If he wants to be sneery about fully reading what he wrote, he'd want to make sure he's fully read what he wrote.
He’s responding to Geoff’s specific point about lack of engagement with the Trust, what on earth does that have to do with Lichaj?
No he wasn't, he was responding to Geoff asking about The Athletic article. Geoff's own response to the same tweet I responded to:
The ‘ancient history’ comment was quite obviously with regard to the relationship with the Trust, not things that happened last week.
There is nothing about the relationship with the Trust in that thread beyond Geoff saying that he hadn't been able to hear from the club about the matters raised in the article. Don't know where you're getting that from. Geoff's response to Burnsy shows that he is talking about the allegations in the article, Burns is saying they're ALL ancient history, and I'm saying they clearly aren't all ancient history. I'm concerned that Burnsy will allow Ehab to sweep a lot of those items under the rug as things that are in the past and we need to move on from, when the most alarming perhaps is the playing budget for next season (which I suspect Burns didn't even raise with him).
Nobody, particularly a journalist, is going to refer to something that happened last week as ancient history, he’s quite obviously not talking about The Athletic interview. As you’ll see tomorrow, when you listen to the interview and find much of it is about things in The Athletic interview.
I know. Paxman was a pitbull. Often arrogantly & unwisely. Remember the Michael Howard interview ? Get my drift ? Edit: I admire Paxman immensely by the way. He's very intelligent and generally good at his job. He matured empathetically & style-wise. Still a few rough edges.
This whole recent dialogue seems to me to be a misunderstanding about the nuanced use of English with respect to "idiom" . It all hinges around the word "all" and the fact that some poster received a "like" from another poster - which is not evidenced in the dialogue above. Looking at the chronological posts (at least 1 was presented out of sequence !), we have the following: # 1 , # 3 , # 21 , #s 23 - 30 inclusive. 1) IMHO - and I do speak natural English, by birth & education , the expression, used by Burnsy in post # 21 ... "...ancient history about it all." is referring to the evasive, insincere utterings over the last several years by the powers that be at the top of Hull City's executive hierarchy. This has been the experience of most of us supporters, press reporters and any one with an interest in Hull City AFC. That expression I would say does not infer that every point in the "Athletic" article was included in the "ancient history" qualifier for chronological reasons, if anything, it was in reference to the exposure of the all-embracing attitude, characteristics of the governing body of the football club over recent years. 2) Post # 30 seems to have been deleted. I have to wonder why ? I shall not comment therefore.
I thought they were giving it away if they couldn't sell. Allams, lying, really? Of course, it's what they do.
Burnsy - "is there any serious bids for the club at the moment?' Ehaw - "time will tell...' TWT??? In other words, no, just the usual platitudes and carrot dangling.
No seller would answer that question in a clear and unambiguous way. Nearky all the clubs in the country are for sale, they just don't shout about it.
