Which came first?

[StartingPrice]

SP, you're likable but there's not a single thing you've written that isn't gibberish.

- You raised 'they pay their money' argument - falsely accusing me of it! My point is and always has been: you seem to be blaming the fans for the result, given that they have the most on the line, emotionally and financially, making them the scapegoat is unseemly (that's just an opinion, obviously) - especially as we seem to have the same problems whether they're there or not.

I can't really argue with you, it's just a shifting sandstorm of nonsense. Your underlying motives are obvious though, making it doubly pointless. I hope you can see the grand humour in it though!

What a thoroughly patronising and pretentious post from someone whose main argument is totally redundant - hence the total capitulation on arguing the point originally raised.
My arguments are only gibberish insomuch as they have totally refuted yours and you come across as the type of person who would rather be insulting and patronising than acknowledge the paucity of your own argument...how childish.

Actually, you mentioned the fans paying first, when you said this:

They pay the money, they endure the matches and taunts etc.

I checked that before my last post, and I have checked it again now. It shows how rather second rate your debating ability actually is that you think the mere assertion is enough, and so don't find it necessary to check. In fact, I have triple checked, and I definitely do not mention the subject until in response to this post where you do mention it. If you can show where I did in the posts prior to your first, I will concede the point - otherwise, it is just one more instance where you really should have wound your neck in and checked, rather than putting on the faux superiority, with accompanying unbecoming patronisation.

No, for the third time of explaining this in rather simple language, I am not making the fans the scapegoat, I have acknowledged several times that many things are far from ideal, extraneous and coaching related (if you paid attention rather than wallowing in your own smugness you might have noticed that). What myself and others have said, is that the booing and general atmosphere can, and does, have a symbiotically negative effect on the players which does not help matters in the least. That is not blaming the fans in any but the most simplistic sense. You may find this difficult to understand, but this thread it specifically about the fans reaction yesterday, hence it is the main topic of conversation.

How can my argument be a shifting sandstorm when it has remained constant throughout? And how is it nonsense, in any way other that you would wish it to be so (bearing in mind you have already tried to assert your way out of the fact that you raised the issue of the fans paying their money)?


No, I don't see the grand humour in it - I think it is one of the most arrogant, insulting and patronising posts I have read on here, and trying to cover that by some passive/aggressive BS at the end claiming grand humour is fooling no-one.

You claim that I am likable (oh, gee, thanks ), in your patronising style, and then proceed to slap a few insults around rather than actually attempting to conduct a serious intellectual argument - what, did you expect a good response form that? Well, you ain't getting one. I'm putting you on <IGNORE> until you learn some manners and your rather lowly place in the grand scheme of things, you insolent child!

Bye Bye

 

[Fergus]

The crowd might be the reason for our away record being better than our home record.

Good point, especially as we have the best away fans in the league. Having attended a few away games in recent years (I can rarely ever get a home ticket whenever I'm back in UK), I have noticed that many of our travelling fans are not season ticket holders but would very much like to be. About time the club made away support a condition for season ticket eligibility, so that the truly committed get first pick.