manc-mag

Basically Souness is a twat, Bellamy's a twat and Shola's garbage. 77685[/snapback] Bellamy may well be a twat, but is there still anyone out there who believes he (and Robert, perhaps) were ruining our team spirit whereas now its "the best Souness has ever had". The team with the shite team spirit (and Bellamy) would be the one who used to regularly come back from behind to win games, the one with the amazing team spirit is the one who is beaten every single time they go behind and play like it. Its obvious from the fact Souness pretty much mentions the dressing room or the spirit every week that he is way overcompensating, is hiding the fact he hasn't improved it at all and is tryign to still justify his fall outs with players by bullshitting about this amazing dressing room he has created. You don't hear other managers who actually have a great dressign room/spirit mention it all the time, they just sit back and let the results show how good the spirit is. If he mentions it once more or says the word "proper" in any context i hope the interview twats the useless fucker! 77691[/snapback] amazing how many are STILL taken in by Souness' spin and propaganda mate, "bad dressing room" my fecking arse 77782[/snapback] It's irrelevant. Neebody thinks he's the right manager, the arguments moved on. It's all about who and when to replace him. Keep up. 77802[/snapback] no it isn't, you STILL believe his lies about a player he sold....show us the evidence that the dressing room is better than it was, show us the evidence that it is better than under Bobby Robson when we were in the CL, show us the evidence that the "cancer" has moved from us to Blackburn..... and it's relevant because we would be better off if he was still here, and the wanker responsible for kicking him out is still here repeating this crap. So, admit you are wrong, for believing fuckwits lies ..... or prove otherwise 77820[/snapback] As mentioned by myself elsewhere in this very thread-he's a gobshite. He lies and he concocts excuses. He's not the man for the job. The team spirit was better before he came but with huge attitude problems and the team were in decline in any event and Robson wouldnt have solved the problem. Another manager might have done better than Souness - most thought that was likely. Another manager might still do better-most still think that is likely. We need another manager if we want to achieve anything-the only questions are who and when. The Bellamy argument is irrelevant.

As a snake, he can dislocate his jaw when he goes down.

When she came into the house I knew very little about her so was quite happy to be open minded about her. Since then she's complained how everyone judges her whilst judging everyone, including eskimos FFS! I'll just say if she were ejected first and the crowd were awful and she decided it was all too much and topped herself, I'd feel no pity. Probably harsh, but that's a hell of an impression to make on someone in about 2 hours of television. 77801[/snapback] The scientific community would no doubt mourn her passing however.

Basically Souness is a twat, Bellamy's a twat and Shola's garbage. 77685[/snapback] Bellamy may well be a twat, but is there still anyone out there who believes he (and Robert, perhaps) were ruining our team spirit whereas now its "the best Souness has ever had". The team with the shite team spirit (and Bellamy) would be the one who used to regularly come back from behind to win games, the one with the amazing team spirit is the one who is beaten every single time they go behind and play like it. Its obvious from the fact Souness pretty much mentions the dressing room or the spirit every week that he is way overcompensating, is hiding the fact he hasn't improved it at all and is tryign to still justify his fall outs with players by bullshitting about this amazing dressing room he has created. You don't hear other managers who actually have a great dressign room/spirit mention it all the time, they just sit back and let the results show how good the spirit is. If he mentions it once more or says the word "proper" in any context i hope the interview twats the useless fucker! 77691[/snapback] amazing how many are STILL taken in by Souness' spin and propaganda mate, "bad dressing room" my fecking arse 77782[/snapback] It's irrelevant. Neebody thinks he's the right manager, the arguments moved on. It's all about who and when to replace him. Keep up.

Thats the worst logic I've ever heard. Truly lamentable reasoning. Pick up your cards and your N-O premium lifetime membership on the way out. 77694[/snapback] Explain how it is wrong, rather than just saying "Wrong, ner ner." 77695[/snapback] It's clearly based on a male hetero viewpoint for a start. Not that I'm bent or owt! And the point about justifying a distinction in consent age between gay/straight situations (if indeed there is justification for such a distinction) must surely be premised on the potential for greater abuse/damage to the underage person than the fact that one sex might 'look older physically' Just cos a lass of 14 might look16/18/20 how does that mean shes ready for sex with a fat sweaty 40 year old bloke who might be coercing her or using all sorts of undue pressure or influence etc? Defective logic-and if not entirely defective, certainly not sound 77706[/snapback] Don't turn it around to make it look like i'm condoning sex with underage girls. The point I was making is that it is even worse to act in a predatory way towards under-age males, because they are arguably less developed mentally and physically at that age. While a predatory male could argue that he is attracted to a 14/15 year-old in the same way he would be attracted to an 18/19 year old, how many 14 year old boys even look remotely like men? They were putting hormones in the food of everyone else's schools obviously. Owld man/young lad or Owld man/young girl. Not right either way. 77739[/snapback] I'm not saying you're condoning anything-I'm criticising your logic. You never mentioned maturity in the mental sense until now, which is exactly what I think Dotbum and myself picked up on so starkly. I get where you're coming from-what you're saying basically takes account of the Graham Rix ambiguity/concern of some hetero males, which of course can be a very legitimate concern. However, that of itself does not justify treating people differently based on their sex/sexuality-these are questions of basic human rights. There may be a legitimate reason to treat people differently but the one you put forward was not it tbh. 77751[/snapback] I only ever said that. All I said was that the two situations were different because of various biological issues. I didn't say anything should be changed or that people's rights should be taken away. Therefore you've u-turned and agreed with me. I can't wait to take my maternity leave. Whether I'm right or wrong, I'm not the idiot you tried to make me out to be in your first post. 77769[/snapback] You said that male hetero and homo ages of consent could not be the same and then premised this entirely upon the 'Graham Rix'/14 year old girls in nightclubs argument. That's (quite simply) defective logic. Thats all I'm pointing out. 77785[/snapback] You win. Can I retract that statement? I didn't mean it to come out that way. Not faulty logic, poor communication skills. 77794[/snapback] Fair do's marra!

One likes to make the laydees feel...comfortable 77747[/snapback] And comfortale I am indeed Mr Hips... 77749[/snapback] As it should be, as it should be 77750[/snapback] Good to see you have your priorities set. 77764[/snapback] When one's a lover not a fighter, one has to make sure they're at the top of their game 77766[/snapback] men reach their physical peak at 18/19 tho ?? 77788[/snapback] Stone? Hips is well on his way there then?

I'm putting it about a bit actually so dont be surprised if I pop in and out of here too. GUMPH!

Was that an offer?

Thats the worst logic I've ever heard. Truly lamentable reasoning. Pick up your cards and your N-O premium lifetime membership on the way out. 77694[/snapback] Explain how it is wrong, rather than just saying "Wrong, ner ner." 77695[/snapback] It's clearly based on a male hetero viewpoint for a start. Not that I'm bent or owt! And the point about justifying a distinction in consent age between gay/straight situations (if indeed there is justification for such a distinction) must surely be premised on the potential for greater abuse/damage to the underage person than the fact that one sex might 'look older physically' Just cos a lass of 14 might look16/18/20 how does that mean shes ready for sex with a fat sweaty 40 year old bloke who might be coercing her or using all sorts of undue pressure or influence etc? Defective logic-and if not entirely defective, certainly not sound 77706[/snapback] Don't turn it around to make it look like i'm condoning sex with underage girls. The point I was making is that it is even worse to act in a predatory way towards under-age males, because they are arguably less developed mentally and physically at that age. While a predatory male could argue that he is attracted to a 14/15 year-old in the same way he would be attracted to an 18/19 year old, how many 14 year old boys even look remotely like men? They were putting hormones in the food of everyone else's schools obviously. Owld man/young lad or Owld man/young girl. Not right either way. 77739[/snapback] I'm not saying you're condoning anything-I'm criticising your logic. You never mentioned maturity in the mental sense until now, which is exactly what I think Dotbum and myself picked up on so starkly. I get where you're coming from-what you're saying basically takes account of the Graham Rix ambiguity/concern of some hetero males, which of course can be a very legitimate concern. However, that of itself does not justify treating people differently based on their sex/sexuality-these are questions of basic human rights. There may be a legitimate reason to treat people differently but the one you put forward was not it tbh. 77751[/snapback] I only ever said that. All I said was that the two situations were different because of various biological issues. I didn't say anything should be changed or that people's rights should be taken away. Therefore you've u-turned and agreed with me. I can't wait to take my maternity leave. Whether I'm right or wrong, I'm not the idiot you tried to make me out to be in your first post. 77769[/snapback] You said that male hetero and homo ages of consent could not be the same and then premised this entirely upon the 'Graham Rix'/14 year old girls in nightclubs argument. That's (quite simply) defective logic. Thats all I'm pointing out.

Absolutely, and I won't claim for a moment to have been the same, either emotionally or physically, at age 14/15 as I am now (no beer gut, for a start) - but, by the same token, I was already through with a good amount of what puberty had to throw at me, and more importantly I was already pretty sure that I wasn't going to fit the Hetero Male model of life. From what I know of other people, that makes me more the exception than the rule, and obviously the law has to try to find an "average" age that fits the reality of the situation as snugly as possible, but it doesn't change the fact that I knew what I wanted pretty early on. I suppose in this day and age I might've just stayed at home, surfed for porn and knocked one off instead, but that option wasn't open to me then - and when you're not the kind of teenager whose underwear elastic catapults across the room every time Baywatch comes on, your experimentation inevitably tends to take a different form. A potentially dangerous one, maybe, but then so (one might argue) are anyone's first steps into relationships and sex, whatever their age... 77770[/snapback] At least nee bloke could get you up the duff like!

I don't think they mentioned team spirit much under Keegan, as it was obviously great and therefore didn't need to be mentioned every sibngle week! But the way Keegans team played there was always a chance of a goal or hope of a goal (for me anyway). I don't have the stats obviously, but under Souness its something like once we've come from behind and won in the prem, and the records of all our other managers would have to be better than that!!! 77767[/snapback] He's had lots of injuries to contend with though. And when he just gets his full strength team of propa players out there.......

Thats fair enough, i think he's easilly worth the hassle (as have all but oen of his managers), but not everyone thinks that way. The difference now as supposed to in the past, is everyone knows for a fact we won't come back. You see/hear it when you're in pubs watching away matches, we go behind and thats it. In the past i always held out soem hope, and we even looked like coming back at times int he past, now its simply a case of game over and that is truly depressing, as footy fans always need hope. 77743[/snapback] Fair enough-we disagree on Bellamy's value overall. I do think he was a very effective player though just for the record. Re your other points (coming from behind), I can honestly say that even under Keegan I never really held out much hope for us after we'd gone behind. And lest we forget, the team spirit then was absolutely legendary. I just dont see Souness as a massive anomoly in the history of Newcastle in the 'coming from behind' argument. I do however agree that he is a complete gobshite.

Can you stop putting it better, with pithy examples to illustrate your point you rampant bottom fetishist.

Thats the worst logic I've ever heard. Truly lamentable reasoning. Pick up your cards and your N-O premium lifetime membership on the way out. 77694[/snapback] Explain how it is wrong, rather than just saying "Wrong, ner ner." 77695[/snapback] It's clearly based on a male hetero viewpoint for a start. Not that I'm bent or owt! And the point about justifying a distinction in consent age between gay/straight situations (if indeed there is justification for such a distinction) must surely be premised on the potential for greater abuse/damage to the underage person than the fact that one sex might 'look older physically' Just cos a lass of 14 might look16/18/20 how does that mean shes ready for sex with a fat sweaty 40 year old bloke who might be coercing her or using all sorts of undue pressure or influence etc? Defective logic-and if not entirely defective, certainly not sound 77706[/snapback] Don't turn it around to make it look like i'm condoning sex with underage girls. The point I was making is that it is even worse to act in a predatory way towards under-age males, because they are arguably less developed mentally and physically at that age. While a predatory male could argue that he is attracted to a 14/15 year-old in the same way he would be attracted to an 18/19 year old, how many 14 year old boys even look remotely like men? They were putting hormones in the food of everyone else's schools obviously. Owld man/young lad or Owld man/young girl. Not right either way. 77739[/snapback] I'm not saying you're condoning anything-I'm criticising your logic. You never mentioned maturity in the mental sense until now, which is exactly what I think Dotbum and myself picked up on so starkly. I get where you're coming from-what you're saying basically takes account of the Graham Rix ambiguity/concern of some hetero males, which of course can be a very legitimate concern. However, that of itself does not justify treating people differently based on their sex/sexuality-these are questions of basic human rights. There may be a legitimate reason to treat people differently but the one you put forward was not it tbh.

Bobby may have let the younger players get a little out of hand but as he said hismelf its what they gave him on the pitch that matters, ie. putting NUFC first and not his own petty little vendettas. Of course he did that hismelf with Nobby, but with Bellamy he had the brains to see what he offers on the pitch and put up with him being annoying. And to be fair Bellamy has only had serious trouble with one manager, a manager who has had problems with many, many players before. But like i said, its Souness (and his cronies) Bullshit that does my head in, as if Bellamy was almost singlehandedly ruining the team spirit and that now he's gone its amazing. Well it isn't, its shite and despite what 1 or 2 of them say, they don't give a shit about playing for Souness and there is practically no team spirit or morale as shown every single time we have any adversity (ie. going a goal behind etc.) Souness may be an abysmal manager but he's a grade A bullshit merchant, i'll give him that! 77703[/snapback] I agree with most of that but I've been following Newcastle for over 20 years and I have to say we've always been one of the most gutless when we're behind. We almost never come back into a game and win after going behind. There was a brief spell under Robson when this situation was turned on its head but that passed all too quickly and we were back to same old same old well before he left, good team spirit or not. Personally i think Souness is bobbins, but then I also think Bellamy isnt worth the hassle on balance.

Oscar Fucking Wilde tbh. 77722[/snapback] He was a bummer you know.

Do you not think the main issue with the age of consent might be emotional/mental maturity, at all... 77705[/snapback] Cheers mate. I spose I could have just kept it at that. Very pithy.

Thats the worst logic I've ever heard. Truly lamentable reasoning. Pick up your cards and your N-O premium lifetime membership on the way out. 77694[/snapback] Explain how it is wrong, rather than just saying "Wrong, ner ner." 77695[/snapback] It's clearly based on a male hetero viewpoint for a start. Not that I'm bent or owt! And the point about justifying a distinction in consent age between gay/straight situations (if indeed there is justification for such a distinction) must surely be premised on the potential for greater abuse/damage to the underage person than the fact that one sex might 'look older physically' Just cos a lass of 14 might look16/18/20 how does that mean shes ready for sex with a fat sweaty 40 year old bloke who might be coercing her or using all sorts of undue pressure or influence etc? Defective logic-and if not entirely defective, certainly not sound

Basically Souness is a twat, Bellamy's a twat and Shola's garbage. 77685[/snapback] Bellamy may well be a twat, but is there still anyone out there who believes he (and Robert, perhaps) were ruining our team spirit whereas now its "the best Souness has ever had". The team with the shite team spirit (and Bellamy) would be the one who used to regularly come back from behind to win games, the one with the amazing team spirit is the one who is beaten every single time they go behind and play like it. Its obvious from the fact Souness pretty much mentions the dressing room or the spirit every week that he is way overcompensating, is hiding the fact he hasn't improved it at all and is tryign to still justify his fall outs with players by bullshitting about this amazing dressing room he has created. You don't hear other managers who actually have a great dressign room/spirit mention it all the time, they just sit back and let the results show how good the spirit is. If he mentions it once more or says the word "proper" in any context i hope the interview twats the useless fucker! 77691[/snapback] Souness's man management of talented troublemakers is dreadful but IMHO so was Bobby Robson's. Robert/Bellamy/Dire etc took the piss Royal under Bobby quite frankly. Bellamy will piss on his chips elsewhere during his career I have no doubt about that.

Thats the worst logic I've ever heard. Truly lamentable reasoning. Pick up your cards and your N-O premium lifetime membership on the way out.

Basically Souness is a twat, Bellamy's a twat and Shola's garbage.

Queen? Rolling Stones: Start me up! 'You can start me up' - 'Yugoslavia'

http://www.amiright.com/misheard/artist/ A truly wonderful resource!

I think it implies it but does not offer proof conclusive. Rob's still a twat though but isnt he?! 77602[/snapback] Arey you inferring hes a twat? 77604[/snapback] I Imply, you infer Actually he's more of a cock-end. And thats not anecdotal, its FACT! 77606[/snapback] prove it!! 77660[/snapback] Disprove it!