|
Post by johnbutlershair on Apr 2, 2013 20:02:31 GMT
Can I ask a serious question. Who really hates us playing long ball/Pulisball? I loved that we were different to everyone else. I loved that tossers like Arsene Wenger hated us. I loved the us against world feeling. I loved the aggression and relentless way we just kept walloping the ball into the opposition penalty area. I loved the physicallity of of our players. I loved Ade and Gifton knocking CBs on to their arses. I loved Mama challenging for everything even though he generally did nothing with it. I loved Kenwynne when he was fired up and running hard and clattering keepers. Most of all I loved the pace and genius of Ricardo Fuller who could make us get off our arses and cheer. Long ball, direct, uncomprimising, physical; all words others directed at us as insults I wore like a badge of honour. Sadly we don't really do any of the above things effectively anymore. Most of the players are unsuited to our style of play or are simply not committed to playing it. We look like a team going through the motions, and have done for 18 months or longer. Now we get called dull, boring, slow, negative, one dimensional; words I find myself agreeing with. Not so long ago I would shout down anyone other than a fellow Stokie who tried to belittle my team and the way they played. How dare anyone else criticise my team? Now I find myself agreeing with some of the put downs. Now I find myself too embarrassed to try to defend my team. I didn't go to the Everton match and rather than watch it in my local I hooked up to an internet stream. I will always support SCFC. While TP is our manager I hope he does well. Personally I don't think TP has done a satisfactory job for the last 2 seasons. To those who disagree, I am genuinely pleased for you. I would hate it if everyone thought the same as everyone else. I am also pleased for you as feeling the way I currently feel about my football team is not nice. It is depressing and soul destroying and fills up far too many of my waking hours. I am glad you don't have to feel that way. I hope for change. I am not optimistic. If some want to call me or others who feel the way I do " a joke" or "moronic" or an "embarrassment", that is their perogative. I share my views with other Stokies I am passionate about my club and I believe most of the posters on here share that passion. If we can't air our views and debate our club with each other here, then where can we? I hope for a win on Saturday. If there was such thing as messageboard Pulitzers this would win! Vis Unita Fortior
|
|
|
Post by Okie Stokie. on Apr 2, 2013 20:04:47 GMT
Well said Sir the manager and the team need us more then ever at this moment in time. couldnt agree with you more, these 'fans' make me sick. I couldn't agree more that you agree with me and I agree with your post saying you agree with me. Confused I am.
|
|
|
Post by borat on Apr 2, 2013 20:17:36 GMT
Can I ask a serious question. Who really hates us playing long ball/Pulisball? About 99% of people who watch us?
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Apr 2, 2013 20:20:02 GMT
I loved that we were different to everyone else. I loved that tossers like Arsene Wenger hated us. I loved the us against world feeling. I loved the aggression and relentless way we just kept walloping the ball into the opposition penalty area. I loved the physicallity of of our players. I loved Ade and Gifton knocking CBs on to their arses. I loved Mama challenging for everything even though he generally did nothing with it. I loved Kenwynne when he was fired up and running hard and clattering keepers. Most of all I loved the pace and genius of Ricardo Fuller who could make us get off our arses and cheer. Long ball, direct, uncomprimising, physical; all words others directed at us as insults I wore like a badge of honour. Sadly we don't really do any of the above things effectively anymore. Most of the players are unsuited to our style of play or are simply not committed to playing it. We look like a team going through the motions, and have done for 18 months or longer. Now we get called dull, boring, slow, negative, one dimensional; words I find myself agreeing with. Not so long ago I would shout down anyone other than a fellow Stokie who tried to belittle my team and the way they played. How dare anyone else criticise my team? Now I find myself agreeing with some of the put downs. Now I find myself too embarrassed to try to defend my team. I didn't go to the Everton match and rather than watch it in my local I hooked up to an internet stream. I will always support SCFC. While TP is our manager I hope he does well. Personally I don't think TP has done a satisfactory job for the last 2 seasons. To those who disagree, I am genuinely pleased for you. I would hate it if everyone thought the same as everyone else. I am also pleased for you as feeling the way I currently feel about my football team is not nice. It is depressing and soul destroying and fills up far too many of my waking hours. I am glad you don't have to feel that way. I hope for change. I am not optimistic. If some want to call me or others who feel the way I do " a joke" or "moronic" or an "embarrassment", that is their perogative. I share my views with other Stokies I am passionate about my club and I believe most of the posters on here share that passion. If we can't air our views and debate our club with each other here, then where can we? I hope for a win on Saturday. If there was such thing as messageboard Pulitzers this would win! Vis Unita Fortior Not a Pulister then ? H
|
|
|
Post by whereami on Apr 2, 2013 21:33:37 GMT
If there was such thing as messageboard Pulitzers this would win! Vis Unita Fortior Not a Pulister then ? H That definitely needs a
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Apr 2, 2013 22:51:28 GMT
dunno who the poster was who said give Puleb another 12 months is crazy. give the bloke till the end of May and get someone in who will have time to rid this amazing football club of the sunday league type football. And why on earth do people keep harping on about an FA cup final and europa league? they are what they are CUPS and require some amount of luck to progress/win. The only reason we have stayed in PL for as long as we have is down to luck, scraping wins against teams around us. Pulis is an average at best manager. And other managers who if were given his resources would have us in top 8 and personally thats where we should be by now. Puleb goes on about luck and breaks he has had more than most since 2009. we have played approx 180 games in the PL how many of them can anyone catorgorically say we stuffed the opposition? I would go for a dozen tops. Puleb is a toss manager simple as. We have majority of games either by a delap throw or another set piece its just wank football and always has been since pulis came back. I will always love Stoke city Fc and will always support them but I wont pay £400 a year to watch dog shit football doesnt make me any less a supporter. like I said in my earlier post bring back oxford, exeter away pissing down rain over this shit anyday. Half the people have only been going down since stoke got to PL so to be perfectly honest know sweet FA about being a stoke fan. Puleb is a lucky average at best manager and anyone who believes other wise needs to give me some hard facts. and none of the promotion and FA cup bollocks. I could have done that with the money and luck. Do you not see how you have single-handedly confirmed the original point of the thread by posting this shite? Look I agree with the 'stagnation' argument, I have massive doubts about Pulis's ability to take us forward and since West Ham I am genuinely worried he might send us down. However, his many detractors on here cannot argue they are only concerned with 'facts, evidence, objectivity and reason' when they allow stuff like this. This is what Chattylady, Sid et. al. were on about when they were 'whining' about people dismissing their opinions. You cannot claim to be disagreeing with them on the basis that their opinions are without evidence or logic when you allow equally illogical, irrational and hysterical bollocks to stand unopposed. If Stafford starts talking nonsense he is instantly put in his place - quite often with a fair amount of unnecessary abuse. Yet if others do the same - and I can offer plenty of examples just from this thread - nobody raises an eyebrow. I'm just as guilty of this as the next person but I think many on here are essentially reifying this 'pro-Pulis' versus 'anti-Pulis' divide. Its useful shorthand and its good for banter but in reality there is a wide variety of opinions on a wide range of issues. The Oatcake appears to have a stange logic whereby everyone is divided into two 'sides' and if anyone from the other 'side' voices their opinion they must be challenged and every minor flaw in their argument flogged to death. At the same time, if anyone from your 'side' makes a ridiculous and abusive post then you don't bother to object. I'll openly concede that I am one of the worst people for doing this but I would just like to point out that it seems to be almost universal on this messageboard and therefore I'm always suspicious of those who claim a monopoly of 'facts and logic'. Certain arguments may or may not have more evidence in support of them, but the idea that the only reason the likes of Sid and Chattylady are dismissed is because they don't give enough reasons to support their views is a bit daft really.
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Apr 3, 2013 0:02:34 GMT
phil you have just commented critically about a post you disagree with. sid, chattylady and stafford do the same. homzy claimed some stoke fans are a joke at the start of this thread. To me that is not just critical it is insulting, he was however given a platform to express his views by this site. As long as our views aren't threatening or offensive we are all accorded the same privileges by those who give up their time to run the board.
That is your right. That is what message boards are for.
Most posters on here read and value the opinions of others regardless of whether they agree with them.
At the moment, for obvious reasons, some people seem very sensitive to any questioning of their views and are construing this as abuse or dismissal. You clearly don't agree with what broomy has to say, others may feel he has hit the nail on the head. If message boards didn't have differences of opinion they would not be worth reading.
Sometimes " fact and logic" is in your favour and you will feel like you are winning a debate, sometimes your argument will be weak because evidence to support you opinions is limited. At times like this it is comforting to imagine a conspiracy theory. Personally I don't think there is anything so organised or sinister going on on this site.
There is room for everyone's opinions. We all want our club to thrive.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 3, 2013 0:08:00 GMT
phil you have just commented critically about a post you disagree with. sid, chattylady and stafford do the same. homzy claimed some stoke fans are a joke at the start of this thread. To me that is not just critical it is insulting, he was however given a platform to express his views by this site. As long as our views aren't threatening or offensive we are all accorded the same privileges by those who give up their time to run the board. That is your right. That is what message boards are for. Most posters on here read and value the opinions of others regardless of whether they agree with them. At the moment, for obvious reasons, some people seem very sensitive to any questioning of their views and are construing this as abuse or dismissal. You clearly don't agree with what broomy has to say, others may feel he has hit the nail on the head. If message boards didn't have differences of opinion they would not be worth reading. Sometimes " fact and logic" is in your favour and you will feel like you are winning a debate, sometimes your argument will be weak because evidence to support you opinions is limited. At times like this it is comforting to imagine a conspiracy theory. Personally I don't think there is anything so organised or sinister going on on this site. There is room for everyone's opinions. We all want our club to thrive. I hear the sound of many nails being hit firmly square on their heads here.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Apr 3, 2013 0:14:41 GMT
VIVA THE EVOLUTION!
|
|
|
Post by whereami on Apr 3, 2013 0:45:00 GMT
phil you have just commented critically about a post you disagree with. sid, chattylady and stafford do the same. homzy claimed some stoke fans are a joke at the start of this thread. To me that is not just critical it is insulting, he was however given a platform to express his views by this site. As long as our views aren't threatening or offensive we are all accorded the same privileges by those who give up their time to run the board. That is your right. That is what message boards are for. Most posters on here read and value the opinions of others regardless of whether they agree with them. At the moment, for obvious reasons, some people seem very sensitive to any questioning of their views and are construing this as abuse or dismissal. You clearly don't agree with what broomy has to say, others may feel he has hit the nail on the head. If message boards didn't have differences of opinion they would not be worth reading. Sometimes " fact and logic" is in your favour and you will feel like you are winning a debate, sometimes your argument will be weak because evidence to support you opinions is limited. At times like this it is comforting to imagine a conspiracy theory. Personally I don't think there is anything so organised or sinister going on on this site. There is room for everyone's opinions. We all want our club to thrive. If there was such thing as an epic Haiku, this would be it
|
|
|
Post by whereami on Apr 3, 2013 1:25:21 GMT
dunno who the poster was who said give Puleb another 12 months is crazy. give the bloke till the end of May and get someone in who will have time to rid this amazing football club of the sunday league type football. And why on earth do people keep harping on about an FA cup final and europa league? they are what they are CUPS and require some amount of luck to progress/win. The only reason we have stayed in PL for as long as we have is down to luck, scraping wins against teams around us. Pulis is an average at best manager. And other managers who if were given his resources would have us in top 8 and personally thats where we should be by now. Puleb goes on about luck and breaks he has had more than most since 2009. we have played approx 180 games in the PL how many of them can anyone catorgorically say we stuffed the opposition? I would go for a dozen tops. Puleb is a toss manager simple as. We have majority of games either by a delap throw or another set piece its just wank football and always has been since pulis came back. I will always love Stoke city Fc and will always support them but I wont pay £400 a year to watch dog shit football doesnt make me any less a supporter. like I said in my earlier post bring back oxford, exeter away pissing down rain over this shit anyday. Half the people have only been going down since stoke got to PL so to be perfectly honest know sweet FA about being a stoke fan. Puleb is a lucky average at best manager and anyone who believes other wise needs to give me some hard facts. and none of the promotion and FA cup bollocks. I could have done that with the money and luck. Do you not see how you have single-handedly confirmed the original point of the thread by posting this shite? Look I agree with the 'stagnation' argument, I have massive doubts about Pulis's ability to take us forward and since West Ham I am genuinely worried he might send us down. However, his many detractors on here cannot argue they are only concerned with 'facts, evidence, objectivity and reason' when they allow stuff like this. This is what Chattylady, Sid et. al. were on about when they were 'whining' about people dismissing their opinions. You cannot claim to be disagreeing with them on the basis that their opinions are without evidence or logic when you allow equally illogical, irrational and hysterical bollocks to stand unopposed. theres a long way between claiming people are dismissing your opinions and claiming theres a "clique" and a "mafia" thats out to silence you and stop you having an opinion, as is being claimed. The funny thing is, the OP starts out by trying to stop an opinion by saying we should all have more gratitude for Pulis. I posted a few times that its my opinion that I dont particularly feel any gratitude towards Pulis, and asking whether/why anyone would expect me to change it to suit them. No answer, as per to the people youre (misguidedly imo) defending. Then they'll start up again in a different thread, at the same time as they all insinuate anyone who doesnt agree with them is a dick/not a true supporter/should fuck off up the vale/is silencing them/hates the club/wants Stoke to lose/needs a twatting. Seriously, check the posting history, and find even 1 for every 5 that make the same bullshit points from the other side. You're trying to defend your flock mate, its very noble, but they're a lost cause!
|
|
|
Post by chamberlain on Apr 3, 2013 1:47:39 GMT
Firstly nobody should be calling Pulis names ,i for one never thought we would ever see top flight football again.However my opinion is that he has took us as far as he can ,if and its a big if we secure our premiership status he should leave at the end of the season. Pulis has spent alot of money on players that cannot get a game and in a struggling team i just cannot work it out ,but more worrying as our manager i dont think he can either
|
|
|
Post by foster on Apr 3, 2013 7:06:35 GMT
dunno who the poster was who said give Puleb another 12 months is crazy. give the bloke till the end of May and get someone in who will have time to rid this amazing football club of the sunday league type football. And why on earth do people keep harping on about an FA cup final and europa league? they are what they are CUPS and require some amount of luck to progress/win. The only reason we have stayed in PL for as long as we have is down to luck, scraping wins against teams around us. Pulis is an average at best manager. And other managers who if were given his resources would have us in top 8 and personally thats where we should be by now. Puleb goes on about luck and breaks he has had more than most since 2009. we have played approx 180 games in the PL how many of them can anyone catorgorically say we stuffed the opposition? I would go for a dozen tops. Puleb is a toss manager simple as. We have majority of games either by a delap throw or another set piece its just wank football and always has been since pulis came back. I will always love Stoke city Fc and will always support them but I wont pay £400 a year to watch dog shit football doesnt make me any less a supporter. like I said in my earlier post bring back oxford, exeter away pissing down rain over this shit anyday. Half the people have only been going down since stoke got to PL so to be perfectly honest know sweet FA about being a stoke fan. Puleb is a lucky average at best manager and anyone who believes other wise needs to give me some hard facts. and none of the promotion and FA cup bollocks. I could have done that with the money and luck. Do you not see how you have single-handedly confirmed the original point of the thread by posting this shite? So let me get this straight...you are using as an example of the anti pulis clique, someone who most people have never seen on here, who can't write in English, and who has less than 50 posts to his name? Comical to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Apr 3, 2013 8:35:09 GMT
Broomy does play right into the hands of the opening poster and his post has basically been ignored by PHW's such as my self because were it on paper, it wouldn't be worth the paper it is written on.
As I have said countless times, the opening post can really only be levelled at 4 or 5 posters who use this forum, of which Broomy is now a recent edition. Given how few posts he has, it is fairly safe to assume his is a new username following on from him embarrassing himself under his previous user name.
Pulis is getting a very easy ride and he should have been under pressure some time before now in all honesty.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2013 8:49:27 GMT
Do you not see how you have single-handedly confirmed the original point of the thread by posting this shite? So let me get this straight...you are using as an example of the anti pulis clique, someone who most people have never seen on here, who can't write in English, and who has less than 50 posts to his name? Comical to say the least. someone's got to foster...according to him only half of us are actually fans worthy of an opinion anyway.....it's that kind of utter shite that's the main problem on here to be honest "You don't agree with me ergo you must have only been a fan since we got promoted and so are 100% not allowed an opinion....it's my ball and i'm taking it home with me ner ner ner ner ner"....it's like the worst formulated bit of QED ever seen!
|
|
|
Post by foster on Apr 3, 2013 9:08:23 GMT
So let me get this straight...you are using as an example of the anti pulis clique, someone who most people have never seen on here, who can't write in English, and who has less than 50 posts to his name? Comical to say the least. someone's got to foster...according to him only half of us are actually fans worthy of an opinion anyway.....it's that kind of utter shite that's the main problem on here to be honest "You don't agree with me ergo you must have only been a fan since we got promoted and so are 100% not allowed an opinion....it's my ball and i'm taking it home with me ner ner ner ner ner"....it's like the worst formulated bit of QED ever seen! You're referring to Phil right?
|
|
|
Post by broomy on Apr 3, 2013 10:42:47 GMT
Firstly I was typing from a smartphone whilst fitting a boiler at work so apologies for my grammar. Secondly the last time I posted was in 2008 i think. I dont sit behind a keyboard like most all day sitting in their own piss typing away. Thirdly I have followed Stoke since the age of 8 now 33 so believe i can say what i want. My opinion. Fourth i have never changed my username. If you dont like my views then thats fine with me. its an open forum where will most be on here if we go back to lower leagues? prob following Man U like before. Next time i get chance to sit down at a pc i will type u a post with perfect grammar.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2013 11:30:17 GMT
Firstly I was typing from a smartphone whilst fitting a boiler at work so apologies for my grammar. Secondly the last time I posted was in 2008 i think. I dont sit behind a keyboard like most all day sitting in their own piss typing away. Thirdly I have followed Stoke since the age of 8 now 33 so believe i can say what i want. My opinion. Fourth i have never changed my username. If you dont like my views then thats fine with me. its an open forum where will most be on here if we go back to lower leagues? prob following Man U like before. Next time i get chance to sit down at a pc i will type u a post with perfect grammar. it's posts like this that ruin the valid arguments that some people actually have firstly, remind me never to hire you to do my boiler if you're just going to "Sit in your own piss typing away" on here secondly, so you don't post regularly on here but feel you can slag off those who do without having any knowledge of who they are or how long they've supported Stoke??? nice bit of common courtesy there mate! thirdly, i have followed Stoke since i was 4 and am now 36 so presumably have even more right than you to be a Stoke fan yeah? after all, age is all that counts eh? i look forward to 2018 and your next insightful, respectful and articulate post.....oh no, hang on a minute...i don't actually cheers for coming mate, the door's over there.close it behind you would you?
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Apr 3, 2013 12:00:14 GMT
Okay just to clarify... I'm not endorsing the conspiracy theory, 'mafia' and all that bollocks. It is just that, bollocks.
I actually happen to disagree with Sid and Chatty and others. I think we have gone backwards.
The point I was making was that when you hold a minority position like their's, then your opinions are subjected to much stricter standards. Everyone wants evidence, logic, facts and so on... I'm just noting the truism that these standards seemed to be applied quite selectively so that those posters I referred to are made to look stupid while others get away without the same censure.
Dave... you're right maybe Broomy is not the best example... take your pick from a handful of others on this thread. Go back a few pages and take Jstoke or whoever for example. There's not much evidence for a lot of what he says, it's no less illogical than what posters like Stafford and Chatty were saying but nobody asks for the evidence. Why is this? Presumably it's because he openly expresses personal dislike of the manager and so he has a license to say whatever he wants without having to provide 'evidence' and 'logic' and so on.
Royland, I broadly agree with the substance of your post. I cannot agree with the view that the OP was offensive however. There are also plenty of examples on here of people being abusive rather than merely stated their opinion. The post I quoted above is merely the latest example.
Whereami, I have no flock. If you think the OP was 'blocking' someone else point of view then everyone is 'blocking' other people's points of view every time they state their opinion. Your constant reference to 'my side' and 'your side' merely prove the point I was making about Oatcake logic. No offence, but you keep banging on about 'evidence' and 'logic' and complaining about people not answering your questions...where is the evidence to support your ludicrous 1 in 5 claim?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2013 12:14:08 GMT
Okay just to clarify... I'm not endorsing the conspiracy theory, 'mafia' and all that bollocks. It is just that, bollocks. I actually happen to disagree with Sid and Chatty and others. I think we have gone backwards. The point I was making was that when you hold a minority position like their's, then your opinions are subjected to much stricter standards. Everyone wants evidence, logic, facts and so on... I'm just noting the truism that these standards seemed to be applied quite selectively so that those posters I referred to are made to look stupid while others get away without the same censure. Dave... you're right maybe Broomy is not the best example... take your pick from a handful of others on this thread. Go back a few pages and take Jstoke or whoever for example. There's not much evidence for a lot of what he says, it's no less illogical than what posters like Stafford and Chatty were saying but nobody asks for the evidence. Why is this? Presumably it's because he openly expresses personal dislike of the manager and so he has a license to say whatever he wants without having to provide 'evidence' and 'logic' and so on. Royland, I broadly agree with the substance of your post. I cannot agree with the view that the OP was offensive however. There are also plenty of examples on here of people being abusive rather than merely stated their opinion. The post I quoted above is merely the latest example. Whereami, I have no flock. If you think the OP was 'blocking' someone else point of view then everyone is 'blocking' other people's points of view every time they state their opinion. Your constant reference to 'my side' and 'your side' merely prove the point I was making about Oatcake logic. No offence, but you keep banging on about 'evidence' and 'logic' and complaining about people not answering your questions...where is the evidence to support your ludicrous 1 in 5 claim? It's always been like that though Phil. Six months or more ago, people used to get dogs abuse for being anti Pulis. The tide's obviously turned since then, and wheras it used to be Pulis who got the abuse from the antis, now the pro-Pulis side is geting the same treatment. I know you're not saying anything different, but it needs saying (or at least I wanted to make the point). And in respect of your point about asking for evidence; well fairly obviously you don't ask for evidence when what the poster is saying is broadly in line with your own views. I've not bothered to look back at the posts you've referred to, so don't read too much into that other than that I know the kind of posts you're referring to. Sorry to talk in terms of pro or anti-Pulis, but its difficult to make the point without doing so. Also my apologies if this post looks hurried. Work beckons. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 3, 2013 12:17:57 GMT
Isn't that how arguing debating works though?
Evidence, counter evidence and then argue debate about it?
It's how I always thought it worked.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Apr 3, 2013 12:23:39 GMT
Friendcalledfive,
Pro-Pulis posters take the same or less abuse than the Anti-Pulis posters.
However its the Pro-Pulis faction that often instigates it because they have no facts with which to argue the Anti-Pulis arguments. Instead they prefer to point out how loyal and great they are and make sweeping statements condemning others as fickle embarrassing disloyal turn coats.
|
|
|
Post by hollybush on Apr 3, 2013 12:24:08 GMT
Isn't that how arguing debating works though? Evidence, counter evidence and then argue debate about it? It's how I always thought it worked. Of course that isn't how it works; here's how it works, First person makes a statement of logic and reason which is critical of TP Second person (a TP supporter) takes the piss/makes disparaging/condescending remark. First person asks second person to justify their position. Second person repeats abuse/condescension. This continues until the first person is so pissed off that he/she can't get a reasoned answer that they hurl mountains of abuse and leave. vowing never to post again.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Apr 3, 2013 12:25:13 GMT
Isn't that how arguing debating works though? Evidence, counter evidence and then argue debate about it? It's how I always thought it worked. Of course that isn't how it works; here's how it works, First person makes a statement of logic and reason which is critical of TP Second person (a TP supporter) takes the piss/makes disparaging/condescending remark. First person asks second person to justify their position. Second person repeats abuse/condescension. This continues until the first person is so pissed off that he/she can't get a reasoned answer that they hurl mountains of abuse and leave. vowing never to post again. At which point the second person moans that all they get from the first person (and anyone of the same opinion) is abuse.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 3, 2013 12:27:16 GMT
Isn't that how arguing debating works though? Evidence, counter evidence and then argue debate about it? It's how I always thought it worked. Of course that isn't how it works; here's how it works, First person makes a statement of logic and reason which is critical of TP Second person (a TP supporter) takes the piss/makes disparaging/condescending remark. First person asks second person to justify their position. Second person repeats abuse/condescension. This continues until the first person is so pissed off that he/she can't get a reasoned answer that they hurl mountains of abuse and leave. vowing never to post again. I thought we were the condescending ones? Now I'm confused. I don't see the condescendingness (it is a word I just made up) when it's deserved. The rimmers are going down like flies whilst hurling abuse as the PHW's stand resolute. I find it most amusing as You can probably tell, I don't get why people take it so seriously. It's only the fucking Internet for crying out loud.
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Apr 3, 2013 12:35:32 GMT
Isn't that how arguing debating works though? Evidence, counter evidence and then argue debate about it? It's how I always thought it worked. Yes exactly. But those same standards should apply to everyone. Where is the evidence for whereami's 1 in 5 claim? Where is the evidence that Tony Pulis is a 'vile human being'? Where is the evidence that any Tom, Dick and Harry could match Pulis's achievements given similar financial backing? There seems to be a lot more conjecture than evidence. Like 'Pulis is losing these games on purpose to prove a point'. Or 'Pulis is making a coded message to the fans in this interview'. Or 'Pulis is a vile human being who treats us with contempt, but Paolo Di Canio would be really nice to us'. Or 'Anyone who doesn't agree that Pulis is a crap manager will go back to supporting Man United when we get relegated'. 'Or Palacios isn't in the team because Pulis can't handle good players'. Or 'our current crop of players are only worth about 50 million'. 'Those that support the manager are always more abusive'. I could go on give more examples, but you get the idea. My point is that very few people seem to challenge these assertions, even though there is no evidence offered in support of them. If you get into what counts as a logical argument the situation is even worse. Take for instance the argument that 'All of our past achievements are based on luck'. That is completely illogical. Then there's the abuse. I'm okay with banter, piss-taking and so on. It's the really vitriolic stuff. I thought that was the point Homzy was originally making. Abuse towards the manager and anyone who disagrees with a certain opinion. So for instance, we are having a free and fair debate and so on ... but Foster is stalking Stafford on facebook? Why? What is all that about? I understand he's very patronising, shoots himself in the foot in arguments and so on... but is this really necessary?
|
|
|
Post by hollybush on Apr 3, 2013 12:37:42 GMT
Of course, virtually every thread is completely pointless in the great scheme of things, because like all arguments (religion, politics, football etc.), each side believes what it believes and isn't amenable to conversion by the other. The end result is always going to be a trading back and forth of abuse. It's just the over-reactions and hissy fits that make it the most fun.
Almost every anti-TP post seems to be full of reasons why he should go and why the football's not worth watching any more. It strikes me that very few pro-TP posts contain anything other than 'I think he should stay, so there!'. There's never any rational response to the real doubts and worries of those who want him gone.
Very few of the 'antis' actually abuse TP in any nasty way, and I agree that they shouldn't, but FFS if we can't simply state that the club's now going backwards and needs a change without being abused, it's a pretty poor show.
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Apr 3, 2013 12:38:14 GMT
Lets get it right, Phil there's nut jobs on both sides of the fence who take it too far. I tend to ignore all of them as best as I can; although my halo does slip from time to time!
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Apr 3, 2013 12:42:39 GMT
Lets get it right, Phil there's nut jobs on both sides of the fence who take it too far. I tend to ignore all of them as best as I can; although my halo does slip from time to time! Yeah you are very good at doing that mate! It's something I think I will have to learn gradually as I tend to get dragged into these sort of debates.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Apr 3, 2013 12:44:04 GMT
Isn't that how arguing debating works though? Evidence, counter evidence and then argue debate about it? It's how I always thought it worked. Yes exactly. But those same standards should apply to everyone. Where is the evidence for whereami's 1 in 5 claim? Where is the evidence that Tony Pulis is a 'vile human being'? Where is the evidence that any Tom, Dick and Harry could match Pulis's achievements given similar financial backing? There seems to be a lot more conjecture than evidence. Like 'Pulis is losing these games on purpose to prove a point'. Or 'Pulis is making a coded message to the fans in this interview'. Or 'Pulis is a vile human being who treats us with contempt, but Paolo Di Canio would be really nice to us'. Or 'Anyone who doesn't agree that Pulis is a crap manager will go back to supporting Man United when we get relegated'. 'Or Palacios isn't in the team because Pulis can't handle good players'. Or 'our current crop of players are only worth about 50 million'. 'Those that support the manager are always more abusive'. I could go on give more examples, but you get the idea. My point is that very few people seem to challenge these assertions, even though there is no evidence offered in support of them. If you get into what counts as a logical argument the situation is even worse. Take for instance the argument that 'All of our past achievements are based on luck'. That is completely illogical. Then there's the abuse. I'm okay with banter, piss-taking and so on. It's the really vitriolic stuff. I thought that was the point Homzy was originally making. Abuse towards the manager and anyone who disagrees with a certain opinion. So for instance, we are having a free and fair debate and so on ... but Foster is stalking Stafford on facebook? Why? What is all that about? I understand he's very patronising, shoots himself in the foot in arguments and so on... but is this really necessary? In what way am I 'stalking' Stafford on FB you idiot. He's the one that posted the 'hey look how cool I am' link on his profile. I never asked him to do that nor did I go on FB specifically to seek him out. In the end I gave him some advice on internet security that he chose to ignore. End of.
|
|