Sincere apologies, I was wrong to jump in like a bull in a china shop and sidetrack this thread, No problems from me if one of your mods would like to remove mine and associated posts. My comments should have been reserved for our own board. Good Luck anyway should it be auto or play-off.
Yes BB, we are definitely going to Hull on the 4th - could be regarded as a sort of showdown to show them who's boss of this Division. Apparently though, we'll be inclined to ease off up there and let them through as we'd be scared of Watford in the Prem..........
Agree with that - but, if you trawl through that joke thread, you'll find one poster exhorting others to post jokes there - Maltese Mick. Isn't he the creator of these boards? I guess that this is just an example of 'one man's meat is another man's poison' - there are plenty of things in life that we don't agree with, but others do and we just have to deal with that fact. If there is a market for this sort of thing - and plainly there is - there is little we can do about it. Just crossing it off your list of markets to attend is all you can hope for.
That's spot on BB, if only the "joke" hadn't been published on this thread, there would have been no problem, I avoid General Chat for that very reason! You're correct about MalteseMick being the site owner, he and all his original friends from when the site was first started stick together mainly in General Chat and if you look at the site name, it gives a clue as to the content being a million miles from the old BBC standard of moderation! To be fair to him, he gave us all the right to moderate our own forum to what standard suits us best!
You shouldnt be apologising for anything Sussex! Things like that should be highlighted, and is relevant as this character does appear on watford boards. Boltons, usual blah blah say nothing response to the Tobys of this world. If you dont have boundaries,limits that shouldnt be crossed think I should be pleased my kids werent taught by you.
That is not certain at all Chris - unlikely yes but certain - no We cannot finish lower than fifth but Brighton could finish fourth to our fifth or them fifth to our fourth with Palace in third. OR we could come third and Brighton drop to 6th
Oh but I most certainly do have boundaries - and as they include Special Education, it's highly unlikely that your kids paths and mine would have crossed anyway.
Voltaire once said “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it” I agree with Voltaire. We have on / off buttons on our TVs; we have "ignore" functions on here for those whose views we do not wish to see and we do not have to visit general forums. If you believe in democracy and free speech then you should try hard to allow others to express opinions that you yourself would not or would find vile - often those people condemn themselves out of their own mouths. However you can limit the forums where a person can say things and so racist, sexist and homophobic comments are rightly banned here - sick humour can find its gutter place on the General Forum as far as I am concerned. I think Bluebird recognises that he would have been better only to refer to the so called "joke" and regrets repeating it - but yet again it has shown by its universal condemnation that the posters on the Watford forum - including most viistors - are an outstanding bunch.
Leo, you are such a show off ! Before I met you I thought Voltaire was an outside electricity max outage
(a) centredcffefbapproachcffefbiscffefbthatcffefbitcffefbiscffefbthecffefbcorecffefbconditionscffefbthatcffefbarecffefbnecessarycffefbandcffefbsufficient:cffefbtheycffefbarecffefbnotcffefbandcffefbRogerscffefbnevercffefbclaimedcffefbthatcffefbtheycffefbwere.cffefb (b) empathiccffefbunderstandingcffefbacffefbtermcffefbusedcffefbsynonymouslycffefbwithcffefbempathycffefbandcffefbgenerallycffefbmorecffefboftencffefbusedcffefbbycffefbRogerscffefbincffefbhiscffefbwritingscffefboncffefbthecffefbsubject;cffefbalthoughcffefbunintentional,cffefbitcffefbcarriescffefbthecffefbconnotationcffefbthatcffefbempathycffefbiscffefb(only)cffefbacffefbcognitivecffefbprocess.cffefbThecffefbtermcffefbincludescffefbbothcffefbempathycffefbascffefbancffefbexperiencecffefbofcffefbthecffefbtherapistcffefbandcffefbitscffefbsubsequentcffefbcommunication.cffefbItcffefbcancffefbbecffefbdifficultcffefbforcffefbacffefbclientcffefbtocffefbexperiencecffefbthecffefbtherapist‟scffefbempathycffefbunlesscffefbitcffefbiscffefbcommunicatedcffefbincffefbsomecffefbform;cffefbthecffefbcommunicationcffefbofcffefbempathiccffefbunderstandingcffefballowscffefbthecffefbopportunitycffefbforcffefbthecffefbclientcffefbtocffefbcorrectcffefbinaccuraciescffefbofcffefbâunderstanding‟.cffefb (c) empathycffefbthecffefbtherapist‟scffefbexperiencingcffefbofcffefbancffefbaccuratecffefbunderstandingcffefbofcffefbthecffefbclient‟scffefbawarenesscffefbandcffefbexperience,cffefbacffefbstatecffefbwherebycffefbthecffefbtherapistcffefbâperceivecffefbthecffefbinternalcffefbframecffefbofcffefbreferencecffefbofcffefbanothercffefbwithcffefbaccuracy,cffefbandcffefbwithcffefbthecffefbemotionalcffefbcomponentscffefbandcffefbmeaningscffefbwhichcffefbpertaincffefbthereto,cffefbascffefbifcffefbonecffefbwerecffefbthecffefbothercffefbperson,cffefbbutcffefbwithoutcffefbevercffefblosingcffefbthecffefbâascffefbifâcffefbcondition‟cffefb(Rogers,cffefb1959,cffefbp.210).cffefbThiscffefbdistinguishescffefbempathycffefbascffefbacffefbstatecffefborcffefbwaycffefbofcffefbbeingcffefbfromcffefbthecffefbtechniquecffefbofcffefbreflectivecffefblisteningcffefbwithcffefbwhichcffefbempathycffefbiscffefbsometimescffefbconfusedcffefbandcffefbequated;cffefbempathycffefbiscffefbrathercffefbâacffefbqualitativecffefbandcffefbholisticcffefbexperiencecffefbofcffefbthecffefbtherapist‟cffefb(Bozarth,cffefb1984,cffefbp.cffefb65).cffefb (d) framecffefbofcffefbreferencecffefbthecffefbsubjectivecffefbandcffefbuniquecffefbwaycffefbincffefbwhichcffefbsomeonecffefbunderstandscffefbthecffefbotherscffefbandcffefbthecffefbworldcffefbbycffefbâframing‟cffefb(ascffefbincffefbacffefbwindow)cffefbtheircffefbperceptions:cffefbâancffefborganisedcffefbpatterncffefbofcffefbperceptionscffefbofcffefbselfcffefbandcffefbself-in-relationshipcffefbtocffefbotherscffefbandcffefbtocffefbthecffefbenvironment‟cffefb(Rogers,cffefb1951,cffefbp.cffefb191).cffefb (e) incongruencecffefbthecffefbdiscrepancycffefbbetweencffefbthecffefbactualcffefbexperiencecffefbandcffefbthecffefbself-imagecffefbacffefbpersoncffefbhascffefbofcffefbthemselvescffefbinsofarcffefbascffefbitcffefbrepresentscffefbthatcffefbexperiencecffefb(Rogers,cffefb1957).cffefb (f) locuscffefbofcffefbevaluationcffefbthecffefbsourcecffefbofcffefbevidencecffefbofcffefbvalues.cffefb (g) locuscffefbofcffefbevaluation,cffefbexternalcffefbdescribescffefbthecffefbsourcecffefbofcffefbevidencecffefbofcffefbvaluescffefbascffefbbeingcffefbexternalcffefbtocffefbthecffefbindividual,cffefbusingcffefbanothercffefbperson/othercffefbpeople,cffefbmostcffefbcommonlycffefbinitiallycffefbparents,cffefbparentcffefbfigurescffefband/orcffefbâsignificantcffefbothers‟.cffefbIncffefbthiscffefbcase,cffefbthecffefbjudgementcffefbofcffefbother/scffefbascffefbtocffefbthecffefbvaluecffefbofcffefbancffefbexperiencecffefborcffefbobjectcffefbbecomescffefbthecffefbprincipalcffefbcriterioncffefbofcffefbvaluecffefbforcffefbthecffefbindividual.cffefbWhencffefbthecffefbexternalcffefbevaluationcffefbconcernscffefbthecffefbindividual,cffefbsuchcffefbjudgmentscffefbformcffefbconditionscffefbofcffefbworth.cffefb locuscffefbofcffefbevaluation,cffefbinternalcffefbdescribescffefbthecffefbsourcecffefbofcffefbevidencecffefbofcffefbvaluescffefbascffefbwithincffefbthecffefbindividualcffefbher/himselfcffefbi.e.cffefbthatcffefbthecffefbindividualcffefbiscffefbatcffefbthecffefbcentrecffefbofcffefbtheircffefborganismiccffefbvaluingcffefbprocess .........
I'm not going to add any 'smilies' to my post because you'd probably see some kind of victory there. I do find that incredibly funny though. <potentialsmiley> I never posted that on the Watford board, and have no intention to ever do something like that. My sense of humour is nothing to do with you, and if you had one you might be more popular on here. All you seem to do is come on and throw pathetic non-founded insults at people, but hey, that's fine? You clueless moron.
This is what I get annoyed by, people thinking their idea of 'the limit' is where things should be, and if anyone goes over that limit they're automatically 'in the gutter'. Are you basing any of this on facts Leo? No. I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of it, I will do so if required, but I've always been respectful when posting on here. When I visit my grandparents I do not use the same language as when I spend time with my friends, it's common sense. I could happily post on here every day and then have fun on GC, to think that the two are mutually exclusive is ridiculous.
Interesting thread this.... on the old 606 we would have all been modded for off topic and the thread closed Meanwhile two more days and we could have three points ... coyh!!
Well Tobs , if mocking the dead is the way to gain popularity , and I havent seen people falling about laughing at your fine effort, I'll stay as I am thanks. After your wonderful sense of humour and choice of subject matter,displayed in public so is everyones business, the 'Moron' remark to anyone else has to be tongue in cheek.
I really like Watford, the fans and the club but I really want Leicester to win by a big margin on Friday! I am a very worried tiger.
