Ari Gold
Master Baiter
Contributor
- Mar 13, 2008
- 6,522
- 2,807
Excuse me? Point to me where in that quote I said anything about the position he was bought here to play?
It was inferred because you agreed with the post that brought up this argument and added further to the argument. At least that is how I read it. If I misinterpreted, then I apologise to you, but maintain the argument itself is bogus.
To clarify where the inference came from:
Milford was signed as a 5/8. Even if Boyd didn't sign Milfird still wouldn't be fullback. Therefore Boyd has no effect on Ash Taylor.
That post basically implies that Milford was signed to play five-eight only and even in the absence of Boyd, Milford should not be a fullback option. Then you quoted that post and added:
And this right here is why this argument has gotten ridiculous and circular.
Boyd has no impact on taylor joining the side, but he is thrown in there to justify what a mistake signing boyd was in some people's opinion.
I read this as support for The Shed's argument, which is what I consider to be bogus. Like I said, maybe I misread it, but it came off to me as though you were backing up The Shed's position.