Lawrenson you ***

[lake district canary 0]

''Arse'' is an abbreviation of the word Arsenal - as in "up the arse" - and therefore presumably  allowable as a legitmate word!!    If you have a dirty mind it means something worse, but none of us have dirty minds, do we?? [A] [A] [:$]

 

 

 

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Aggy"]I''d certainly agree with you LDC about the show in general. I''m not a fan of Lawrenson or Hansen to be honest and, as we''ve discussed elsewhere, the likes of Goals on Sunday on Sky and even the Football League Show seem to have found a formula that works better than MOTD.[/quote]

 

Having never subscribed to Sky,Aggy, I''ve never seen Goals on Sunday, so can''t comment.  However, I think that the Football League Show has a completely different "raison d''ètre" than MOTD. In fairness it does not really claim to be a "highlights " show as such, and therefore analysis is kept to a minimum. It''s a function of time availability, and TFLS is charged with showing each and every goal from Champ and Lgs 1+2...potentially nearly 40 games . Most weeks , in practice, MOTD covers only 7 or 8 games, so a degree of padding out is needed; and that''s where Hansen et al come in.

 

I don''t think that there''s anything to be gained out of indulging in yet another round of collective navel-gazing over whether City get a fair crack of the whip re this. It''s been done to death imho. My main point is that comparing MOTD to other shows is a bit misleading.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

How the heck did arsehole get through the swear filter as a thread title?[:^)]

[/quote]

 

An interesting philosophical question to while away a Sunday afternoon, Slim.

 

Presumably its down to the old legal test as to whether a phrase is merely a gratuitous insult, or whether it''s libellous/slanderous. There will no doubt be people at Archant Towers who are better qualified to rule on this, but I''d assume that calling Lawrenson an "arsehole" falls into the former category, so they do not fear a call from his solicitors any time soon.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

..........though, as I write, I notice the offending word has been replaced with the ubiquitous asterisks, so perhaps my confidence in inaction from Lawrenson''s lawyers was misplaced?????

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"]..........though, as I write, I notice the offending word has been replaced with the ubiquitous asterisks, so perhaps my confidence in inaction from Lawrenson''s lawyers was misplaced?????[/quote]

 

Interesting......maybe its down to with browser you use as the offending word  is (or was) happily getting through on my computer (ie)

 

 

 

[. 0]

Or maybe Torchy is on the case again.......

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"]

Cannot help but think that there has been a huge overreaction to this by some posters. I''m not Lawrenson''s bigest fan, but he was asked a perfectly straight forward question by Lineker as to whether he thought Holt would be picked for the Euros. To be fair, he gave a perfectly straight unequivocal answer... No.

[/quote]

 

I only get to see a few minutes of Match of the Day a few times a season, but I have always found one of its two main failings (the other being absurd hype of the very ordinary) to be blandness. A kind of all things to all  fans approach. So Lawrenson providing a blunt answer to a direct question strikes me as admirable. To be encouraged. I get that some Norwich City fans might not like the answer but would it really have been preferable for Lawrenson either to avoid the issue or come up with some fudge of a reply that hid his honestly-held opinion?

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"]

[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"]..........though, as I write, I notice the offending word has been replaced with the ubiquitous asterisks, so perhaps my confidence in inaction from Lawrenson''s lawyers was misplaced?????[/quote]

 

Interesting......maybe its down to with browser you use as the offending word  is (or was) happily getting through on my computer (ie)

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

If only life was a simple as that, LDC.

 

On my screen we now have the bizarre situation where the offending word is still there in all its glory in the headline, and early postings, but has been replaced by the asterisks in more recent ones.

[lake district canary 0]

I''ve got a ttheory....has that fixed it?

[lake district canary 0]

No.  [:^)]

 

 

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"]I''ve got a ttheory....has that fixed it?[/quote]

 

Nope.

 

It seems that up to 3.41 this afternoon, the word "arsehole" was an acceptable word on this forum.

 

From then onwards , in some sort of watershed  moment it has not been.

 

Odd.

[First Wazzock 902]

[quote user="Jeremy Cluckson"][quote user="Wings of a Sparrow"]My thoughts on this. There is no agenda against Norwich City on MOTD. Coming at the Holt thing from another angle, I thought perhaps Lawrenson was saying that the forwards for the Euros are already pencilled in (they will be the usual media darlings and non-performers) and no matter what Holt does or has done he won''t get a look in.[/quote]

I share these thoughts exactly....

Football is like any other high profile situation.... it''s who you know not what you know. Grant Holt is an ''outsider'' and his face would never fit into the closed world called the FA.

It''s a shame.... but it''s always been the same.
[/quote]

So, so true.