gonna be a long season" in multiple threads when we've been crap, which is partly to poke the bear and wind people up, but it's by far from the abuse I use to post last year about the bloke.

Half the stuff I post is to get a reaction and wind people up but that post in that screenshot wasn't if I'm being honest. I was pissed he was going to keep his job.

Just a word of warning for all members, this confession has led to a ban.

Obviously confessions make our jobs a lot easier, however if we believe any member is only here to “poke the bear” and “wind people up”, your membership to the forum will also be terminated without warning, this is the warning.