RDBD.. why do you always talk in riddles

or am i just thick

RDBD,

For once i agree with Weare, you do seem to complicate things for no reason.

I simply said that there is no reason that i know of that suggests Harry definitely had to go. All there is is speculation, nothing concrete.

Someone stealing from an employer would be a reason they should definitely leave a company or turning up for work drunk would be another. However, as far as i, and i'm assuming you, know - there is no definitive reason why Harry had to go. And this is my point. I'm not saying he did this perfect or that perfect, but i dont see a reason why it was nailed on that he would be pushed out, or that he was pushed out.

Definitely & maybe are 2 completely separate words, its just a coincidence they both form the title of one of my favourite albums of all time.

Chicken..........

<quote>

Unless Harry wanted to leave, then there is no case that he definitely "had to go".

</quote>

Get your story straight, Chicken.
You made a claim that was EASILY refuted with a simple counter-example.

There are any number of cogent reasons that Levy gave Arry the boot. Anyone here who has "speculated" on those reasons may in fact be CORRECT. Because you are NOT PRIVY to Levys' decision process, you cannot make ANY claim that confirms/refutes such opinions.

So we have gone from "no" reason to "no definitive" reason (jeez) .
And actually there are "definitive" reasons : the ones Levy used when making his decision.

I await 'there is no <insert your next word here> reason' statement with interest ...

RDBD,

I think you are totally missing the point of this. In short, i simply have made a statement that none of us know a reason why Harry was sacked. As such, to say he "definitely" had to go, does not add up.

We can all say it might have been this, or might have been that, but you cant claim someone definitely had to be sacked, if none of us even know the reason for the sacking.

This isnt about getting stories straight or a need to </quote>.....there is just nothing that i, or you, know; of where we can say that he definitely had to go.

If there is a reason that you know of for this "definite" sacking reason, please share.

Chicken, you may not know why he had to go, maybe it was internalised due to embarrassment.

Not saying that's true BTW!

Think we all know why he went but Harry was not expecting it when he went to work that morning

"If there is a reason that you know of for this "definite" sacking reason, please share."

The "definite" reasons are the reasons that Levy chose when making his decision.

By definition, no.

Now, do you know the reasons that Levy used ... ??

"you may not know why he had to go, maybe it was internalised due to embarrassment."

TCW, more likely twas internalised cos it got nasty (IMHO) .

"Think we all know why he went"

We all think we know the reasons.
Some of those thoughts are more reasonable than others.


"but Harry was not expecting it when he went to work that morning"

That much does seem to be true.

TCW

Chicken, you may not know why he had to go, maybe it was internalised due to embarrassment.

================

And thats my point. No-one knows. So until any of us do know, none of can say he "definitely" had to go.

Levy's reason may have been that he stole a cake from the canteen, when in fact it was a misunderstanding because the dinner lady gave it to him. Whilst this is a reason, this isn't a reason why he definitely had to be sacked. Its just Levy's reason. He might have slept with Levy's missus - again, i/we dont know.

And this is what i am also trying to say to RDBD. Being sacked is one thing, but claiming he definitely, without question, had to be sacked for that reason is not something we know. Could it be repaired? Again, we dont know, because we dont even know the reason yet.

And until we do, we cannot say he definitely should have done or (flipping the coin) definitely should not have.

The reasons given as to why he was sacked are simply gossip - not definite reasons.

Unless Harry wanted to leave, then there is no case that he definitely "had to go".

-----

That's not what you argued mate, doesn't matter what we know or don't

He might have slept with Levy's missus - again, i/we dont know.
_______________

TCW,

That's not what you argued mate, doesn't matter what we know or don't

==================

Yes it is, well its part of it. Obviously if Harry wanted out - then Levy wasnt going to hold him prisoner, so yes he would have had to leave if that was the case.

I cant see how this can even be argued.

Unless Harry wanted to leave, then WE CANNOT SAY there is a case that he definitely "had to go".

---

What you meant

"That's not what you argued mate, doesn't matter what we know or don't"

All this to merely say :

Whatever reasons Levy used, I don't think they were particularly compelling.

Mr Chelsea

Its true though - not that Harry slept with Levy's missus, but his reasons could be anything from a misunderstanding to gross misconduct.

Until we know this, we cannot say he definitely should, or definitely should NOT, have been sacked.

TCW,

No, i meant:

Unless Harry wanted to leave, then there is no case that he definitely "had to go".

..because thats what i wrote.

Until we know this, we cannot say he definitely should, or definitely should NOT, have been sacked.

----

You just posted this!

Give you this, you just won't be wrong

"There are known knowns ..."

TCW,

I know i'm stubborn, but we cant give opinions on facts that are unknown to us.

I cant say that Harry has better breath than AVB, because i simply dont know.

Chicken I agree..

You gave an opinion, that unless Harry wanted to go there was definitely no case. That's an opinion. You don't know whether he was dismissed for very good reason and it's hush hush.

I'm only saying

Chicken pop over onto this other thread I'm commenting on.

Some bright spark is comparing Ibrahimovic to John O'Shea