- This topic has 659 replies, 109 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Had Prufrock not used the comma, Marginal Value, it would have indeed indicated that someone had already called in to question Jim McGrath’s credibility. As it is Prufrock has merely introduced a comparable, albeit without unarguable context. If a GCSE student reads in to the question as you have suggested, there’s no unequivocal justification for them being considered to be correct. The wording doesn’t allow for definitive interpretation, thus making Prufrock’s astonishment equally and perfectly plausible.
It does annoy me when people try to be clever and serve only to show a distinct lack of understanding.
Perhaps you ought to re-read my post. Your first sentence appears to suggest that I was advocating the deletion of the comma, when clearly I was advocating its replacement with a question mark. The use of “merely” in your second sentence is merely the equivalent to “I was merely helping him to his feet” as the aggressor grasped the tender inner flesh of the victim’s upper arm and gave it a severe pinch and twist as he lifted the man to his feet. I accept, as you state in your fourth sentence, that the wording does not allow for definitive interpretation, but that was the whole point of Prufrock writing it as he did, he was “merely”, “innocently”, asking a completely innocuous question. That was the whole reason why I wrote my post the way I did.
Perhaps I spend too much of my time in polite society, where the value of saying what one means takes precedence over saying things at a very oblique angle. As for trying to be clever; is that the clever of a good education, of proper manners, of polite society or the more-modern clever of having made a mess of something and saying: “Who? Me? No, I would never do such a thing”.
What a strange carry on.
Maybe there is a bit of history after GM’s ‘principled’ ****** off of Betfair over the Charity Day business,?
………as far I can see GM comes across as a decent man, resigning for the right reason (for him) in a dignified manner.
Nothing to get too excited about…
Did they refuse the Aussie’s request for even bigger numbercloths, so that he wouldn’t make such a horlicks of his commentaries?
Let’s hope he starts a trend of BHA board resignations. Let’s start with Paul Roy and continue with that ex-Sleepy Hollow fella who was supposed to be representing punters. Forget his name, think it started with a G………
JM and the other independent Director were originally intended to represent the punter’s interests. That has never happened. JM even sides with the person who disregards the punter as having no legitimate racing interest even to be considered. Nevertheless, it would have been better for JM to have had the courage to stay and fight his corner than walk away knowing full well the state the BHA and racing is in. After all he has made a very good living from racing and made a net contribution to the current Levy of zilch minus.
As far as Prufrock’s comma goes, then his question is unambiguous in terms of the topic of this thread and the line that it was diverging on. As Prufrock is nourishing UK racing’s single brain cell at the moment, we cannot really afford yet another walk out.
Absolutely no loss because no one can see what he’s done to justify his salary. Until now ironically. Although it’s great to see RFC have the right to adjust the calendar as they see fit…. regardless of what anyone with more knowledge at the BHA thinks.
I’d really, really like for RFC and the BHA to have the opportunity to explain their position on various issues within the context of a dialogue on TRF.
How much clearer have certain things been on certain things after Paul Struthers has come on and articulated the BHA’s stance? I’d say that, while people haven’t necessarily always agreed with him, Paul has provided a clarity around the intentions and actions of the BHA that has led to a much greater level of understanding and acceptance (on specific topics).
A big part of the problem, in my view, is that people are often unclear about the motives for and rationale behing many of the BHA and RFC actions and activities. The press releases which invariably accompany these don’t allow for the clearing of confusion and misunderstanding that often exists.
That is why I’ve been keen to work with the BHA to provide something on TRF with a little more structure – to enable ‘us’ to question some of these areas and issues and to enable ‘them’ to clarify and articulate their motives and actions more clearly. As I’ve already said, when this has happened informally on the forum (via Paul’s involvement) I think people have appreciated it and I think it’s shown the BHA in a better light than would otherwise have been the case.
So far as J. McG’s decision goes – I suspect that it has been incredibly frustrating for him to see decisions being steam-rollered through via RFC which he has personally felt were completely wrong for racing.
The worrying thing for me is that, having presumably fought his corner for some time, he now seems so abjectly disenchanted with the failure of people to listen to his informed opinion that he sees no option other than to leave.
Finally, regarding the grammatical discussion on this thread one or two need to get a grip (as we say up here in sunny Scotland)!
RFC is simply a vehicle to remove pots of cash from the sport. RFC chaps are there to enrich themselves. It’s just another consultancy job for them.
For all McGrath’s shortcomings and he has been displaying them to the world every week for 20 years on C4, he obviously does know plenty about the sport. The last person from RFC I spied on the TV was a public school oik type who was being interviewed Ascot. Turned out he was the son of Bunny Warren the infamous boss of the Japanese Stallion Importing Corporation! I must report to you that Bunny Junior sounded most expert-like and used plenty of marketing cliches. He looked liked he hadn’t started shaving yet!
For all his grammatical shortcomings I will forgive Prufrock on this occasion as he was a former employee of Jimbo and who knows what issues there are between the pair of em. For him to side with Junior Warren and his ilk there must be a few wheelbarrows worth.
The worrying thing for me is that, having presumably fought his corner for some time, he now seems so abjectly disenchanted with the failure of people to listen to his informed opinion that he sees no option other than to leave.
Where is the evidence that his views haven’t been listened to? Just because they aren’t agreed with doesn’t mean they haven’t been listened to. Is his view any more or less informed than someone like Ruth Quinn, the Head of Racing at the BHA, or any other of the Directors?
Jim McGrath should be respected for making the decision to stand down than go along with something he vehemently disagrees with, some of his colleagues could learn something from him in this regard, but just because he disagrees with the switch of Champions Day doesn’t necessarily make him right.
Anyone who sincerely belives that RFC initiatives are anything other than job justification is very naive. Moving big races is rearranging where members of the band sit on the Titanic!
Lol. Whether it was, or was not, a misplaced comma, my earlier post remains a question, rather than a statement of my own views on the matter.
An alternative interpretation of Jim McGrath’s gesture is that he continues to support an individual – Paul Roy – that the vast majority on here believe should have resigned.
Does that make Paul Roy alright all of a sudden – another nail in the coffin of those who think he is a discredited individual – just because Jim McGrath says so? Or is it possible that it is just Jim McGrath’s opinion?
It is only "a nail in RFC’s coffin" if you set much store by the views of the individual concerned. Others may well see things differently.
And, Pig Man, you should check your facts: I have never been an employee of Jim McGrath. We were, for many years, both employees of the same company.
He was a work colleague who I got on with and respected the vast majority of the time. I did not regard everything that he said as "the truth". I am sure he felt the same about me in that respect.
Fair points DJ – Instead of ‘listen to’ I perhaps should have said ‘act upon’. Quite a difference, I agree.
Lol. Whether it was, or was not, a misplaced comma, my earlier post remains a question, rather than a statement of my own views on the matter.
I am surprised that you, as a writer, and one close to the racing game at that, have led such a sheltered existence that you are not aware of the prevalence of journalists asking a question to which they expect their audience to supply an implied answer. Perhaps you are too young to appreciate the bad old days pre-regulation, pre-licensing of individuals, in the City when a chap could ask a simple question in a coffee house “Will XYZ company still be solvent in two weeks?” (but likely to be much more subtly phrased) in the expectation of picking up some cheap shares in the next day or two.
I would have thought that with your great experience and knowledge of racing, you would be almost the best-placed person to answer your own question about Jim McGrath’s credibilty. You might have said: “This man has said, this, this and this. Done that, that and that. The consequences have been very bad/good. Therefore he has reduced/increased credibility.” In the absence of further information in your post, I thought that PigMan’s interpretation of your question was very fair.
The English language is fraught with pitfalls of interpretation. I hope no-one’s credibility as a grammarian, or debater, or opinion maker, has suffered in the course this interchange of views. There, no question, just a hope for a good outcome for everybody.
Prufrock asked a perhaps ambiguious question. Fair enough for people to question it. But he’s since explained what was meant and that should be enough for anyone. So why continue the "debate"? Let it go.
Value Is EverythingJim McGrath made it very clear at the time of his appointment that he was not joining the BHA as a represntative of punters, as was reported or speculated on at that time.
I think it is fair to say he has stuck to that.He was a work colleague who I got on with and respected the vast majority of the time. I did not regard everything that he said as "the truth". I am sure he felt the same about me in that respect.
"the truth"! reading between the inverted commas,i reckon Pru is suggesting he didn"t agree with Jimbo"s assertion that
Celtic Swing
was the wonder horse Timeform suggested he was in the 1995 Annual! He did get carried away about that one,most unlike Jim!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.