Ok then. Someone else must have used your account last night and posted that this time you hope Mr. Tan charters a more adequate plane and and not a single prop. I'd change your password if I were you.
I think it's far more than implied. I wonder what Mr sabre toothed tyke's opinion would be if he said I hope next time he has sex with an adult and not a child. Of course in his head that's perfectly ok because I haven't said he's had sex with a child have I. To everyone else it's completely out of order and a straight up allegation. To be clear though that is just an extreme analogy and I'm not for one minute suggesting STT has done anything like that.
It is your BELIEF that I implied it, you are free to deduce whatever you like, it's what living in a free country (alledgedly) is all about. Luckily I am fortunate enough in life to not require that my comments on a football message board be qualified by faceless avatars who have woken up on the wrong side of the bed and haven't fully come to.
Not the best example, quite why your mind would jump straight to an example about paedophillia is fairly weird bu again, I infer nothing from it, its a free country. A country ruled by law, and on the premise of "innocent til proven guilty". You cannot PROVE what you "think I implied" doesn't work like that I am afraid.
To be fair mate your post does seem to suggest Mr Tan chartered the single prop plane, you may not have meant it like that but that’s how it reads.
I tried to think of a different example such as murder (I wanted to use something quite extreme) but couldn't think of a way to work that into it. I don't need to prove pet by the way, it's clear to everyone that you Ballsed up thinking tan had chartered the plane. Most would just so oops I got that wrong, you don't have it in you to do so. Fair dos
Thanks for a more reasoned response. I accept that as it reads on the screen, it does appear that I suggest Mr. Tan chartered the first flight. But I was NOT implying it. As the reader, you have to "read between the lines" to reach that conclusion. Nowhere in the original post did I explicitly say "Mr. Tan chartered the first flight, lets hope he does a better job this time around" if I had, the attacks would be justified, as it is, they are baseless and argumentative. Subjectively prescribed implication, as far as I know, is not legally sound and would not hold up in a court of law.
Ah, the classic "that's not what I said" response and make out that everyone else misinterpreted it. If you didn't mean what you actually said then do everyone a favour and don't post, cos you obviously can't get your point across.
Thought we needed some straight talking on the subject. You assumed the Cardiff chairman chartered the plane. I think that's a fair assumption under the circumstances. I think I did too. Someone has said that wasn't the case. I don't even know if that's right as I haven't checked. If it is, then why you didn't just hold your hands up and say 'my mistake' I just can't fathom. Instead you've gone down this route but everyone can see it's bull sh*t. Though I think you've dug yourself so deep now you can't get out.
It sounds to me like the right thing to do. I would imagine if I died overseas while travelling to or for my company that they would fly my body home.
I don't wish to blow my own trumpet, but I am fairly erudite and can form an argument more than adequately. Oh, and please don't tell me not to participate on this platform. You may not agree with me, that is fine, but to try and stamp out opinions you do not like is counter-productive and leads to an echo chamber where all you have is a group of people who all agree with eachother. You see, if my "face fit" there would be people defending me, actually pointing out that in black and white, I did not say Mr. Tan chartered the first flight, unfortunately I am not in that inner sanctom on here, nor do I wish to be. A group of bored middle-aged men with nothing better to do than argue the toss online about implication and inferrence. This will be my last post on this subject as I believe there is nothing more to add to it constructively.
My favourite part of this thread was his backtracking and saying 'no I meant he should charter it instead of the player because when sala chartered his own flight it crashed' which is just as wrong as claiming Vincent tan chartered it. Vincent tan didn't arrange the flight, sala didn't arrange the flight. McKay chartered the flight with a pilot called David Henderson who in turn asked David Ibbotson to fly the plane for him (for expenses only apparently)
"I don't wish to blow my own trumpet, but I am fairly erudite and can form an argument more than adequately. Oh, and please don't tell me not to participate on this platform. You may not agree with me, that is fine, but to try and stamp out opinions you do not like is counter-productive and leads to an echo chamber where all you have is a group of people who all agree with eachother. You see, if my "face fit" there would be people defending me, actually pointing out that in black and white, I did not say Mr. Tan chartered the first flight, unfortunately I am not in that inner sanctom on here, nor do I wish to be. A group of bored middle-aged men with nothing better to do than argue the toss online about implication and inferrence. This will be my last post on this subject as I believe there is nothing more to add to it constructively." I don't even know where to start with this...
I said I would contribute no further to this particular thread, but in this instance I must. It is totally unnacceptable that you would edit my post in your quote. A breach of board rules if I am right?
Erm, pretty sure it's exactly as you typed it.... spelling mistakes and all... If an admin would like to check it then they can feel free to.