James McClean

Started by thewobbler, July 19, 2015, 12:39:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Franko

Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 07:33:29 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 21, 2015, 06:53:47 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 06:39:55 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 21, 2015, 06:30:13 PM
Agreed wrt to the level of behaviour amongst football supporters.  So we're not comparing what Gazza did with McClean's actions then?  McClean wasn't guilty of incitement whereas Gazza was.  I don't see much point in bringing it up in that case.

Also, was it not you that had a hissy fit with me a couple of weeks ago for sarcastic replies?  Maybe you should take your own advice.

I was following your lead.

Unless this was a serious comment: "If McClean is guilty of incitement then all displays of celebration in football would have to be banned."

There was no sarcasm in that statement.  I was following the thing through to it's logical conclusion IMO.  And even if you genuinely did think I was being sarcastic, it didn't take much bait for the 'holier than thou' persona to fall by the wayside.

Ah, back to the ad hominem again.

'Hissy fit' & 'holier than thou' can be added to your more usual lines

At least you seem to be tired of telling me that I think that I am always right. It is amazing how many people say something like this, while very obviously thinking exactly the same thing about themselves.

My issue with your sarcastic posts was that you didn't offer any comment on those issues, just the sarcasm. Sarcasm, irony or any other form of wit is fine by me.

Here is an example of what I meant:

Quote from: Franko on October 08, 2015, 04:06:00 PM
Quote from: The Stallion on October 08, 2015, 04:03:27 PM
I was going to ask some of you if your teachers had ever told you "you're only cheating yourself", but I'm not convinced you have all had a formal education.

How witty.

And another.....

Quote from: Franko on October 06, 2015, 05:33:08 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 06, 2015, 05:16:06 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 06, 2015, 04:30:18 PM
Fair enough muppet, you must be right.  As always.

Nine innocent people were shot by a maniac with a gun and your contribution is to pluck some image of the aftermath and use it to have a go at the police.

I think this says more about your prejudices than anything else.

Yawn. I am pointing out the insensitive treatment of survivors, as I see it. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see it was a completely pointless. exercise But even before we had the benefit of hindsight, we could reasonably argue that it was likely to pointless by asking how often has this approach yielded results in the past?

But you keep throwing out your insults and personalising the debate, 'as always'.

I don't know. You tell me, you seem to be well versed on how to handle these incidents from a policing point of view so why don't you enlighten us?

And you seem to be intolerant of 'smartarse responses' yourself, unless of course they are your own smartarse responses.  ;D Presumably they are all ok?

Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 05:19:26 PM
Quote from: Boycey on August 25, 2015, 03:55:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 03:02:13 PM
Quote from: Boycey on August 25, 2015, 02:56:25 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 02:16:39 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 11:23:01 AM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 10:04:27 AM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 06:52:18 PM
You referred to this paragraph twice. And the usual 'none so blind' twice.

Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!

I don't read that as stating that Bolt was caught and that there is a big cover up.

I read it as suggesting that it is highly unlikely Bolt isn't juicing.

Now again please, for the completely 'blind', where in that paragraph does it clearly point to him being caught and it being covered up, as against the suggestion that it is unlikely that he is the only one not juicing?

He's saying that other high profile Jamaican athetes have been caught, which would indicate that they do indeed test, and test enough to catch a few of the dopers (even the high-profile ones).  He then says that this is coupled with Jamaica's histoically lax approach to "anti-doping" - ie. not drug testing.  This is where my opinion came from.

Lance Armstrong's famous "I've never failed a drugs test" line should read "I've never failed a drugs test that you guys know about"

I honestly don't see what you are implying, but you may be right. He may be treating very carefully due to libel laws etc.

The difference with Armstrong and Bolt is that while they were winning, Armstrong's cheating teammates were not failing tests or at least not publicly. Bolt's are.

I think you're proving my point here muppet.  If Armstrong's teammates had been cheating and failing tests (like Bolt's) and he was still massively outperforming them, would logic not lead you to conclude that either:

1. Some sort of cover up was going on wrt Armstrong's test results
2. Armstrong was Superman

I've been half following this conversation, did you show yet where he's been caught doping  or did you back your way out of that one??

Instead of taking time to post, maybe you should use that time to read back through.  I believe the phrase is "close your mouth and open your ears".

That's a no then so, carry on..

Ah, another one reduced to the smartarse responses.  Reading mustn't be your thing Boycey.

Fine bit of research muppet.  The thing is, I didn't berate anyone for using sarcasm, I was merely pointing out your haste to jump in with it, after recently pulling me for doing the same (see 'holier than thou').  So unfortunately your research has been a waste of time.

PS. Just when you mention using sarcasm without comment on the issue, weren't we discussing James McClean?  You ignored the rest of my post on your 'point' regarding Gazza and the flute playing. Or were you just agreeing with me?

muppet

"weren't we discussing James McClean?"

No.

You moved the discussion onto hissy fits and holier than thou.  ;D

As for Gazza. You defended McClean saying a fist pump wasn't an obscene gesture. I posted Gazza being a flute and said that this wasn't an obscene gesture either.

You then changed you point from' obscene' to 'sectarian'. I responded to that one as well.

We were doing fine until you gave up and went 'hissy fit' and 'smartarse', to use your own words.
MWWSI 2017

Franko

Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 08:19:02 PM
"weren't we discussing James McClean?"

No.

You moved the discussion onto hissy fits and holier than thou.  ;D

As for Gazza. You defended McClean saying a fist pump wasn't an obscene gesture. I posted Gazza being a flute and said that this wasn't an obscene gesture either.

You then changed you point from' obscene' to 'sectarian'. I responded to that one as well.

We were doing fine until you gave up and went 'hissy fit' and 'smartarse', to use your own words.

No, I made two points in that post. One referring to the issue and one referring to your sarcasm.  You ignored the former.  If you check, you'll find that your post was the first one not to mention the issues pertaining to the thread.

Regarding your little synopsis, there's many things that McClean's gesture wasn't that I didn't mention.  Must I mention them all?  You said yourself that the issues weren't the same so I fail to see the relevance of the photo.  I've asked you to explain but you've yet to oblige.

muppet

Quote from: Franko on October 21, 2015, 09:17:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 08:19:02 PM
"weren't we discussing James McClean?"

No.

You moved the discussion onto hissy fits and holier than thou.  ;D

As for Gazza. You defended McClean saying a fist pump wasn't an obscene gesture. I posted Gazza being a flute and said that his wasn't an obscene gesture either.

You then changed you point from' obscene' to 'sectarian'. I responded to that one as well.

We were doing fine until you gave up and went 'hissy fit' and 'smartarse', to use your own words.

No, I made two points in that post. One referring to the issue and one referring to your sarcasm.  You ignored the former.  If you check, you'll find that your post was the first one not to mention the issues pertaining to the thread.

Regarding your little synopsis, there's many things that McClean's gesture wasn't that I didn't mention.  Must I mention them all?  You said yourself that the issues weren't the same so I fail to see the relevance of the photo.  I've asked you to explain but you've yet to oblige.

I have explained. But you keep ignoring it.

I'll oblige you yet again. You said McClean's gesture wasn't obscene. I posted Gazza's photo, for which he was reprimanded, which I mentioned, and I said that it wasn't obscene either. That was exactly my point. Can you see the comparison?

Gazza's behaviour not being obscene didn't save him from censure. Thus your point about obscenity was irrelevant. I didn't feel the need to spoon feed you the point, but I now realise this was a mistake. If McClean's gesture was ok because as you said, it wasn't obscene, then surely Gazza's was ok too? That was the comparison.

Then you said this:

" You ignored the rest of my post on your 'point' regarding Gazza and the flute playing. Or were you just agreeing with me?""

I most certainly didn't ignore your post on Gazza. After I dealt with your point on it not being obscene, in reply you said Gazza's gesture was sectarian. I responded to that. I said that sport and politics, for example, are by definition sectarian. Splitting one group of supporters on one side of an arena and a different group in another is by definition sectarian. Soccer is full of sectarianism. The local derbies around the world are the very definition of sectarianism.

Then you went all hyperbolic, talking about banning all forms of celebration (how would you even define this?), which I thought was just sarcasm, because I certainly didn't think it was a serious point.








MWWSI 2017

laoislad

When you think you're fucked you're only about 40% fucked.

Franko

Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 10:46:56 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 21, 2015, 09:17:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 08:19:02 PM
"weren't we discussing James McClean?"

No.

You moved the discussion onto hissy fits and holier than thou.  ;D

As for Gazza. You defended McClean saying a fist pump wasn't an obscene gesture. I posted Gazza being a flute and said that his wasn't an obscene gesture either.

You then changed you point from' obscene' to 'sectarian'. I responded to that one as well.

We were doing fine until you gave up and went 'hissy fit' and 'smartarse', to use your own words.

No, I made two points in that post. One referring to the issue and one referring to your sarcasm.  You ignored the former.  If you check, you'll find that your post was the first one not to mention the issues pertaining to the thread.

Regarding your little synopsis, there's many things that McClean's gesture wasn't that I didn't mention.  Must I mention them all?  You said yourself that the issues weren't the same so I fail to see the relevance of the photo.  I've asked you to explain but you've yet to oblige.

I have explained. But you keep ignoring it.

I'll oblige you yet again. You said McClean's gesture wasn't obscene. I posted Gazza's photo, for which he was reprimanded, which I mentioned, and I said that it wasn't obscene either. That was exactly my point. Can you see the comparison?

Gazza's behaviour not being obscene didn't save him from censure. Thus your point about obscenity was irrelevant. I didn't feel the need to spoon feed you the point, but I now realise this was a mistake. If McClean's gesture was ok because as you said, it wasn't obscene, then surely Gazza's was ok too? That was the comparison.

Then you said this:

" You ignored the rest of my post on your 'point' regarding Gazza and the flute playing. Or were you just agreeing with me?""

I most certainly didn't ignore your post on Gazza. After I dealt with your point on it not being obscene, in reply you said Gazza's gesture was sectarian. I responded to that. I said that sport and politics, for example, are by definition sectarian. Splitting one group of supporters on one side of an arena and a different group in another is by definition sectarian. Soccer is full of sectarianism. The local derbies around the world are the very definition of sectarianism.

Then you went all hyperbolic, talking about banning all forms of celebration (how would you even define this?), which I thought was just sarcasm, because I certainly didn't think it was a serious point.

You have reached new depths of pedantry with this one.  OK, it wasn't 'obscene or offensive', is that OK?  Does 'offensive' cover the myriad of other things that the gesture wasn't (racist/sectarian/homophobic/sexually explicit/politically incorrect...) or do I have to list them all individually?

James McClean made a celebratory gesture towards the opposition fans in a bid to wind them up.  You attempted to equate this to Gazza's blatant sectarian act.  There is no comparison.  You may as well have posted a picture of Cantona's Kung Fu kick, for all the relevance it had.

And as for your last paragraph, maybe I need to spoon feed it you.  The particular type of sectarianism that Gazza was involving himself in with little dance was responsible for many deaths and was one which Scottish football had and still has a massive problem with.  What point are you trying to make with this drivel about soccer being full of it?

general_lee

Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 10:46:56 PM
I said that sport and politics, for example, are by definition sectarian. Splitting one group of supporters on one side of an arena and a different group in another is by definition sectarian. Soccer is full of sectarianism. The local derbies around the world are the very definition of sectarianism.
That's a very generous definition.

muppet

#352
Quote from: general_lee on October 22, 2015, 08:56:41 AM
Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 10:46:56 PM
I said that sport and politics, for example, are by definition sectarian. Splitting one group of supporters on one side of an arena and a different group in another is by definition sectarian. Soccer is full of sectarianism. The local derbies around the world are the very definition of sectarianism.
That's a very generous definition.

Really?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sectarian?s=t

1.
of or relating to sectaries or sects.
2.
narrowly confined or devoted to a particular sect.
3.
narrowly confined or limited in interest, purpose, scope, etc.


Some people seem to define everything as it pertains to their world only (ironically that falls under the definition sectarian). By narrowly limiting one's views on, say religion, or politics, or for example dressing yourself up in one colour and rabidly shouting insults at a bunch of people wearing another colour, that is sectarian, as defined above.

Many football supporters around the world have died because of sectarianism.

My view on McClean is simple. The fans abusing him are scumbags. The FA, UEFA and FIFA have long turned a blind eye to the behaviour of soccer fans. However imho, by reacting to the scumbags, McClean let himself and his employers down down.

MWWSI 2017

stew

Quote from: Franko on October 21, 2015, 11:42:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 10:46:56 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 21, 2015, 09:17:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 08:19:02 PM
"weren't we discussing James McClean?"

No.

You moved the discussion onto hissy fits and holier than thou.  ;D

As for Gazza. You defended McClean saying a fist pump wasn't an obscene gesture. I posted Gazza being a flute and said that his wasn't an obscene gesture either.

You then changed you point from' obscene' to 'sectarian'. I responded to that one as well.

We were doing fine until you gave up and went 'hissy fit' and 'smartarse', to use your own words.

No, I made two points in that post. One referring to the issue and one referring to your sarcasm.  You ignored the former.  If you check, you'll find that your post was the first one not to mention the issues pertaining to the thread.

Regarding your little synopsis, there's many things that McClean's gesture wasn't that I didn't mention.  Must I mention them all?  You said yourself that the issues weren't the same so I fail to see the relevance of the photo.  I've asked you to explain but you've yet to oblige.

I have explained. But you keep ignoring it.

I'll oblige you yet again. You said McClean's gesture wasn't obscene. I posted Gazza's photo, for which he was reprimanded, which I mentioned, and I said that it wasn't obscene either. That was exactly my point. Can you see the comparison?

Gazza's behaviour not being obscene didn't save him from censure. Thus your point about obscenity was irrelevant. I didn't feel the need to spoon feed you the point, but I now realise this was a mistake. If McClean's gesture was ok because as you said, it wasn't obscene, then surely Gazza's was ok too? That was the comparison.

Then you said this:

" You ignored the rest of my post on your 'point' regarding Gazza and the flute playing. Or were you just agreeing with me?""

I most certainly didn't ignore your post on Gazza. After I dealt with your point on it not being obscene, in reply you said Gazza's gesture was sectarian. I responded to that. I said that sport and politics, for example, are by definition sectarian. Splitting one group of supporters on one side of an arena and a different group in another is by definition sectarian. Soccer is full of sectarianism. The local derbies around the world are the very definition of sectarianism.

Then you went all hyperbolic, talking about banning all forms of celebration (how would you even define this?), which I thought was just sarcasm, because I certainly didn't think it was a serious point.

You have reached new depths of pedantry with this one.  OK, it wasn't 'obscene or offensive', is that OK?  Does 'offensive' cover the myriad of other things that the gesture wasn't (racist/sectarian/homophobic/sexually explicit/politically incorrect...) or do I have to list them all individually?

James McClean made a celebratory gesture towards the opposition fans in a bid to wind them up.  You attempted to equate this to Gazza's blatant sectarian act.  There is no comparison.  You may as well have posted a picture of Cantona's Kung Fu kick, for all the relevance it had.

And as for your last paragraph, maybe I need to spoon feed it you.  The particular type of sectarianism that Gazza was involving himself in with little dance was responsible for many deaths and was one which Scottish football had and still has a massive problem with.  What point are you trying to make with this drivel about soccer being full of it?

McLean took shit for long enough and slapped it up the supporters who doled out the abuse, paying for a ticket does not give you license to hurl abuse, throw banana's or coins at players.

Some people go out of their way to be offended apparently. ::)
Armagh, the one true love of a mans life.

michaelg

Quote from: stew on October 22, 2015, 06:57:34 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 21, 2015, 11:42:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 10:46:56 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 21, 2015, 09:17:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 08:19:02 PM
"weren't we discussing James McClean?"

No.

You moved the discussion onto hissy fits and holier than thou.  ;D

As for Gazza. You defended McClean saying a fist pump wasn't an obscene gesture. I posted Gazza being a flute and said that his wasn't an obscene gesture either.

You then changed you point from' obscene' to 'sectarian'. I responded to that one as well.

We were doing fine until you gave up and went 'hissy fit' and 'smartarse', to use your own words.

No, I made two points in that post. One referring to the issue and one referring to your sarcasm.  You ignored the former.  If you check, you'll find that your post was the first one not to mention the issues pertaining to the thread.

Regarding your little synopsis, there's many things that McClean's gesture wasn't that I didn't mention.  Must I mention them all?  You said yourself that the issues weren't the same so I fail to see the relevance of the photo.  I've asked you to explain but you've yet to oblige.

I have explained. But you keep ignoring it.

I'll oblige you yet again. You said McClean's gesture wasn't obscene. I posted Gazza's photo, for which he was reprimanded, which I mentioned, and I said that it wasn't obscene either. That was exactly my point. Can you see the comparison?

Gazza's behaviour not being obscene didn't save him from censure. Thus your point about obscenity was irrelevant. I didn't feel the need to spoon feed you the point, but I now realise this was a mistake. If McClean's gesture was ok because as you said, it wasn't obscene, then surely Gazza's was ok too? That was the comparison.

Then you said this:

" You ignored the rest of my post on your 'point' regarding Gazza and the flute playing. Or were you just agreeing with me?""

I most certainly didn't ignore your post on Gazza. After I dealt with your point on it not being obscene, in reply you said Gazza's gesture was sectarian. I responded to that. I said that sport and politics, for example, are by definition sectarian. Splitting one group of supporters on one side of an arena and a different group in another is by definition sectarian. Soccer is full of sectarianism. The local derbies around the world are the very definition of sectarianism.

Then you went all hyperbolic, talking about banning all forms of celebration (how would you even define this?), which I thought was just sarcasm, because I certainly didn't think it was a serious point.

You have reached new depths of pedantry with this one.  OK, it wasn't 'obscene or offensive', is that OK?  Does 'offensive' cover the myriad of other things that the gesture wasn't (racist/sectarian/homophobic/sexually explicit/politically incorrect...) or do I have to list them all individually?

James McClean made a celebratory gesture towards the opposition fans in a bid to wind them up.  You attempted to equate this to Gazza's blatant sectarian act.  There is no comparison.  You may as well have posted a picture of Cantona's Kung Fu kick, for all the relevance it had.

And as for your last paragraph, maybe I need to spoon feed it you.  The particular type of sectarianism that Gazza was involving himself in with little dance was responsible for many deaths and was one which Scottish football had and still has a massive problem with.  What point are you trying to make with this drivel about soccer being full of it?

McLean took shit for long enough and slapped it up the supporters who doled out the abuse, paying for a ticket does not give you license to hurl abuse, throw banana's or coins at players.

Some people go out of their way to be offended apparently. ::)
James McLean being a prime example.

general_lee

Quote from: muppet on October 22, 2015, 06:36:27 PM
Quote from: general_lee on October 22, 2015, 08:56:41 AM
Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 10:46:56 PM
I said that sport and politics, for example, are by definition sectarian. Splitting one group of supporters on one side of an arena and a different group in another is by definition sectarian. Soccer is full of sectarianism. The local derbies around the world are the very definition of sectarianism.
That's a very generous definition.

Really?
Yes, really. It's like saying I'm homophobic for not being attracted to other men.

muppet

Quote from: general_lee on October 22, 2015, 10:03:34 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 22, 2015, 06:36:27 PM
Quote from: general_lee on October 22, 2015, 08:56:41 AM
Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 10:46:56 PM
I said that sport and politics, for example, are by definition sectarian. Splitting one group of supporters on one side of an arena and a different group in another is by definition sectarian. Soccer is full of sectarianism. The local derbies around the world are the very definition of sectarianism.
That's a very generous definition.

Really?
Yes, really. It's like saying I'm homophobic for not being attracted to other men.

Can you post up a credible definition of homophobic that backs that up?
MWWSI 2017

magpie seanie

Quote from: laoislad on October 21, 2015, 11:00:14 PM
Muppet v Franko


Is the guy in the middle blind or pished or anti tennis?

Billys Boots

I think that's from the old Hitchcock classic movie 'Strangers on a Train'.  That's the bad guy not watching the tennis - he's trying to freak out the main protagonist in the story, who happens to be a tennis player.  Just saying like, to lighten the mood ...  :P.
My hands are stained with thistle milk ...

general_lee

Quote from: muppet on October 22, 2015, 10:12:49 PM
Quote from: general_lee on October 22, 2015, 10:03:34 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 22, 2015, 06:36:27 PM
Quote from: general_lee on October 22, 2015, 08:56:41 AM
Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 10:46:56 PM
I said that sport and politics, for example, are by definition sectarian. Splitting one group of supporters on one side of an arena and a different group in another is by definition sectarian. Soccer is full of sectarianism. The local derbies around the world are the very definition of sectarianism.
That's a very generous definition.

Really?
Yes, really. It's like saying I'm homophobic for not being attracted to other men.

Can you post up a credible definition of homophobic that backs that up?
Homophobia is the fear and/or hatred of gay men. Hating something is the same as not liking something. I don't like gay men (in that way). Ergo, "by definition", I'm homophobic.