Because it's not so hard to remember when the club weren't reliable. Those wounds cut deep, and so people are still, arguably, hypersensitive. I don't think there's any reason why people shouldn't question the merits of a signing (blind faith is, after all, at odds with the modern world), and if it helps allay concerns about Toivonen's rejection of our terms, all the better.
I know he's well hated but I quite like having a bastard on the pitch, someone who gets under the skin and people hate playing against. If were honest this was Holt, if he played for anyone else we would have hated him too.
Hypersensitive? I.E.unreasonably or unjustifiedly sensitive, which is what I'm saying. The only members of the board who have "history" of any kind are Delia and Michael, and whatever mistakes they made in the past, they have amply atoned for by the crucial, good decisions they then made which have got us where we are now. It isn't a matter of not having "blind" faith, it's a matter of forming your judgements of things in the light of the present, not being controlled by baggage from the past.
Yes, hypersensitive as in overly sensitive. I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was explaining, as you asked the question (though as a recently enrolled member of pedants' corner, I should point out I said "arguably hypersensitive". It is flippant at best and insensitive at worst to suggest that people should forget the past and only judge on the present. The ability to relive the pain of past events through memory is a fundamental part of what sets us apart from animals. Don't get me wrong, I agree that we should try to minimise the amount the past reflects, or as you put it "the baggage", given the different people that run the club, but I don't think we should ever forget where we were and we should always be sensitive to the fact that mistakes in management can be made at any time. Ergo, it is reasonable, even when as a supporter you don't know all the facts, to question decisions if they are not immediately apparent and not give every decision the board makes a green light, just because they are running the club well at the moment. That is not being unappreciative, it is being sensibly prudent.
Toivonen played for PSV in the Europa League tonight. PSV can ill afford to leave a player of his quality unused I would have thought.
I'm all for a critical attitude i.e. subjecting things to reasoned appraisal. But that is not an excuse for unreasonable fretting and unfounded questioning etc. Nor is a critical attitude something that should be applied only towards others. Fans need to apply the same attitude equally to themselves.
Can I join Pedant's Corner, please? I'm an English teacher, so I'm sure I have the credentials. Once there are two or more members, I suppose it should be Pedants' Corner. (Although, as far as I know, people generally refer to Speaker's Corner.) You see, I can do it, I can do it.
There was a time in the distant past when being a teacher of English would indeed have gained you automatic membership of the pedant sub-group Vietnam. However the daily mangling of the language so evident on here, as in all walks of life, demonstates just how lacking in pedantic zeal members of your profession have become. So I'm afraid you are required to provide further proof your fitness for admission. You are however making good progress in that regard, having passed the apostrophe test and the ncgandy test for the proper use of "less" and "fewer". Keep up the good work and I and my fellow pedants look forward to welcoming you into our exclusive sub-group. (I should explain that Canary Rob, being a member of the legal profession, did qualify automatically. He would not get very far in his job without maintaining the very highest standards in pedantry.)
What is this? You are the second Moderator in two days to seek admission, Maestro. Good try as well. Like dave, you have been placed on the applicant waiting list.
I thought the topic of this thread was Toinovon not pedantry. Please confine posts to the correct subject.
Oh dear, very careless of me, and in my request for membership, too! Actually, this (sadly) is the kind of thing that people in my profession argue about - whether language is what people actually say ('can') or whether one is allowed to be prescriptive ('may'). The general trend in linguistics is completely away from the latter, and any linguist who dared to try to be prescriptive would be either laughed out of court or ostracised.
More generally, evaluative language in its entirety is deemed politically incorrect! (Is there anyone left who can spot the contradiction there?)
