TheWellBehavedWorrall

How do you respond to maniacs like this, @iainb? To be fair, he does have a point. I mean, between tagging people and quoting posts, I’m basically a Quantum Physicist.

The most Alan from The Hangover comment since Alan featured in The Hangover.

And now we’re all in awe of your replacement of “ss” with “$$”. Ofcom don’t stand a chance. Gaz 1, Watershed 0.

Stop lowering the tone, Gaz. We’re all having fun.

Nah, I’ve saw a few of your posts; I think we’ll get on just fine.

Which part wasn’t “entirely clear” Gaz? Let’s not beat around the bush; be specific, since you’re the one who failed to understand it. That was a rhetorical question, by the way, because I know fine well you won’t back-up your comment. Also, if you do one thing for me, please let it be to stop this amateur dramatics “I’ll bite” nonsense.

You could be right about the last heat; that makes sense. If Tarasenko had ridden though, I think Glasgow would have taken the bonus point to a race-off, at very least. I know the bonus point would have made no difference to the league table, but that would have been a big marker to lay down ahead of the play-offs, recovering from a 52-38 defeat in Oxford to take the bonus point.

Gaz, you’ve misread two posts now, one of which has been backed-up by another member, and yet not a single acknowledgement of your error in sight. What is it Limmy says? “Don’t back down, double down” and that’s exactly what you’re doing.

I was going to respond to this sarcastically, suggesting that referencing ignore lists was on par with childish as accusing someone of being an ex-member because you don’t like what they say, but you’ve joined this conversation off your own accord, so I’ll humour it. Let’s make one thing clear: my input in this topic has been helpful (I was the only person to share the heat times with @sandking072 when he asked) and informative (I received a notification to say I’d won member of the day for a liked post), so I’m playing my part in this discussion. What you’ve failed address is the clear fact that this “debate” has been instigated by three people misreading my post. I’d ask for your thoughts on that part, but assume you’ll move on in “I’m out” or “bye” fashion like @Gazc and @Fromafar did as opposed to admitting they got it wrong. I’m all for open discussions, but don’t misread my post, then back-off when you’re found out. We’re all adults here.

Gaz, you’ve misread a second post. Why does this keep happening? I said “if I was a narcissist, I’d want an apology”. I don’t want an apology, but unless you read these posts properly, we’re going to continue to struggle. This entire discussion has risen from you and two others failing to read a simple post which I clarified for a second time and @Noelinho confirmed he understood. I’ll repeat it; I’m afraid an inability to read a simple sentence isn’t my problem.

You’re confusing me for someone who cares about endearment and childish accusations. I’m afraid it’s not my problem if @Fromafar, @phillipsr and @Gazc failed to read a simple sentence properly, then despite this, you refuse to acknowledge it and instead throw accusations at me.

While on the subject, credit where it’s due to Ace Pijper on those first two bends of heat two and subsequent win. We’re sending a lot of praise in the direction of Boughen and very rightly so, but Pijper has just turned seventeen and that win in heat two deserves credit. Boughen made the gate and was riding high, appearing to be heading for the front when Pijper blocked the move coming off the second bend. The crash was unfortunate. I can understand Boughen’s frustration, but having not been to a live meeting for many years, I forgot just how fast and just how close these guys get, going sideways.

Of course you are. What’s the alternative? Apologise for failing to read the post properly? That isn’t going to happen.

Is Pijper out? I wouldn’t be surprised after Friday night’s crash. If it was me, I’d still be lying in intensive care, but he walked away from it.

I appreciate the first part of your comment, but I’m not sure I agree with the last part. If Craig Cook told Edinburgh, or even if Edinburgh as much as suspected, that he was suffering from mental health issues, I don’t think Alex Harkess and those in charge at Armadale or the BSPA would release a statement to the public which stated that he was refusing to ride. We’ll never know, but in my opinion, all parties acts - Cook at the CLRC and Leicester, the BSPA’s statement, etc. - point towards gross misconduct from the rider.

Yes, it was. My ”shooting itself in the foot” comment was in response to @Fromafar saying ”plus he wasn’t in the top three averages”, so the confusion came from him/her because he/she misread my post. @Noelinho understood it without issue, so do we require an English lesson? For those in doubt, that sentence states that Tarasenko was overlooked in heat fifteen for the Pairs champions; not overlooked for the Pairs. My inclusion of the word “champions” clarifies the context perfectly. If I was a narcissist, I’d be waiting for “sorry, I didn’t read your post properly” from @Fromafar, @phillipsr and @Gazc

You’ve boldened half of my original sentence, so you’re responding to an out-of-context sentence. A number of people are suggesting that Cook should not be spoken about due to an apparent risk of mental health issues. You’ll have seen the pleasant references to former riders who died of suicide. What I’m alluding to is that if Craig Cook was suffering from mental health issues, then the concern should not be directed at those making observations on a forum, but instead Edinburgh and the BSPA who have revealed to the world that he’s refusing to ride. I doubt that, though. A full assessment of the situation would have been made before distributing that statement. I refuse to believe someone vulnerable would be thrown under the bus and exposed to criticism, if he was indeed suffering from mental health issues.

Thanks. I’m glad someone did. That’s unfortunate. I mean, my estimate was based on nothing more than observation, so was nothing more than a guess. I’d be interested to see attendance figures across the country.

Does anyone know the probability of Glasgow riding at home again next Friday? Also, in these groups of three, are there home and away fixtures? Or does each club face one another once?

Jesus Christ. I was referring to heat fifteen of Friday night; not the Pairs. The reference to the Pairs was in regard to the fact that Glasgow remained strongly represented in that last heat, so omitting Tarasenko didn’t leave them short.

In what sense is that a ”good restriction”? Quite frankly, I don’t care what you’re starting to think.

I think there’s been a misunderstanding here. He was overlooked for heat fifteen; not the Pairs. My point was that it could be argued he was overlooked for the Pairs champions, so it’s not like Glasgow have sent two duds out in the last heat. Okay, understood now. I didn’t know that, but now that I do, I see speedway shooting itself in the foot. Why implement such a restriction? Who benefits there?

Sorry, what do you mean? I’m aware of both of those facts.

This was a topic of discussion in our group last night and we came to the agreement that there between 2,000 and 3,000 fans there. I’ve thought about this a few times today. The second the Glasgow line-up for heat fifteen was announced, there were noises of shock throughout the crowd. Tarasenko was by far the best rider on show, so for him not to make an appearance was very strange, especially with the bonus point at stake. Granted he was overlooked for the league’s Pairs champions, but still, I’m 90% certain that if Tarasenko was selected, Harris would have passed Masters for second, not first. It would be interesting to hear what Cami Brown’s thoughts on it, but I haven’t saw any interviews on social media and assume this isn’t common practice.

Are speedway attendances revealed?