In the right context, it's fine. And it was the right context. People just like to blow things out of proportion. Perhaps I should have elaborated later on by saying, "Instead of calling them match ratings, they should be called pre-conceived ratings due to the load of bias."So you claim to be honest, fair enough. However I see a conflict between "don't post your match ratings" and "post whatever you wish".
Oh, wait.
Would you prefer if I edited the post to make it seem a lot nicer and lah-dee-dah while only hoping to get the same message across?
How is it unnecessary or reaction-seeking? It's sarcastic, sure. In all honesty, I don't see any other problem with pointing out the fact that if someone actually wants the FFA to see such a message, it should be actively provided to them, not placed somewhere with little chance of it being seen by anyone in the company.I see this is an unnecessary response to David. For me, you're just looking to get a reaction out of him.And I bet they read your blog/this forum, too. They're avid readers of all the fan blogs and they always discuss the latest posts around the one water cooler they have at FFA headquarters (but don't worry, it's a big water cooler, so nobody goes thirsty).
Also, note the sentence before that line (which you thoughtfully left out) noting that it's better to address the message to the A-League section of the FFA (or perhaps Lyall Gorman himself) opposed to the whole of the FFA as, really, the FFA as a whole already have a lot on their plate.
Would you like me to edit that post, too? God forbid anyone uses sarcasm on the Internet. It might cause the apocalypse to begin.
You really haven't. Stalker. (Should I edit that?)And believe me, I have read your posts, and very clearly.