• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Farewell GG

The big problem on forums in general is that people respond to the person, without the restraints that would apply in real life.

If people responded to the content of the posts and not who makes them, there would be a lot less animosity. Once someone makes it personal, they get a personal response and it spirals our of control.

For instance, if someone makes a comment comparing a manager to a previous manager it should be treated on its merits in the context of the discussion. If someone's response depends on their perception of the post writer's previous comments on related matters, it doesn't help the discussion and just reignites previous arguments. The points made in a post don't depend on what that poster has said before, so why respond as if they do? Its not a rational approach and is a form of ad hominem argument.
 
If you take the time to take a step back and really take a look at what everyone is posting about in this thread...

You will find that it is all rather unnecessary and in fact a little bit sad.
 
jts1882 said:
The big problem on forums in general is that people respond to the person, without the restraints that would apply in real life.

If people responded to the content of the posts and not who makes them, there would be a lot less animosity. Once someone makes it personal, they get a personal response and it spirals our of control.

For instance, if someone makes a comment comparing a manager to a previous manager it should be treated on its merits in the context of the discussion. If someone's response depends on their perception of the post writer's previous comments on related matters, it doesn't help the discussion and just reignites previous arguments. The points made in a post don't depend on what that poster has said before, so why respond as if they do? Its not a rational approach and is a form of ad hominem argument.
Click to expand...

Some very good points there.

Some people take this whole internet forum thing far too seriously. You don't have to win every discussion. You can't be right all the time. Sometimes there isn't just one correct opinion. There's no need to deliberately try and change the topic of a discussion because one of the posters has previously said something you disagreed with.

If you haven't got anything constructive or positive to bring to a thread, often the best response is not to respond.
 
The Moonlit Knight said:
Your perception and simply not true. And as stated above, this will always happen because everything is related.

AVB Tactics, Modric (and AVB's handling of the situation and poster's perception of the way Modric is behaving now amazingly changing now it's a manager they like in charge), signings, GDS, youth, the way our club is set up for the long term, player fitness etc ALL relate to the previous Manager and even beyond him and you're damn right that everytime someone slags Redknapp off for something they praise or ignore AVB to do I'll be calling it out.

Someone makes a snide remark about MOTD transfer policy, I'll be there calling BS. Every single fudging time. The difference between me and most of those "others" is that I am happy to back my opinions up with REASONED logic and debate, not just hearsay and emotions. I'll take a look at all arguments and media stories and not just pick and choose the ones that suit my agenda (any pro-Redknapp story for example is his mates in the media, same with any anti-AVB story. But any anti-HR, pro-AVB story? That's a great journalist right there and his words should be treated as gospel? WALOB!).

And I remain consistent in my views. People are already starting to judge AVB on pre-season FFS. A pre-season where he doesn't had Parker, VDV or Modric (three of our six key players from last season, Friedel, Bale and Ade being the other three) available. The Modric, VDV and Parker pyramid was basically the main reason we were so excellent and retaining controlled possession last year and fans expect AVB to achieve the same with other players? Madness. And then you also have the fact that Sandro, who is likely to relieve Parker of his first team place this season, available too. Give the man a chance FFS.

I am not pro-Redknapp. Never was. I was pro-Manager of a Manager who got us to the 4th, 5th, 4th (although according to at least three posters, one of them being a mod (and what a fudging joke that is considering he is one of the snide group of posters offering literally fudge all to debates other than asking us to trust him about clearly completely spurious information he has, ITK my arse. He should be banned from the site and instead he gets made a mod! I can't even block him now as a result) it was nothing to do with Redknapp and all down to Levy and now it looks like we're going to be in four a less successful season than in recent years that IS down to Redknapp even though he no longer Manages us!). I am not anti-AVB either, although he was far from my choice of Manager and I do think he royally fudged up at Chelsea regardless of external reasons. I am pro in giving managers slack, even more so when I think they've earned it due to previous relative success at the club in their previous two or three seasons in charge (which is why I though Jol's sacking was disgraceful and still do).

So I'll continue to carry "debate" across threads when I see a post that I feel strongly about to be factually incorrect or even more so when a poster is clearly demonstrating double standards. If the mods don't like it? Ban me.
Click to expand...

Feel free to PM me with a private complaint about whomever you're referring to, and I'll have a word.
 
jts1882 said:
The big problem on forums in general is that people respond to the person, without the restraints that would apply in real life.

If people responded to the content of the posts and not who makes them, there would be a lot less animosity. Once someone makes it personal, they get a personal response and it spirals our of control.

For instance, if someone makes a comment comparing a manager to a previous manager it should be treated on its merits in the context of the discussion. If someone's response depends on their perception of the post writer's previous comments on related matters, it doesn't help the discussion and just reignites previous arguments. The points made in a post don't depend on what that poster has said before, so why respond as if they do? Its not a rational approach and is a form of ad hominem argument.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. Consistent views are very important in the art of debating. And someone's past criteria/opinions are critically important to how seriously they should be taken in the present. It's not perception, it's fact. Most things can NOT be taken into isolation.

There are cases where the above doesn't apply though, specifically in match rating threads where players should be rated with exactly the same criteria from match to match. It annoys me immensely when a good player has an average game but gets terrible scores because he wasn't his usual good self, and when a youngster comes in makes loads of mistakes but everyone rates him highly because he did a couple of stand out things. Age, past form, whether you like a player or not etc. should have no bearing on what they are rated. I freely admit I don't rate Walker, Ekotto and Kaboul as highly as most on here (and often feel that their scores get massively over rated for average contributions for example) but at one time or another I have rated them as high as an 8 (and in Kaboul's case a couple of 9's). There is one poster on here who never rates on player above a 6, even if it's clear he was MOTM. I guess at least he is consistent though!
 
The Moonlit Knight said:
I don't agree. Consistent views are very important in the art of debating. And someone's past criteria/opinions are critically important to how seriously they should be taken in the present. It's not perception, it's fact. Most things can NOT be taken into isolation.

There are cases where the above doesn't apply though, specifically in match rating threads where players should be rated with exactly the same criteria from match to match. It annoys me immensely when a good player has an average game but gets terrible scores because he wasn't his usual good self, and when a youngster comes in makes loads of mistakes but everyone rates him highly because he did a couple of stand out things. Age, past form, whether you like a player or not etc. should have no bearing on what they are rated. I freely admit I don't rate Walker, Ekotto and Kaboul as highly as most on here (and often feel that their scores get massively over rated for average contributions for example) but at one time or another I have rated them as high as an 8 (and in Kaboul's case a couple of 9's). There is one poster on here who never rates on player above a 6, even if it's clear he was MOTM. I guess at least he is consistent though!
Click to expand...

They are going to be our biggest worry against the Toon not the forward line.
 
The Moonlit Knight said:
I don't agree. Consistent views are very important in the art of debating. And someone's past criteria/opinions are critically important to how seriously they should be taken in the present. It's not perception, it's fact. Most things can NOT be taken into isolation.

There are cases where the above doesn't apply though, specifically in match rating threads where players should be rated with exactly the same criteria from match to match. It annoys me immensely when a good player has an average game but gets terrible scores because he wasn't his usual good self, and when a youngster comes in makes loads of mistakes but everyone rates him highly because he did a couple of stand out things. Age, past form, whether you like a player or not etc. should have no bearing on what they are rated. I freely admit I don't rate Walker, Ekotto and Kaboul as highly as most on here (and often feel that their scores get massively over rated for average contributions for example) but at one time or another I have rated them as high as an 8 (and in Kaboul's case a couple of 9's). There is one poster on here who never rates on player above a 6, even if it's clear he was MOTM. I guess at least he is consistent though!
Click to expand...

I didn't expect you to agree if you were consistent with your earlier post.

The art of rational debating is to keep to the issue being debated and to use logical arguments. The problem is that if you take someone's position in another debate, then you are not basing your argument on the propositions of the current debate, but instead using a rhetorical trick to discredit what the person is saying, tackling the man rather than the ball. If you use ad hominem or other logical fallacies, then you can't at the same time claim to be basing your argument on solid evidence.

I'd agree that you need to be consistent within a particular debate, but someone could have changed their mind based on new evidence, so what they said before is not relevant. Of course, some people might be taking a different position just to be difficult, but then arguing a position you don't believe in is part of the art of debating.

As for match rating threads, they are subjective by nature, so I'd agree consistent markings might be a sign of bias. But now you are complaining that people are not being consistent, which is hardly consistent. ;)
 
parklane1 said:
There are some posters who can not let things go and always bring up things to get a response and so it all begins again.
Click to expand...

Jesus H Christ on a bike

how dare YOU, of all posters dare to make a post like that?

Unless that is some kind of self deprecating joke, based heavily on ironic hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why we lock, split and merge threads.
Click to expand...

Why? Because of a couple of unnecessary comments? All is needed is for a moderator to delete those comments and slap the wrists of the author. Certainly no need for any locking/merging etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back