[Siderite]

I agree. No need to make such personal attacks against Jerry.

[Siderite]

Critcising your messiah does not equal worshipping Swann, but well done on more attacks on the fans.

We don’t know what the CCJ is for, but it’s not good and Hilton agreed to take on the debt, so it’s his responsibility to pay it. It’s only a £1500 bill, so what is the issue? After all, he has funds, as we are told.

2 users thanked author for this post.

North Lincolnshire Irons, Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

Savings, cost cutting and cutting cloth shouldn’t come with not paying what you owe and a ‘whatevs’ attitude IMO. False economy and unsustainable. Though people are perfectly entitled to stick their heads in the sand and hope the suns still shining. Evidence shows that serves no club well

Yes. Hilton agreed to take the debt on, I believe, so has no excuses regarding it being Swann’s legacy. It’s not fair on those we owe money to, who deserve to be paid. Finding ways to squibble others out of money would be unprofessional and bad. Ultimately, it could cost relations with associated businesses, and that’s not good for relations. Also, squiubbling over £1500 doesn’t make me more confident that Hilton has the funds needed for the stadium or club, and just raises my suspicions over him regarding ther Swann dispute.

1 user thanked author for this post.

North Lincolnshire Irons

[Siderite]

I would if I could be bothered, but there have been several discussions and you haven’t convinced me. I don’t see what I’d gain. I have come across such videos before and not been convinced.

[Siderite]

Sharp isn’t a Scunny fan, so he is not going to care about going to a local rival, and I don’t blame him. At that time he needed to go somewhere for his career to pick up.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe

[Siderite]

I agree, DM. Hilton can demonstrate his worth with action. He doesn’t need me patting him on the back all the time, and refraining from criticism or ignoring concerns. These things are bound to stir up worry from some and cause suspicion. It’s a football forum and people will disagree with each other. The way to deal with it is to accept it, not slam them as trouble makers, like Hilton has done.

After all, shutting up and not causing a fuss served us poorly with Swann.

1 user thanked author for this post.

North Lincolnshire Irons

[Siderite]

I agree, which is why I think Christian fundamentalism can be easily dismantled. :-)

[Siderite]

TheJuryeffsOut wrote:

It is clear Hilton doesn’t want to spend money on anything he doesn’t feel is necessary – academy, groundsman, ticket office staff, stewards etc.

I know you disagree, so this isn’t a go at you, but many of these are important components of the club. We can’t just neglect them and we won’t be sustainable truly if we’re just cutting corners on vital roles.

2 users thanked author for this post.

North Lincolnshire Irons, TheJuryeffsOut

[Siderite]

bartonscorpion wrote:

A very good result and performance from the lads, I had forcast a 3-0 win and possibly more.
But to haVE AN ATTENDANCE OF 3,392 on a Tuesday evening, following an home match on Saturday was a brilliant effort by the supporters, I thought it would be about 2,680, so well done you fans, and in full voice aswell.

Now top of the League, so keep it up guys, and lets get back to where we should be, but for that to happen, this ownership mess must be sorted out very, very soon, our fans do not deserve grown so called men behaving like spoiled children.

Completely agree. On the pitch, it is probably looking like the best it’s been in years. If Hilton could act like a professional and do his duties off it, if Swann could drop the ego and both come to a solution, we would have little to worry about.

1 user thanked author for this post.

TheJuryeffsOut

[Siderite]

I am not sure the Cpt Tom model is one we should emulate or the money would all get spent on jacuzzis and luxuries by the family of the walker. ;-)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Awaywego

[Siderite]

ironeye wrote:

enjoyed last night but iron insider was right the end is nigh if hillton can’t afford the paltry amount of 1547 there is no way he has 3m wake up and smell it folks it doesn’t smell like coffee it smells like bullshit

It’s hardly a surprise that IE agrees with II. :-)

Whatever the cause for this, I am sure the man who seems to find issues with whatever he has to pay cannot be at fault for not being able to stump up the cash when needed.

[Siderite]

I was going to say that this surely constitutes as a conflict of interest?

[Siderite]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

… not philosophical concepts,but actual truth.
Laws of Logic is not a philosophical concept,they are abstract,immaterial,universal and objective and are part of our understanding of our existence.
Your idea my words have been a philosophical concept is false.

The laws of logic not being philosophical must have been news to the philosophers who built upon the subject. In fact, the term philosophy is defined as the study into questions concerning our own existence, reason etc. Therefore, to claim it isn’t a philosophical concept is odd and suggests a misunderstanding as to what philosophy is. Regardless, we don’t need to invoke God to understand why we can understand our own existence.

[Siderite]

I prefer the more manic sound of the original Pixies version, but Fontaines do a good job in covering it in their own way with a Joy Division-esque feel. A good cover should always be different. There is no point in the covers which just sound the same as the original in my opinion.

[Siderite]

He’s allowed to air his opinion, surely? The problem with that Facebook group is that it’s too censorious.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Siderite]

I am not debating any more, so all I will say is that you have failed to grasp what atheism is if you think it procludes the concept of philosophical concepts.

[Siderite]

You keep asking the same question. I would keep giving the same answer. Logical processes have always existed, but humans are the first to identify them and understand them with study. They are logical because the observer making a deduction decides what outcome is most likely under a given scenario, for example. This doesn’t change under the supposition that there is a God or no God. Therefore, the existence of logic does not rely on there being a deity. It does not disprove secular, atheistic or scientific thought. I do not discount that some people of faith may see our ability to understand logical processes as derived by God through its work. This is no issue to me.

Evolution is the study of how all creatures have changed through time. Logic is not a creature, so it does not undergo the same evolutionary process. This is not a big deal, because evolution does not encompass all science any more than gravity does. Our understanding of logic came with evolutionary processes allowing our brains to become more able to understand more complex thought. The nature of logical processes existed long before, given that there is no reason to think that different outcomes would come from different processes or decisions before our ability to understand logic.

That’s as thorough as I can be bothered to go into it, and I have answered the same question three times now, so will stop, as there is no better way of laying out my position and if I get asked the same ‘gotcha’ style questions again I may scream.

Tl;dr: Logical outcomes are a result of scientific processes. The ability to understand logic thoroughly comes from development of more complex brains in humans.

[Siderite]

The laws of logic come from our ability to reason and understand how to reason. We don’t need a God for this.

Evolution does not equal the Big Bang, and they are not ‘beliefs’.

[Siderite]

Well, you have a belief. I grant you that. It’s not a definitive answer though, as none of this shows proof of the creator or the gotcha you’re desperately looking for. We don’t need a creator to explain how humans came to understand logic or why logical decisions exist in the first place. You can believe that God gave us the ability to understand logic, sure, but its existence does not disprove atheism, secularism or evolution. In fact, evolution is a very logical process.

I do not see the point in carrying this on further. Nothing new will be added, just more attempts at gotchas and a failing to understand why atheists think differently.

[Siderite]

You completely fail to grasp that people disagree with you, and not because they secretly know that you’re right, don’t you? There is no reason to determine God as a conclusion because logical outcomes are consistent. You fail to understand atheism if you think the lack of physical presence of logic invalidates it.

[Siderite]

One problem. If you don’t believe in oxygen in the air for breathing, the oxygen still exists. If you don’t believe in God or Christianity, logical decisions still make reasoned sense (we don’t need to say therefore God when making logical deductions or in studying logic). God and the Bible are therefore a superfluous explanation for the existence of logic.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Good grief. The laws of logic exist as they do now. We don’t need to jump to God because they’re philosophical concepts which can be understood by the mind and study.

I have sympathy with the argument that God gave us the ability to use logic and reason. That’s a reasonable standpoint for faith, in my opinion. I don’t have any sympathy with the nonsense that without faith such concepts cannot make sense.

[Siderite]

Did he mention why some Bury fans turned on him? He was again sidling up to the sympathetic voices and sowing division against those more sceptical, namely Bury AFC, spreading nonsense about the fans there trying to derail his deal after questioning him over funding.

He seems to create friction wherever he goes. He’s the world’s most unfortunate man to be a victim of so many people with agendas against him and to never be the one causing trouble.

3 users thanked author for this post.

IronIronIron, TheJuryeffsOut, sufc_not_on_tour

[Siderite]

Yep. It will be the fault of the fans who mentioned it, but not Hilton, who assured everyone it was all OK before making a backtrack. Then people will wonder why I think it’s pointless to ask Hilton on there about these worries. He clearly isn’t afraid of embellishing the truth or not being fully honest.

[Siderite]

sufc_not_on_tour wrote:

This is a post from Hilton’s new best friend and public spokesman on the clappers group forum.

“ Where the hell do Humberside Police get their intelligence from.
There was never ever going to be trouble today, welcoming Jimmy Deans former club to Glanford Park.
Peterborough’s attendance at home was half what we took away last week, so they were never going to bring many, but the police decided to put the fear of god in them anyway.
All the police presence today is a waste of manpower and if I was the club I’d not be paying no police bill.
Talk about getting paid for doing naff all.
Oh and the SAG officer can suck my left one too….. lot more than 2500 here you jobsworth”

That’ll go down well with the powers that be!

Populist nonsense. Stewards aren’t there just to sort out crowd problems, but to help in an emergency, among other things. We can argue the toss about regulations, but they exist for a reason, and they won’t change or budge because Hilton doesn’t want to pay out or self-appointed spokespeople saying we should just not pay. These are things every owner has to deal with, certainly for the ground size we have, so Hilton gets no sympathy from me on this issue. He tells us he has proof of funds, so there should be no issue in him funding an important aspect of the club running.

[Siderite]

I doubt the hardline on the Facebook group are seeing anything fishy with Hilton because of this. They’ll still be singing his praises, buying his excuses and complaining that others are being negative about worrying issues. All the while ignoring that his latest explanation contradicts the assurances he tried to give last week.

[Siderite]

I don’t think you’re able to grasp mine or other atheists’ positions, frankly. The disbelief in religion does not mean atheists think that concepts outside of physical phenomena, like logic, have no use. Nor do they need a deity to explain them.

The ability to reason clearly exists and is demonstrated by humans, along with other creatures. The fact that it exists does not invalidate atheism or prove God.

[Siderite]

I have answered that question more than once already. The existence of humans doesn’t make laws of logic change, we just have the ability to interpret it fully. Logic as a concept being not material in nature does not make it a redundant concept, since there is evidence for abilities to reason. It’s not complicated and this is rather tedious.

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

A spat with NLCC. Call me negative but that doesn’t bode well for future working on a new stadium.

Also, all this faff in dealing with comparatively small payments for necessities doesn’t fill me with confidence that Swann was wrong in saying that Hilton doesn’t have proof of funds.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Interested Bystander, Deereyme66, TheJuryeffsOut

[Siderite]

Being an atheist doesn’t mean you don’t think that concepts like logic aren’t a thing, deary me. The existence of philosophical concepts like logic, and understanding the ability to reason, can be documented with evidence to back it up and it would still exist with or without humans.

[Author]

Posts