I think folks fall into 3 camps about most topics, including McBurnie:
On one side we have the
:
The
are the ones that will inherit the earth. The meek. They are not to be messed with. They believe that all things and all people will come good eventually. Even if we signed the biggest load of old horseshit in the world, they'd be the ones saying, "he'll come good" eventually, because they like to be ultra-positive about everything and it particularly suits them to defend the indefensible, just on the odd-chance, that they may be right. Then they can claim to have some superior insight or intelligence to the rest of us - which they see as justification for their position. You can easily spot these because they won't usually use facts to back up their stance on a subject, they'll leave that to others, preferring instead to give a "he'll come good" without any justification for it, other than feelings or emotions. It will be about "faith" and "trust" and "beliefs", not about facts.
Then there are the opposites to the
:
The
:
The
are a nasty piece of work. They are only happy when they are contradicting someone else and making folks feel upset. They love nothing more than to start an argument about any subject at all. If you say, "Good morning" to them, they'd argue there's nothing "good" about it. When it comes to football they just love to have a whipping boy or scapegoat. These folks are basically unhappy with themselves and their pitiful little lives, so they look for something or someone to lash out at. Their views on football cannot be taken seriously, because it's not coming from a rational, objective perspective, it's coming from a position of anger with themselves and that taints everything they look at. They actually want players to fail, because it gives them a sense of pleasure to have predicted it. And if they get it wrong then they'll quickly move on to the next hate target. You can never win an argument with a
. So it's not even worth trying. Just leave them to it and be grateful that you aren't similarly affected.
I think the majority of views on McBurnie so far though, fall into neither of the above camps. They belong to a group I think of as the
:
The
are a rational group of people. The thinkers. They don't jump to conclusions and they don't excessively love, or hate players. But, when they see things that concern them, they aren't afraid to voice that and actually they don't mind being wrong either. They are open-minded and fair and they deal in rational and objective thoughts. You get quite a range of views from the
. It's not important for them to agree with each other. They don't love or hate someone because they have a different viewpoint to them. Rather, they find it interesting that people have differences and seek to understand that. We have some
on here who are of the opinion that McBurnie
hasn't looked impressive so far because he hasn't had the service, or has been played in the wrong formation or with the wrong players, or that it's simply too soon to tell. Then we have other
on here, who, whilst not doubting these things may be a factor, still think they do not explain, or justify, why he hasn't shown more than he has so far.
Don't confuse a
with a
or a
.
I'd put myself into the camp of thinking it's early days yet, but the early signs aren't good. And the fact he behaves like an idiot off the field doesn't endear me to him. Not sure which of the above camps that puts me into - but I'm happy to hold that opinion until it's proven wrong.
.
.
