James McClean

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

Previous topic - Next topic

muppet

Quote from: Franko on October 20, 2015, 01:12:58 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 20, 2015, 12:43:17 PM
Whatever the nature or scale of the abuse, the principle for a professional sportsman should be that you don't react in kind. If a fist pump is acceptable, why would flicking the bird or dropping your kecks be off limits?

Because a fist pump isn't obscene.

Edit - Didn't really answer the question.

Neither is this:



But he was properly reprimanded.
MWWSI 2017

blewuporstuffed

Quote from: Maroon Manc on October 21, 2015, 10:09:16 AM
Quote from: GJL on October 20, 2015, 04:01:36 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on October 20, 2015, 03:51:41 PM
David Beckham famously, (and quite rightly) gave West Hams fans the finger after they chanted sick stuff about his family. Nobody expected him to just grin and bear it.

The fact that he is Irish leaves him an easy target for the British press. The fact that he is Northern Irish leaves him a target for some on here. (which is really pathetic IMO)

Disagree, if Rooney had something like that 5 years ago he'd have been hammered by the press as would Beckham in his heyday.

As for McClean the player I'm amazed he plays for a premiership club.

is it any worse than the Gary Neville  celebration directed at Liverpool fans a few years ago?

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=gary+neville+celebration&FORM=VIRE2#view=detail&mid=B0BB2965251C65DE2A0FB0BB2965251C65DE2A0F
I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either

deiseach

What was chanted at Gary Neville was perfectly fair comment! As what was said about his mother, and his sister, and his brother...

Franko

Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 02:39:04 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 20, 2015, 01:12:58 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 20, 2015, 12:43:17 PM
Whatever the nature or scale of the abuse, the principle for a professional sportsman should be that you don't react in kind. If a fist pump is acceptable, why would flicking the bird or dropping your kecks be off limits?

Because a fist pump isn't obscene.

Edit - Didn't really answer the question.


Neither is this:



But he was properly reprimanded.

No, but it's quite clearly sectarian.

muppet

Quote from: Franko on October 21, 2015, 02:59:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 02:39:04 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 20, 2015, 01:12:58 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 20, 2015, 12:43:17 PM
Whatever the nature or scale of the abuse, the principle for a professional sportsman should be that you don't react in kind. If a fist pump is acceptable, why would flicking the bird or dropping your kecks be off limits?

Because a fist pump isn't obscene.

Edit - Didn't really answer the question.


Neither is this:



But he was properly reprimanded.

No, but it's quite clearly sectarian.

By definition, so is politics and arguably many aspects of sport.

The issue isn't sectarianism imho, it is incitement. Gazza was clearly guilty of that. And Mcclean is straying dangerously close to that line too.
MWWSI 2017

Maroon Manc

I don't recall too many controversies involving Gary Neville before or after that incident.

I'm not sure if its already been mentioned but there was an element of playing up to his own fans by McClean although on second thought I'm not sure he's bright enough to think of that.

Franko

Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 03:07:38 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 21, 2015, 02:59:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 02:39:04 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 20, 2015, 01:12:58 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 20, 2015, 12:43:17 PM
Whatever the nature or scale of the abuse, the principle for a professional sportsman should be that you don't react in kind. If a fist pump is acceptable, why would flicking the bird or dropping your kecks be off limits?

Because a fist pump isn't obscene.

Edit - Didn't really answer the question.


Neither is this:



But he was properly reprimanded.

No, but it's quite clearly sectarian.

By definition, so is politics and arguably many aspects of sport.

The issue isn't sectarianism imho, it is incitement. Gazza was clearly guilty of that. And Mcclean is straying dangerously close to that line too.

If McClean is guilty of incitement then all displays of celebration in football would have to be banned.

blewuporstuffed

Quote from: Maroon Manc on October 21, 2015, 03:21:34 PM
I don't recall too many controversies involving Gary Neville before or after that incident.

I'm not sure if its already been mentioned but there was an element of playing up to his own fans by McClean although on second thought I'm not sure he's bright enough to think of that.

What has that got to do with anything?
BY the way, I don't really have an issue with what Neville did, even as a Liverpool fan, im just pointing out that mc clean certainly did no worse with a fist pump to the away fans.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either

laoislad

Quote from: blewuporstuffed on October 21, 2015, 04:13:14 PM
Quote from: Maroon Manc on October 21, 2015, 03:21:34 PM
I don't recall too many controversies involving Gary Neville before or after that incident.

I'm not sure if its already been mentioned but there was an element of playing up to his own fans by McClean although on second thought I'm not sure he's bright enough to think of that.

What has that got to do with anything?
BY the way, I don't really have an issue with what Neville did, even as a Liverpool fan, im just pointing out that mc clean certainly did no worse with a fist pump to the away fans.
I'm sure he means Neville was rarely getting in trouble unlike McClean.
Also in fairness to Neville he was playing for the club he loved with a passion against their biggest rivals.
West Brom Sunderland hardly the same and I doubt McClean was doing it for the love of his club.
The two incidents aren't comparable IMO.
When you think you're fucked you're only about 40% fucked.

muppet

Quote from: Franko on October 21, 2015, 03:57:16 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 03:07:38 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 21, 2015, 02:59:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 21, 2015, 02:39:04 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 20, 2015, 01:12:58 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 20, 2015, 12:43:17 PM
Whatever the nature or scale of the abuse, the principle for a professional sportsman should be that you don't react in kind. If a fist pump is acceptable, why would flicking the bird or dropping your kecks be off limits?

Because a fist pump isn't obscene.

Edit - Didn't really answer the question.


Neither is this:



But he was properly reprimanded.

No, but it's quite clearly sectarian.

By definition, so is politics and arguably many aspects of sport.

The issue isn't sectarianism imho, it is incitement. Gazza was clearly guilty of that. And Mcclean is straying dangerously close to that line too.

If McClean is guilty of incitement then all displays of celebration in football would have to be banned.

Yea, and why not all celebrations of any kind? Weekends and holidays too. No hyperbola to far on this board.

Anyway, I didn't say he was guilty of incitement, I said he is straying close to that line. Sending gestures to the opposing fans, to wind them up, would appear to me to be straying very close to incitement. As for the behaviour of those fans, that is another story altogether. Soccer has long turned a blind eye some vile supporters.
MWWSI 2017

Franko

#340
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.

muppet

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."
MWWSI 2017

Franko

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.

muppet

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.
MWWSI 2017

laoislad

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