Renton

You raving hypocrite! (mind you it makes a nice change for you to be taking a break from your vendetta against Gemmill...) 40092[/snapback] Hypocrite? I don't think so - I didn't bring this up and start talking in tired cliches. Neither have I got a vendetta against Gemmill. If you look up a few posts, you'll find he has admitted he started this thread as a fishing trip! Sorry I bit like, but don't claim I started it. BTW Craig, it is completely laughable that you are comparing our situation to Blackburn and Portsmouth, and even more so you are attributing any failure of their sides on our ex-players. Especially since Blackburn have the same points as us and Portsmouth can leapfrog us on Saturday. Yes, we may come above both of them, and no doubt this huge achievement will confirm to you that that Souness is the bestest manager ever. But there is one tiny difference between us and them. Quite a big difference actually - about £40 million.

Agree. My front six (injury and form permitting) would be: ----------Owen--Shearer Luque---Emre--Parker---Solano Although I think it would be great to bring someone with Dyers pace on as the opposing defence tired. Also he played his best stuff alongside Nobby and Solano is talking up their partnership in the Journal this morning. 39979[/snapback] Don't really see how it would be fair, or even advantageous, to bench N'Zogbia after his recent games tbh.

Jesus wept. You've said it all before. Hundreds of times. Just let it lie will you.

Considering that they sold their one decent player during the summer it's not hard (or meaningful) tbh. More to the point, he's the best player in a team who are rock-bottom - whoopie doo! Mind you, it's only late September - plenty of time for him to become bored and not give a shit which, lets face it, IS going to happen sooner rather than later. 40021[/snapback] Portsmouth are rock bottom are they? If they beat us on Saturday they will leapfrog us, aren't you tempting fate a bit? You and Spongey seem to be forgetting that I never said that I put significance in Robert being Pompey's best player - I just think it is pretty ludicrous for Gemmill to imply their lowly league position is down to him alone, that's all. Robert's merits have been debated to death. However, despite (whatever you might think) an impressive start to the season, people who supported him have let the matter lie. But it seems the "haters" just can't resist having a pop, can they? This despite the fact that technically he is still our player, and may play for us again (admittedly not under Souness)

In a rather round about way.

Well, well, Gemmill opens a thread about Robert, and the usual suspects come out of the woodwork to have a pop at him, despite him being by far Portsmouth's best player so far this season. For God's sake give it a rest, or I'll start another Bellamy thread.

Not as good as Maradonna?

Serious high brow debate over here tbh.

39832[/snapback] Poor lass. Mind, if that's her after being airbrushed.....

I feel very strongly (as to be fair we probably all do) that the people who fought for this country should be given special status in society. Without them, nothing of our lives today would be the same. I think it's shameful how quickly we move on and assume it was just history, that's all. In arguments like this we all (myself included) tend to seek a comparison argument like a lawyer would, ie: you think x so it follows that you also think y. Arguments can get a bit carried away and miss the fact that most life is about judgement and compromise. So while I don't find everything offensive, I just feel that in this instance, the feelings of the people involved should come first. Again I don't know for sure whether veteran's groups were consulted first, but I think they should have been. 39804[/snapback] Fair enough, but without some fundamental change in the law, what you're describing is a voluntary ban, which would never happen in practice. Funnily enough, my Dad gets offended by almost all video games (not just the war, which he obviously wasn't in). He once got upset when I started bludgeoning a scientist to death with a crow bar in the original half life. They took that ability away in half life 2.

We can donate Gemmill if you'd like.

So you're in favour of banning things minority groups (whoever they might be) don't like? Interesting. 39712[/snapback] Yes Renton, that's exactly what I meant. It's a very straightforward opinion. I'll restate it. I would rather a game like this was deemed acceptable by the people it represented before our enjoyment. It's out of respect nothing more. If the war pensioners association think it's ok, then aces! FWIW I love computer games although I prefer things like Zelda. 39788[/snapback] No, you've lost me. What do you mean by "you'd rather"? Are we talking about an involuntary ban here? Because I'm sue you can see that would have far reaching implications.

I hope your not suggesting Patrick Moore is the king of all geeks. 39781[/snapback] Why like, are you staking a claim? 39783[/snapback] Ok, let's see. I have an interest in computer games, diesel locomotives, football, astronomy, science fiction, internet message boards, bird watching, and hill walking. Oh fuck.

I hope your not suggesting Patrick Moore is the king of all geeks.

Cool. He's the official spokesperson for that generation then is he? My grandad was in the navy and was deployed to deal with the allied assistance after Hiroshima. He can't talk about things like that-literally, you can't ask him those sorts of questions. Not that he's a spokesperson for his generation either but you get my point. 39736[/snapback] I'm not sure I do get your point. Are we to ban things because they might offend some individuals - that's the bottom line, surely? I think I know your online persona well enough to know you don't think this. Therefore I conclude you just find the concept of these games personally a bit distasteful, and you are dismissive of video games as an art form. Am I right in my thinking? 39744[/snapback] Mate, I've answered the second point already if you scroll back. I don't like video games generally cos i get no enjoyment from them but thats not what's informing my opinions and to be honest theres nothing I've said to have given you that impression. If thats what you think then it's based on a false premise. It's just convenient to your argument to say that. And as for banning anything thats offensive-no I don't think that obviously. I said I found them a bit sick-which is my opinion. You'll also note that I said that if you enjoy them then thats okay. Whats happening here is that you're having a problem with my opinion of what you find enjoyable and you're struggling to justify your enjoyment of it. You've made your case mate and I accept what youre saying. When you start attributing viewpoints to me which I dont hold though, then thats probably where the discussion should end. Start going round in circles then. 39750[/snapback] Fair enough, I respect yourviewpoint. I'm not struggling to justify my enjoyment of CoD though, I literally see nothing wrong in it whatsoever. I fully respect what the veterans have done as well, and, in a way, the freedom to play games like this is ironically all down to them. 39763[/snapback] You've certainly left me under no illusion that you think it's a kick ass game, soldier! 39770[/snapback] In reality, its just above average, but is too scripted for my liking. And despite how I come across in this thread, I'm not really that much into playing games any more. I'm just in the mood for a good argument!

To be fair Manc Mag, I think you are misrepresenting me. Scroll up a few replies up, and I think you'll find that I said I know your online persona well enough to know that you don't want to ban this game. Just thought I'd clear that up.

You were offended when I jokingly suggested that you'd be gutted if we won the league. In fact I reckon you cried. 39760[/snapback] True. Apart from the crying bit. Oh, and it was coming 4th too, I think.

Cool. He's the official spokesperson for that generation then is he? My grandad was in the navy and was deployed to deal with the allied assistance after Hiroshima. He can't talk about things like that-literally, you can't ask him those sorts of questions. Not that he's a spokesperson for his generation either but you get my point. 39736[/snapback] I'm not sure I do get your point. Are we to ban things because they might offend some individuals - that's the bottom line, surely? I think I know your online persona well enough to know you don't think this. Therefore I conclude you just find the concept of these games personally a bit distasteful, and you are dismissive of video games as an art form. Am I right in my thinking? 39744[/snapback] Mate, I've answered the second point already if you scroll back. I don't like video games generally cos i get no enjoyment from them but thats not what's informing my opinions and to be honest theres nothing I've said to have given you that impression. If thats what you think then it's based on a false premise. It's just convenient to your argument to say that. And as for banning anything thats offensive-no I don't think that obviously. I said I found them a bit sick-which is my opinion. You'll also note that I said that if you enjoy them then thats okay. Whats happening here is that you're having a problem with my opinion of what you find enjoyable and you're struggling to justify your enjoyment of it. You've made your case mate and I accept what youre saying. When you start attributing viewpoints to me which I dont hold though, then thats probably where the discussion should end. Start going round in circles then. 39750[/snapback] Fair enough, I respect yourviewpoint. I'm not struggling to justify my enjoyment of CoD though, I literally see nothing wrong in it whatsoever. I fully respect what the veterans have done as well, and, in a way, the freedom to play games like this is ironically all down to them.

I don't think I can recall being offended by anything, ever. Films, books, porn, games, nothing really bothers me. Obviously there is plenty of sick stuff out there that would, but I don't try and actively seek it out, so I'm OK. Oh, and things like Richard Littlejohn don't count either.

The standard of N-O has gone right down since I stopped posting. Can't be arsed with it now, at least people speak English on this board, even if it does get a bit quiet.

Cool. He's the official spokesperson for that generation then is he? My grandad was in the navy and was deployed to deal with the allied assistance after Hiroshima. He can't talk about things like that-literally, you can't ask him those sorts of questions. Not that he's a spokesperson for his generation either but you get my point. 39736[/snapback] I'm not sure I do get your point. Are we to ban things because they might offend some individuals - that's the bottom line, surely? I think I know your online persona well enough to know you don't think this. Therefore I conclude you just find the concept of these games personally a bit distasteful, and you are dismissive of video games as an art form. Am I right in my thinking?

I used the "Don't quote me on that" button.

Oh aye yeah, you might be right. Anyways I think the one thats based on actual battles is a bit sick tbh, seeing as theres ex-servicemen still alive and all that. If that was me and I'd lost mates I'd be devo'd if I saw my grandson and his mates playing that with retarded grins on their faces. 39655[/snapback] Ban it along with Saving Private Ryan tbh. 39659[/snapback] I thought that was actually quite good in it's treatment of war and the devastating effects it can have on it's participants. A good anti war film tbh. 39662[/snapback] Yeah it was good and made you think. As did both CoD and MoH when I played them. 39669[/snapback] Are you having a laugh? What did they make you think of? What next - Invasion of Basra on Playstation 2? 39673[/snapback] About how terrible war is, in much the same way as SPR did. What's the difference? Have you actually played these games - they are very well done and pretty tasteful - there's also almost no gore. Compared to GTA, they are harmless and even educating. Not that I have a problem with GTA either like. 39680[/snapback] I dont play computer games generally. It's bad for the complexion. And regardless of the absence of gore (which I dont necesarily accept to be a good thing because war tends to be very 'gorey'), I just think that it trivializes what the participants experienced. Which was a living hell. If you like the game though then thats one good thing I s'pose. 39691[/snapback] I'm surprised at your attitude a bit, and I think you're wrong. It doesn't trivialise the war a bit imo, like I said, it is well done and gives you plenty of facts about what happened. Interesting question though I suppose - at what point can horrific events in the past be used as entertainment, and is this different for the mediums of literature, films, and computer games? If so, why? Hmmmm. 39700[/snapback] I think you're trying to justify your enjoyment of it tbh, which is fine, but doesnt make for great argument. In answer to your second point I actually think it's very simple-when it no longer affects living people in the way that I've mentioned. After that then I think it's a different ball game. Not that I'd be arsed to play it mind you. 39709[/snapback] But its interesting you think games are a special exception and this doesn't apply to books or films. Tbh, I think it is because you don't value games as an art form, which, ahem, I think is pretty ignorant!

You've formed an opinion on it without even playing it 39708[/snapback] I'm against paedophilia too. As is the Daily Mail. 39711[/snapback] I think we can safely say that having an opinion that paedophilia is wrong without trying it is not the same as thinking a game is wrong without playing it! Weird. Have I stumbled into some alternative reality toontastic board?

So you're in favour of banning things minority groups (whoever they might be) don't like? Interesting.