News: Arko attempted Manly 'peace pact'

[ManlyBacker]

<p>As the dust settles on the Sea Eagles' very public feud, Manly "Godfather" Ken Arthurson has revealed he attempted to step in and end the bitter in-fighting for the NRL club's sake.</p>

<a href="http://www.silvertails.net/news/4027-arko-attempted-manly-peace-pact.html">Read the full article</a>

 

[Rex]

Max has unreasonably copped a flogging at times on this site, with a few voices, led by DSM, providing a different view.  Time to take DSM's and Arko's lead and stop this "look the gift horse in the mouth" rubbish. Max's willingness to step aside from the board for the cause speaks volumes.

After sinking many millions of dollars into Manly when it was gone for all money, those who sharpen the knife for Max based on a presumption of difficult times ahead for him, or similarly petty issues, ought to give themselves a huge uppercut, IMO. Otherwise its like getting a life-saving helping hand on a cliff-edge and then pushing the rescuer off the precipice to get a better view, or because it's a bit crowded for comfort.

 

[Canteen Worker]

A bit coloured Rex. Max saved the club at its lowest ebb and deserves congratulations for that. However his public behaviour this season has been less than helpful and sadly his feud with Mayer has been disappointing. Behind the scenes he may be very helpful but his lack of media savvy and stupid comments at the wrong time have hurt us. His interference in football matters has, at times, also irritated the coaching staff/retention committe. Just because he is stepping down, doesn't undo some of the damage done to Manly this year.

I do commend him on his decision and am glad that there will be new blood on the board.  Hopefully the future will be more rosey.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

I agree 110% with CW, well said!!!

 

[Rex]

A bit coloured Rex. Max saved the club at its lowest ebb and deserves congratulations for that. However his public behaviour this season has been less than helpful and sadly his feud with Mayer has been disappointing. Behind the scenes he may be very helpful but his lack of media savvy and stupid comments at the wrong time have hurt us. His interference in football matters has, at times, also irritated the coaching staff/retention committe. Just because he is stepping down, doesn't undo some of the damage done to Manly this year.

I do commend him on his decision and am glad that there will be new blood on the board.  Hopefully the future will be more rosey.

Thanks CW, Mark,

Essentially, your response is a bit like saying the guy who saved your life has bad breath so he deserves to be pushed off the cliff by you. Yes? No? Not asking you to agree with anything I'm saying or inferring, just putting it out there for you to look into if you want.

Don't know whether you've ever noticed how when we believe that our thoughts are not illusions, that OUR thoughts are accurate and reliable representations, we close off, stop looking and pain follows.  Or if you've ever noticed how this habit is the norm, and how people overwhelmingly believe that it is the OTHER people who are deluded and wrong, not themselves. How we might be doing that ourselves right now.

To make the wife a pest, we start re-interpreting everything she is doing as her being a pest.  To make the wife helpful and generous, we start seeing EVERYTHING she does (yes - even her nagging) as her being helpful and generous ... that IS possible isn't it? ... and watch what happens.

Arko lives these principles.  He watches what happens and avoids jumping to rash or damning conclusions. And when we damn others we damn ourselves, and when we appreciate/help others we appreciate/help ourselves.  Maybe you've noticed how people blossom under Arko's leadership.  Right now, is he damning Delmege or appreciating him and helping him blossom? And are his actions helpful to Manly ... and more helpful than the repeated criticisms of Delmege here?

 

[Jatz Crackers]

What a complete and utter 100% load of cobblers.

Not that im saying its a load of cobblers or anything, but im just putting it out there so everyone can look into it.

 

[Dan]

Rex its nothing like that.

You need to separate the two things.

Just because you spent money to save the club doesn't mean you get to act like a goose.

Sure he save us, thanks, well done, but when do we stop thanking him and realise he is doing more bad than good. When does his unlimited license to do whatever he wants run out?

Your coloured words do nothing but make you sound arrogant Rex. Just because you string a few words together in a rosy way, doesn't mean what you say actually has any substance.

Facts are this year, Delmege has acted like a goose in the media and has undone much of the good work he has done.

Lets just build him a statue, shake his hand and say good bye.

Onwards and upwards, living in the past is what made us the Northern Eagles

 

[ads]

I would have thought that just because someone gave you a life saving hand on a cliff edge, that doesn't mean you have to accept them slapping you around later.

 

[Jethro]

I would have thought that just because someone gave you a life saving hand on a cliff edge, that doesn't mean you have to accept them slapping you around later.

That's a great analogy ads. I like it because it just about sums it up.

 

[Rex]

lol.  I love your passion, I love your responses.  Great stuff guys. This is a super site.

And we can attack the individual, whether that's Delmege, Arko, DSM, me, you, or whoever and totally miss the point. And go to sleep at night telling ourselves how right we are, and how wrong others are, but consequences ignore these righteous intellectual arguments.  Effect follows cause.  Inevitably.  You simply can't attack others without the attack bouncing straight back at you. The very moment you even think an attack thought, even before acting on it, your blood pressure immediately rises, the attack has started, your own body is attacked.  Look and this effect is there to be seen.

And Arko misses these self-attacks because he sees through the ridiculous nature of personal attacks on others. And Arko doesn't get walked on through doing this. The opposite - he's more effective, more assertive.  

What type of person is most likely to influence Max & Scott - the emotive critic or the cool and supportive friend?  And if they aren't influenced, Arko doesn't waste time debating what they should do, or damning them, he just chooses the best path forward.  Even when his mate Bullfrog Moore defected to SuperLeague, that didn't kill the friendship.  Nor did it stop Arko being assertive.  That's perspective.  

The path Arko walks is public access to us all. And he puts these hints out, and with eyes firmly shut to different perspectives, we ignore them believing instead our ingrained habitual and unexamined prejudices and trivial and misguided beliefs.

Win the battle, lose the plot.

 

[ManlyBacker]

I don't remember Arko embracing the Super League scum with hugs and kisses - read his book if you want to know part of the legend that is the 'Godfather'.

 

[Rex]

Funny MB, I didn't say he embraced him with hugs and kisses.  Is that what you heard? Did you think he cut off contact?

Interested in hearing more about what you've read.  Is that "Arko : my game" or a book by Bullfrog?

 

[DSM5]

'Max saved the club and deserves congratulations'.  Canteen et al, you're so ridiculously hard.  The man poured millions down the toilet saving the club and you damn him with such faint praise.  Dan, if I'd spent millions I'd consider it my right to act like a 'goose', if in fact I had.  We all see things from different angles which is as it should be, but I just admire the guy without preconditions or prejudices because he gave me a team to follow.  He deserves a statue out the front of Brookvale. 

 

[brookiegreg]

DSM you're dead right that Max deserves a bronze statue standing outside  Brookie Oval for what he did for the club in 2003/4 when he saved it from oblivion. He deserves our heartfelt thanks and respect forever for his passion and commitment over these years as Max helped mightily to get Manly back on track and build towards the lofty goals achieved in Oct 08.

And he didn't ask to re-name Brookie oval "Crazy John's Collesseum" or similar ;D remember that?

But does this fact mean we turn our eyes away from separate issues where Max has acted - be they concerning the Manly club or without - and choose not to debate such issues?

Surely the things we are debating are separate issues not connected with the original thanks and praise we feel towards Max for his generous support of Manly in the first place.

Are we not mature or wise enough to be able to address these recent issues like a judge would, focussing just on the issue at hand whilst not letting other past issues cloud our reasoning and judgement??

Is it not right to address these as separate, and debate the issues on their merits?

Is this the way it works Rex - or maybe I'm getting carried away too?  :-\

 

[Rex]

... Dan, if I'd spent millions I'd consider it my right to act like a 'goose', if in fact I had.  ...

Hell yeah.

I consider it my right to act like a 'goose' without spending the millions.

 

[Rex]

But does this fact mean we turn our eyes away from separate issues where Max has acted - be they concerning the Manly club or without - and choose not to debate such issues?

Implicitly you've decided the answer to that question is "No".  But it's not just an examination of the issues, it is an examination focused on judging, criticising, fault-finding.  So "we should debate these issues so we can all judge who is right and who is wrong" is the thought.  And we have.  And what difference has believing and acting on that thought made so far?  To Max? Scott? the League club? the Footy club? The team?  To our internal world?

And is it possible to examine these issues without being judgemental, critical, fault-finding?  Is it possible to accept the owners, warts and all, just as we would like to be accepted warts and all?  They've given us the gift horse and we're busily examining the teeth to tell them we want a different horse ... yet that's the only horse offered or available.  We can clean the horse's teeth ourselves but we don't and demand the owners provide us one with self-cleaning teeth.  

So is it possible to let the owners get on with their business and get on with our own business, as if we don't have enough on our plate without worrying about their business.  Would they sort it all out themselves or do they need us to tell them exactly what to do?

Good question to consider, brookiegreg.   I'd be interested to know what you find out.  

Surely the things we are debating are separate issues not connected with the original thanks and praise we feel towards Max for his generous support of Manly in the first place.

Are we not mature or wise enough to be able to address these recent issues like a judge would, focussing just on the issue at hand whilst not letting other past issues cloud our reasoning and judgement??

The desire to separate what is fundamentally interconnected.  Where does that come from? We'd like to have all the icing without the cake please.  All the eating without the sh*t.

I'm not sure a judge is a good example.  Judges decide what is consistent with the law, not what is effective, or logical, or reasonable, or even fair.  We implicitly assume judges apply common sense, and common sense flies out the window with those constraints.

But a damned good question, Brookiegreg.  Are we capable of focussing just on the issue at hand whilst not letting other past issues cloud our reasoning and judgement?

We're stressed.  We worry about our job, Manly's form, our finances, the world financial crisis, Manly's form, office politics, Stewie's court case, Manly's form, the wife's criticism the other night, the tax return, Manly's form, the skeletons in the closet, the weeds in the garden, Manly's form, our kids' futures, etc, etc.  Most of our stresses and worries we aren't even consciously aware of.  And they've never been critically examined. But they're by default treated by our conscious or subconscious minds as if they are indisputable reality.

And if we lost all this memory, that is all our past issues, we'd have nothing to remember to be worried about would we? We'd feel ourselves breath in the air, perfectly.  We'd feel the tingling life in our hands, our arms, every cell of our bodies.  We'd see the chair support us and the floor support the chair and the ground support the floor. and ... And everything is here and now and is perfect.  And we feel free and easy.  Bliss.  But instead our unexamined thoughts take us perpetually into the past and future with all their regrets, guilts, worries and anxieties and we lose contact with everything here and now.  We live a virtual reality of our feared and desired imaginings and lose contact with what is.  Yet the only issues really at hand are those right here, right now. And to lose the bliss and freedom of here and now living - would we really do that if past issues weren't clouding our reasoning and judgement?

So, yes, are we capable of focussing just on the issue at hand whilst not letting other past issues cloud our reasoning and judgement?

Is it not right to address these as separate, and debate the issues on their merits?

Is this the way it works Rex - or maybe I'm getting carried away too?  :-\

A shopping centre model is not a shopping centre.  In the same way, a thought is not reality.  Until we can become aware of our thoughts and deeply realise that they are only thoughts - gross distortions, limitations, abstractions, simplifications  - not reality - we have little hope of being able to see what is there except through the distorted filters of our unexamined beliefs.  Until then, we see what we believe. So until then we are not really seeing, just believing.

With our distorted belief filters on, are we capable of examining issues on their merits and does it free or entrap us when we falsely believe we can?  

 

[The Gronk]

[quote author=brookiegreg link=topic=180868.msg229751#msg229751 date=1245922223]
But does this fact mean we turn our eyes away from separate issues where Max has acted - be they concerning the Manly club or without - and choose not to debate such issues?

Implicitly you've decided the answer to that question is "Yes".  But it's not just an examination of the issues, it is an examination focused on judging, criticising, fault-finding.  So "we should debate these issues so we can all judge who is right and who is wrong" is the thought.  And we have.  And what difference has believing and acting on that thought made so far?  To Max? Scott? the League club? the Footy club? The team?  To our internal world?

And is it possible to examine these issues without being judgemental, critical, fault-finding?  Is it possible to accept the owners, warts and all, just as we would like to be accepted warts and all?  They've given us the gift horse and we're busily examining the teeth to tell them we want a different horse ... yet that's the only horse offered or available.  We can clean the horse's teeth ourselves but we don't and demand the owners provide us one with self-cleaning teeth. 

So is it possible to let the owners get on with their business and get on with our own business, as if we don't have enough on our plate without worrying about their business.  Would they sort it all out themselves or do they need us to tell them exactly what to do?

Good question to consider, brookiegreg.  I'd be interested to know what you find out. 

Surely the things we are debating are separate issues not connected with the original thanks and praise we feel towards Max for his generous support of Manly in the first place.

Are we not mature or wise enough to be able to address these recent issues like a judge would, focussing just on the issue at hand whilst not letting other past issues cloud our reasoning and judgement??

The desire to separate what is fundamentally interconnected.  Where does that come from? We'd like to have all the icing without the cake please.  All the eating without the sh*t.

I'm not sure a judge is a good example.  Judges decide what is consistent with the law, not what is effective, or logical, or reasonable, or even fair.  We implicitly assume judges apply common sense, and common sense flies out the window with those constraints.

But a damned good question, Brookiegreg.  Are we capable of focussing just on the issue at hand whilst not letting other past issues cloud our reasoning and judgement?

We're stressed.  We worry about our job, Manly's form, our finances, the world financial crisis, Manly's form, office politics, Stewie's court case, Manly's form, the wife's criticism the other night, the tax return, Manly's form, the skeletons in the closet, the weeds in the garden, Manly's form, our kids' futures, etc, etc.  Most of our stresses and worries we aren't even consciously aware of.  And they've never been critically examined. But they're by default treated by our conscious or subconscious minds as if they are indisputable reality.

And if we lost all this memory, that is all our past issues, we'd have nothing to remember to be worried about would we? We'd feel ourselves breath in the air, perfectly.  We'd feel the tingling life in our hands, our arms, every cell of our bodies.  We'd see the chair support us and the floor support the chair and the ground support the floor. and ... And everything is here and now and is perfect.  And we feel free and easy.  Bliss.  But instead our unexamined thoughts take us perpetually into the past and future with all their regrets, guilts, worries and anxieties and we lose contact with everything here and now.  We live a virtual reality of our feared and desired imaginings and lose contact with what is.  Yet the only issues really at hand are those right here, right now. And to lose the bliss and freedom of here and now living - would we really do that if past issues weren't clouding our reasoning and judgement?

So, yes, are we capable of focussing just on the issue at hand whilst not letting other past issues cloud our reasoning and judgement?

Is it not right to address these as separate, and debate the issues on their merits?

Is this the way it works Rex - or maybe I'm getting carried away too?  :-\

A shopping centre model is not a shopping centre.  In the same way, a thought is not reality.  Until we can become aware of our thoughts and deeply realise that they are only thoughts - gross distortions, limitations, abstractions, simplifications  - not reality - we have little hope of being able to see what is there except through the distorted filters of our unexamined beliefs.  Until then, we see what we believe. So until then we are not really seeing, just believing.

With our distorted belief filters on, are we capable of examining issues on their merits and does it free or entrap us when we falsely believe we can? 
[/quote]

Geez Rex, why use 5 words to explain something when you can use 500.  Make you feel smarter?

 

[Rex]

lol.  What's the 5 words?

 

[Canteen Worker]

If I wanted War and Peace I would read Tolstoy!!!  You win Rex - you have outlasted me, I just can't bring myself to read the whole post and try and understand it all.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Should I simplify everything to the point whereby everyone should rebel against this simplified peace plan and mark down your individual number here on this website, right here, right now, to protest against the wankers who dont know how to run a football club.

Let me begin with Jatz @ #1.