You quoted my entire post or parts of it in your replies but it's really a debate about semantics so I really can't be bothered this late.
Ah so you're no longer claiming that I stated them as facts, well done.
You said I misquoted you. I hadn't even quoted you in the text of my reply, which is where I would have quoted you, had I misquoted you.
I didn't say you stated your opinion as fact, but from the manner in which you gave your opinion, whilst still calling it an opinion, and a belief (i.e. something anyone can say in order to give their posts an air of humility), it was clear that you confused your view with reality, hence the generic ''you'' in ''you can see [he's a ''yes man''] (as if it merely required a pair of eyes), telling us what ''impression [Pascoe] gives the players'' (how can you possibly know?) etc.
This is emphatically confirmed by the fact that in your ''opinion'', his character can be inferred from his shorts, the smiles, his postie looks, the nods etc. all of which probably amount to some 0.0000000000000000000000
005% of the information needed to make a reasonably prudent judgment about his suitability for the job.
I'm sure you can appreciate the irony in using the phrase ''in my opinion'' before proceeding to give an opinion as if it were the obvious and undeniable truth; and then, after being called out, resorting to ''ah, but I prefaced my comments by saying 'in my opinion''. It's not some sort of ''get out of b0llocks free card'' you can use when everything else you've said contradicts the notions of uncertainty and prudence inherent in the terms ''belief'' and ''opinion''.
Logged