Originally Posted by Crush (Post 9223721)

So were John Elway, Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Eli Manning, Troy Aikman, Drew Bledsoe, Michael Vick, Philip Rivers, Big Ben, Aaron Rodgers, and Matthew Stafford. I guess we'll have to take the (gasp) risk and draft one and see how it turns out.

Originally Posted by Argo (Post 9223605)

I was just putting a spin on his stupid post.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 9223663)

What has made this effective has been the public rallying around it. The news outlets and the word of mouth has made this a hell of a movement.

So it's important not to sound like a bunch of blow-hard Philly fans and **** that up.

Getting that detailed when you have to rally the support of fans that aren't that well versed and a media that is only willing to give you 60 second blurbs is counter-productive.

You can't lose the momentum that the PR battle has gained. It's the masses we're after here and the masses will respond better to the vague message focused on uh....hope and change....{sigh}. We've watched the masses get behind that bit of nebulous horseshit twice in the last 4 years now - it works.

It's the masses you have to appeal to here. We've done that so far - don't drop the baton this close to the finish line.

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 9223734)

I'm not saying this just because it was my suggestion, but I think #2 gets the message across and does so in a positive tone. If we think that Clark is about to pull the trigger, the goal is to start edging toward Clark's camp and sending the message that SOC is reasonable and willing to mend fences. #1 comes across as a bit bossy and confrontational, and I think that hill has already been taken.

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 9223734)

but I think #2 gets the message across and does so in a positive tone. If we think that Clark is about to pull the trigger, the goal is to start edging toward Clark's camp and sending the message that SOC is reasonable and willing to mend fences. #1 comes across as a bit bossy and confrontational, and I think that hill has already been taken.

Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare (Post 9223745)

and imploring that someone's job should be taken away from them isn't?

Rule one in communication is say what you mean.

Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare (Post 9223693)

That's the absolute worst thing to do is being vague with a message

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 9223701)

:spock:

Yes, that is the best way to get a point across...

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 9223757)

"New GM" is all about job creation, growth, and change. There's no need to directly address the messy background step of telling the old GM to move off the carpet and onto the plastic.

Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare (Post 9223745)

Rule one in communication is say what you mean.

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 9223760)

If your goal is to drive people away and become less relevant, I agree.

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 9223760)

If your goal is to drive people away and become less relevant, I agree.