Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mrD66M

  1. 11 hours ago, mccanary said:

    You could call me what you want for the wages he's on

    Pressure - and a particular/specific type for every person -  gets to them over time. Fame and money are not without pitfalls. But us coaching from the stands always know better 😁


    Some players are OK doing nowt but sitting on the bench day in day out for years and just get their money, but I'll wager the majority will accept a pay cut if it means they play more.

  2. 3 hours ago, king canary said:

    He was massively overrated because he ran around a bit in a team that were ****e.

    See also Hernandez, Onel who achieved the same status during our first relegation under Farke.

    Say what you like about Onel re footballing skills but attitude was never an issue with him.

    • Like 4

  3. 4 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

    Yep, I think in hindsight Gilmour was totally the wrong signing but I could see the idea - an accomplished ball-player in tight spaces being the fulcrum to play out of defence with a couple of more box-to-box sorts to aim at. 

    Gilmour was meant to do what Nunez does. Good on the ball in tight spaces, relentless on tackling, with the vision to progress the ball quickly under opposition press, crashing their box in well timed runs. The raw ingredients were there, but wasn't to be at City. Did well at Brighton though.

  4. On 01/06/2024 at 06:27, TheGunnShow said:

    "Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

    (Karl Pöpper - The Open Society And Its Enemies)

    Herein lies the issue. There is no sensible, reasonable argument buttressing any belief that homosexuality is "inferior", "unacceptable", or "sinful". Some say it may be contradictory to be intolerant when generally promoting the notion of tolerance, but affording a freedom of belief to those who don't consider a group based on an inherent characteristic such as sexuality to be equal is likewise a paradox.

    S#!T I hadn't seen this before. Excellent quote and post.

    • Like 1

  5. 15 minutes ago, horsefly said:

    What a shame that players weren't wearing rainbow symbols back in this man's day. Things might have turned out very different for him

     See the source image

    Well said. It's not like Stephen Fry is not one of the most famous NCFC supporters, with a particular awareness towards mental health / LGBTQ+ issues.

  6. 7 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

    I'm getting a conversation with Fen Canary which is staying on topic, the one with you is going all over the place. 

    Well, you engaged, so...

    Here's where it gets difficult, in some respects I get you and even agree with your points; then in others I feel diametrically opposed. Even as far as looking for some logic and finding nought. 

    14 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

    Although perhaps if France had kept Mali then 98% of them wouldn't have ended up being rabid backward homophobes, perhaps France should recolonise and try and civilise them.

    This is trolling, surely? What if I told you that it is equally possible imperial France introduced homophobia in Mali?


    16 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

    Europe is culturally superior, we should exert that superiority. Zero tolerance to homophobia is a superb start. 

    Europe is Europe. Other cultures are different, maybe you need to travel a bit to see things by yourself 1st hand. "Superior"? Maybe in some ways and not in others. "Superior" in all ways? No. That's a deluded and skewed perspective on history. "Exert superiority", sure, let's go back a century or so..

    Homophobia is not desirable but can't help thinking that zero tolerance would be the thin wedge between public and private / culture /religion /sexuality. Possibly create more problems than it would solve. 

  7. 5 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

    a). There is a thing called polling which tells us that in 2016, 52% of British muslims wanted homosexuality banned

    b). They are, but it is also the fastest growing global religion.

    c). It was the best thing that could ever have happened for a lot of those countries, we left our democratic systems, our railways, and our judicial system.

    d). Whoa there, hold your horses, I'm not advocating denying anybody a vote. Although I might advocate that London and Birmingham become independent states.

    What's for dessert? 

    a) were the polls anonymous? If the figures, the method, the sample size etc are accurate, then I will just say that this kind of question is meant to drive suggestible people a certain way,  push an agenda. I'm gonna give these "polling figures" (no verifiable source quoted) the benefit of the doubt for a moment and zoom out.

    If you were to take that as objective truth, then where does it logically lead you? Likewise, if polls revealed that a particular demographic holds disproportionate wealth? Or another is over-represented in crime, etc - what is the next step?

    It is disingenuous to say something like that for the sake of just saying it. But I guess in the innanets people like to stir sh!te. This is why something does not always need to be said even if it is 100% true (just recently the pandemic showed us what can happen when people panic and overreact) Most of us need to take responsibility for what we say if our words are to hold weight.

    b) jumping from UK to global? Keeping focus helps. 

    c) according to whom? Is this satire? I don't see any former colony calling to be retaken by their former empire at the moment. What do you see I'm not seeing?

    d) hmm. So hinting in a) is ok, but you don't want to hold the flag... interesting. 

  8. 20 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

    I'm not a right winger, I'm a Liberal, which is why it concerns me greatly that by 2050 there will be 13 million people in this country (17.2%) who still follow a religion which didn't have its reformation and will make decisions at the ballot box accordingly.

    Have you ever considered the possibility that

    a) stereotypes are lazy 

    b) people are able to change their minds

    c) maybe this country should have not colonised half the planet in the past so <those people> would not come here

    d) whatever solution there may be to issues, it will work better to engage as many people as possible instead of (ostensibly) denying them a say because of their cultural background/ethnicity/religion. 

    Just for starters?




  9. 2 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

    Which he has done. He’s made no statement or committed no actions that are anti gay, he’s simply not wanted to join in with something that’s pro gay and has been punished for it.

    So now he has a 0.000001% idea of what gay people felt like when they've been prosecuted/harrassed. That is a start.

    Beliefs can be challenged and made better.

    • Like 2

  10. Society is changing at a pace that I think free speech / freedom of expression needs to be  better defined *and* when it comes to adults, tied to some civic responsibilities. This latter part used to be much more important than it currently is but we live in a more individualistic culture, where <I can say whatever I like and DGAF you got offended> is par for the course.

    • Like 1

  11. 23 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

    I completely agree with the decision to ban him.

    Imagine if a player covered up an anti-racism patch on the basis that they're an open racist who hates black people. They'd be sacked on the spot. 

    So why should it be any different when a player covers up an anti-homophobia patch because they're openly against homosexually?

    Hiding behind religion is a load of bull. If your religion is teaching you to hate, and in some cases kill, someone because of their sexual preferences which are none of your concern, you don't have to blindly follow.

    Hatred and persecution of others isn't free speech either, and those that do it are the intolerant ones, not the people who punish intolerance.

    Banning is a bit too much in my opinion - but I get that famous people are to some extent role models for the new generations.

    Before banning, I'd give the transgressors the option to a) pay a substantial fine or b) 6months community work with the people they "don't like just because xyz". Give them a chance to change their minds and see people for what they are rather than what they're led to believe by some very shady people / agendas.

    • Like 1

  12. 6 hours ago, Greavsy said:


    Wolves posted this yesterday. Is very powerful. 

    I know we fight and argue about our views on here but football unites us all. 

    Look after each other

    ❤️ 💪 


    Last few years have pushed so many people to the brink, in this country and elsewhere. There are those that want to create and exploit divisions, seeking to blame the "other" - no need to name names - but it is not in human nature to live in a state of constant hatred.. we will fight to the bitter end when there is no other choice, but the need to unite and heal ourselves, our families, communities, is just as important. 

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1

  13. 47 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

    The Tories are so much of a lost cause that even Neil Warnock turned them down.

    Politicians (cun+servatives in particular) can fool some people sometimes, but they can't fool all the people all the time.

    In a way we're lucky that Sunak is a completely inept politician, or he would have made use of the goodwill he had as chancellor and call a snap GE within one year of becoming PM, shape his party more to his liking and screw the country some more.

    As it is though, he's just an expensive (and short) suit with a petulant child inside. Most cowardly example of a leader.

    • Like 2
  • Create New...