manc-mag

More accurately described as a voice in Deano's head sounding identical to Steve McLaren.

I'm getting the feeling you don't like Deano? Nothing specific you said, just a vibe...am I right? People accuse CT of wummery. Deano pretends he has Dutch friends who are involved in the Pieters deal and his other mate plays golf with Barton. He relentlessly posts unmitigated shite with regard to transfers; he started a thread where he just posted his FM team. The whole 'pay as you play' thing. And you say to him (a 25 year old), "Deano, I think it's quite unlikely that Sneijder would come here on a pay as you play deal," and he comes back with: yeah fuckin jog on ther you mug your just jealous, im dead articulate and i post opinions because i love newcastle and my mate from albania told me Ibrahimovich is comin to ther game tomrrrow and then he will syn. I just right about newcaslte i pitee you cos your a mug Team for 2011: -----------------------Krul M'Bengue---Kadar----Pieters---Cissocko --------------Lovenkrands --Marveaux---Ben Arfa---Ferguson -------Adriano----NEW(left-footed pay as you play) I think CT gets more exposure because he posts more and also posts in general chat. At this stage, can I just clarify that in no way was I endorsing Deano's posting. I should like that to be rightly understood before we go any further.

Without getting bogged down in specific examples, I'm making a very broad point about your posting, your motivation for doing so (merely my opinion) and the nature of this place as a forum, and I think it's a valid one. I reiterate, I personally don't think you're a wum as I genuinely believe that you genuinely hold ludicrously optimistic (and often contradictory) opinions. I think they're an insult to the majority of peoples intelligence and I think people react to that accordingly. The reaction could not be more starkly contrasted when Chez posts. On Tom and Craig mate I don't know as I don't know the exact flash point (some of it was conducted over Twitter I believe you allege). I imagine I've read some of the posts and missed others. Again though really it's a broad point as I see the situation and was picking up on what the Fish initially touched upon. I think what they do in moderating the place can be in the realms of art rather than science and as a result some may act more hastily than others, but overall for the years I've been posting I'm willing to bet this is the most tolerant Toon forum on the internet. If ultimately what you're saying is you think you've been treated heavy handedly though, I think you also need to do that with a clean pair of hands and admit your own private indulgence in being the voice of stupidity sometimes, as I don't think the Holier than though stuff washes.

Basically this hits the nail on the head for me and explains what's at the heart of the matter. It's something that got drummed into me in my university 'ivory tower' about the essential difference between an opinion and an argument and Chez is absolutely the correct example to use. First of all, let me say that CT doesn't bother me at all so this isn't a snide by any means, just the situation as I see it: Chez seems to have an opinion about the club's spending which is far from popular on here. It's not to say the club are meeting his aspirations as a fan, but because of his economics discipline, he holds the opinion that the club's spending practices have been within a normal range given the entire (non-emotional) facts. He then supports this opinion with argument, and by this I mean associating relevant facts to a basic premise. This argument can then be scrutinised by the introduction of counter evidence, (which you'll commonly see HF doing) and a genuine debate can be had. Ultimately, whether the argument is sound or not remains difficult to discern-this is mainly due to the fact that not all relevant information is available-but what it always is is entirely valid, because the logic is flawless. Now CT on the other hand, you'll forgive me for this, but what you post really is essentially inane opinion. Your opinions will often be generically very similar to Chez's, but the reaction you get could not be more different. Now as Fish says, the point to remember here is that they are similar opinions. Also, given the natural sentiments of a fan they're very unpopular ones and feelings run pretty high. That being the case, you're going to need to be in the position to argue your point pretty robustly and here you fail completely, because what you spout really is just opinion. Now the thing is, if it's just opinion, it needs to be stated once and once alone. It doesn't need to be gone into at length page after page because debate itself is impossible when you're essentially just parroting a slogan. To do that is antithetical to a sensible football forum. You cite the example of Leazes, but that doesn't assist unfortunately, instead it is amongst the most compelling evidence against you because what he does is essentially the same as what you do except from the polar opposite end of the opinion spectrum. Debate with Leazes is impossible because he is incapable of argument; instead he's been reduced to five years of derailing threads by regurgitating slogans and people get hacked off with the inane nature of that too. I'm not having a go because personally I've nothing against you at all and I've had a good laugh at plenty of your posts, but I think you need pulling up for saying it's mob mentality etc etc. It's not that at all, but it is all to do with Toontastic being a better forum (personal opinion) than any other Toon forum on the net and that is something that the mods and admin have to have in mind. That's to do with a mixture of its humour and it's debate. I actually think you add to the humour (inadvertantly) but do nothing for the debate. I'm not in favour of banning for reasons that are too long and old to go into but are to do with the basic 'constitution' of this place as opposed to N-O but it can be a fine line, so what you're experiencing now, basically, is the mods and admin acting short of that on the grounds you're a wum. Whether that's correct or not, (and for what it's worth I'm not persuaded you are an outright wum because I believe some of your opinions are genuinely held), what I do suspect is that you're essentially driven to post on here by the adverse responses you get to your opinions. Again, I reiterate I'm not in favour of banning, but what Craig says is very apposite-there is a forum for people to just spout pro-Ashley opinions and that's N-O. So for him to direct you there is perfectly in order. The thing is though, and which I think you know very well, if you posted your views on there you'd instantly become anonymous in an absolute ocean of the same rubbish and wouldn't get anywhere near the attention you get on here. And for a large part that's the draw for you in posting here I reckon, in spite of your protests, so I think that point needed to be clearly made while you were playing the victim card.

Too right. He shouldn't even be training this week in case of injury, Pardew should be wheeling him around Andy Pipkinesque, covered in bubble wrap.

This is a fucking minefield.

Im not actually sure I predicted them all I predict HF could prove me wrong though. http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry913612 http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry914262 http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry931342 http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry931034 You also said http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=916906 But assumed that was a joke. oooh...he's going to get you on a few technicalities there like. The Barton one is 'away by 1st September' so that could still happen yet. Also if he stays, it's possible he could still get captaincy (I don't think that prediction had a time limit). He's covered both bases with a standard conflicting forecast. Also by 'transfer activity', no doubt he didn't mean we'd sign anyone, just that we'd be touting to flog our best players.

Flinging his own shit about to the delight of the crowd. You see who I mean? White top on with blue and red strike. It's definitely 'Big Davey C', like. Aye, directly above Billy No-Mates who's desperate to get in on the hom action next to him.

Flinging his own shit about to the delight of the crowd.

Would have thought paying the loan fee would automatically have meant the £80k per week would be reduced. Ie we'd only be paying part of the £80k and City would be paying the rest (presumably out of the £2 million fee). Don't see it happening anyway and as has been mentioned, Bridge is no great shakes. Although obviously we've got fuck all there at present.

I'm not a Jew either, so that was alright too.

First they came for the Clueless Tits, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Clueless Tit. Then they came for the cunterheads, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a cunterhead. ..etc etc

If you're going to harp on about old formats like, then you might as well concede four of your five European Cups are the cheapo version. The mighty Notts Forest even managed to bag themselves a couple of them ones. I don't necessarily subscribe to that opinion, but you clearly can't have it both ways. Under the old format, you only had to win five games on the belt and some of them games could be against giants like Crusaders etc. Your first cup in '77: 1st round Crusaders (Belfast part timers) 2nd round Trabzonspor Quarters Saint-Etienne Semis Zurich Final Borussia Monchengladbach Ok you had to win your own league, but the upshot of that was that you might only meet one decent side during the entire knock out competition. You'd have been better just saying nowt tbh. Not really. There’s a big difference there. Those teams we met were the best team their countries had to offer, they were real Champions. No qualification from second, never mind 10th. The CL as it is now is more prestigious, glamourous and lucrative, but it isn’t played by Champions alone, as it should be. When they changed the format that automatically diluted the UEFA Cup, similar to the Fairs Cup, one team one city rule did. We won it in 2001 but it wasn’t as good as winning it in 75/76 when it was about great teams on the way down, declining, or new good teams on their way up. Yes but that meant playing part timers from Belfast and utter minnows from other nothing leagues. When the Champions League came into being I was of the same view as you-it was devalued by non-champions being allowed to enter, but clearly that was wrong. A tournament with the top four from Italy, Spain, Germany and England competing (amongst others) is always going to be more of an achievement to win than playing only the cream of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Switzerland. Simply applying your logic about formats, they're snide wins compared to the modern version.

Reported.

At least she can spell Teesside I bet.

Look at the teams we faced, in European football at that time it would be hard to face 6 harder sides. Waits for some pathetic quote from Shankly about "the cup with the big ears" or some equally pathetic pass me the bucket scouse pish. Like those utterly cringeworthy seventies banners the Kop used to hold up "MOSES SAID COME FORTH, SHANKS SAID NO WE'LL COME FIRST" fuckin scousers man. There was only one I liked, which was on Scouse churches in the 60's which would read: 'Jesus Saves' and then be graffitied: 'St John scores on the rebound' Usual Scouse nonsense though as you say, if anything it was a competition that was gaining in prestige due to the teams in it and by the time we won it just before Uefa 'adopted' it it was one of the three European honours that we all grew up with. Makes me cringe when you hear stuff like that from the dippers though. Seriously, 1978 they won four games, including the almighty Bruges in the final. Club Brugge for fucks sake. I know basically you just needed to be a well run club to achieve the successes they had, we had a bigger support right prior to Shankly, had more trophies, but all I ask is for someone to show me pre-1990 which team had a tougher route to a European trophy than we did in 1969. I'm not even being biased. I think the fact England didn't qualify for a major tournament from 1970 to 1980 emphasises how poor our football was in this country, yet despite that our clubs were European Champions five times in that period. It shows everything was much of a muchness, had we had a decent board then we could be the global club they are today. In some ways though I don't envy that when you see the profile of their support. You're the same age as me Sammy so you'll have grown up with the same football media coverage, Sportsneet on a Wednesday, the big match on a sunday now and then, Saint & Greavsie, Football Focus etc...and I'm not wrong in hearing the phrase said many time "the UEFA Cup is often harder to win than the European Cup" am I? Aye, shame their fans couldn't have followed their example and I don't mean that as a joke either. No you're right mate, you'd hear that quite a bit about the UEFA Cup prior to the Champs League coming into existence.

Look at the teams we faced, in European football at that time it would be hard to face 6 harder sides. Waits for some pathetic quote from Shankly about "the cup with the big ears" or some equally pathetic pass me the bucket scouse pish. Like those utterly cringeworthy seventies banners the Kop used to hold up "MOSES SAID COME FORTH, SHANKS SAID NO WE'LL COME FIRST" fuckin scousers man. There was only one I liked, which was on Scouse churches in the 60's which would read: 'Jesus Saves' and then be graffitied: 'St John scores on the rebound' Usual Scouse nonsense though as you say, if anything it was a competition that was gaining in prestige due to the teams in it and by the time we won it just before Uefa 'adopted' it it was one of the three European honours that we all grew up with. Makes me cringe when you hear stuff like that from the dippers though. Seriously, 1978 they won four games, including the almighty Bruges in the final. Club Brugge for fucks sake.

PS the following year (as holders) you got a bye in the first round. Four games.

If you're going to harp on about old formats like, then you might as well concede four of your five European Cups are the cheapo version. The mighty Notts Forest even managed to bag themselves a couple of them ones. I don't necessarily subscribe to that opinion, but you clearly can't have it both ways. Under the old format, you only had to win five games on the belt and some of them games could be against giants like Crusaders etc. Your first cup in '77: 1st round Crusaders (Belfast part timers) 2nd round Trabzonspor Quarters Saint-Etienne Semis Zurich Final Borussia Monchengladbach Ok you had to win your own league, but the upshot of that was that you might only meet one decent side during the entire knock out competition. You'd have been better just saying nowt tbh.

European trophies worth nowt now is it? Fucking righto then.

Or the hunt. Wahey!

We tortured chelsea on there own patch doesnt make us a better team. Doesnt work like that its all about final standings What the fuck is the point of your thread then you foaming ringpiece?