CT; you have a fan

[Christmas Tree 4702]

One small point: CT is supposedly a part of 'team positive'. He states that we've always been a shit team, apart from when we hit the lottery when the Prem was formed and had a short period of relative success. 'Team negative' believe the club always has the potential to be a successful one in top flight football with the size of the fanbase, etc ,etc. Haven't we got the positive/negative tags mixed up here?

 

what you have are some older posters who used to watch ossie lead out teams of mascots in front of 14,000 or so fans and younger posters who grew up in the Keegan days. Had I grew up in the Keegan days I would probably be equally negative.

 

Right, so that would make Leazes in his 20s/early 30s, no?

 

'Team negative' is in fact inherently positive about the potential of the club, whereas you think we'll be lucky to ever break the top 6 again.

 

No, not ever again. But under Ashley given his mindset and the money available to others I cant see it happening.

[Christmas Tree 4702]

You know what I mean. If you supported Newcastle when Beardsley, Waddle and Gascoigne went and all the other shit that was supporting Newcastle then you can stand back and see the peaks and troughs of football.

 

If you were a 14 your old lad getting into Newcastle during the entertainer days our current situation is probably even harder to take.

 

A bit like the 11 year olds just starting to follow Man City......They dont carry the scars of the older fans.

[Meenzer 15412]

One small point: CT is supposedly a part of 'team positive'. He states that we've always been a shit team, apart from when we hit the lottery when the Prem was formed and had a short period of relative success. 'Team negative' believe the club always has the potential to be a successful one in top flight football with the size of the fanbase, etc ,etc. Haven't we got the positive/negative tags mixed up here?

 

what you have are some older posters who used to watch ossie lead out teams of mascots in front of 14,000 or so fans and younger posters who grew up in the Keegan days. Had I grew up in the Keegan days I would probably be equally negative.

 

Right, so that would make Leazes in his 20s/early 30s, no?

 

'Team negative' is in fact inherently positive about the potential of the club, whereas you think we'll be lucky to ever break the top 6 again.

 

No, not ever again. But under Ashley given his mindset and the money available to others I cant see it happening.

 

So negative.

[Meenzer 15412]

You know what I mean. If you supported Newcastle when Beardsley, Waddle and Gascoigne went and all the other shit that was supporting Newcastle then you can stand back and see the peaks and troughs of football.

 

If you were a 14 your old lad getting into Newcastle during the entertainer days our current situation is probably even harder to take.

 

A bit like the 11 year olds just starting to follow Man City......They dont carry the scars of the older fans.

 

Sorry, badly timed tactical delete there. I do get your point, Ossie just seemed like an odd choice if your points of reference are Beardsley/Waddle/Gazza, given he was such a nothing in the grand scheme of things.

[Christmas Tree 4702]

One small point: CT is supposedly a part of 'team positive'. He states that we've always been a shit team, apart from when we hit the lottery when the Prem was formed and had a short period of relative success. 'Team negative' believe the club always has the potential to be a successful one in top flight football with the size of the fanbase, etc ,etc. Haven't we got the positive/negative tags mixed up here?

 

what you have are some older posters who used to watch ossie lead out teams of mascots in front of 14,000 or so fans and younger posters who grew up in the Keegan days. Had I grew up in the Keegan days I would probably be equally negative.

 

Right, so that would make Leazes in his 20s/early 30s, no?

 

'Team negative' is in fact inherently positive about the potential of the club, whereas you think we'll be lucky to ever break the top 6 again.

 

No, not ever again. But under Ashley given his mindset and the money available to others I cant see it happening.

 

So negative.

 

Thats you not getting home quickly after the run

[Howmanheyman 32794]

CT doesn't bother me at all. I don't agree with most of his views on the club but so what, it's a footy message board & he's entitled to his opinions. I certainly don't think a ban is merited just because he annoys some people.

Most of the time I'm the same, to be honest.

[Meenzer 15412]

One small point: CT is supposedly a part of 'team positive'. He states that we've always been a shit team, apart from when we hit the lottery when the Prem was formed and had a short period of relative success. 'Team negative' believe the club always has the potential to be a successful one in top flight football with the size of the fanbase, etc ,etc. Haven't we got the positive/negative tags mixed up here?

 

what you have are some older posters who used to watch ossie lead out teams of mascots in front of 14,000 or so fans and younger posters who grew up in the Keegan days. Had I grew up in the Keegan days I would probably be equally negative.

 

Right, so that would make Leazes in his 20s/early 30s, no?

 

'Team negative' is in fact inherently positive about the potential of the club, whereas you think we'll be lucky to ever break the top 6 again.

 

No, not ever again. But under Ashley given his mindset and the money available to others I cant see it happening.

 

So negative.

 

Thats you not getting home quickly after the run

 

I now have visions of being trapped in a jam on the Felling bypass with my legs cramping up while you wax lyrical about Rob Elliot being the next Gordon Banks

[Christmas Tree 4702]

One small point: CT is supposedly a part of 'team positive'. He states that we've always been a shit team, apart from when we hit the lottery when the Prem was formed and had a short period of relative success. 'Team negative' believe the club always has the potential to be a successful one in top flight football with the size of the fanbase, etc ,etc. Haven't we got the positive/negative tags mixed up here?

 

what you have are some older posters who used to watch ossie lead out teams of mascots in front of 14,000 or so fans and younger posters who grew up in the Keegan days. Had I grew up in the Keegan days I would probably be equally negative.

 

Right, so that would make Leazes in his 20s/early 30s, no?

 

'Team negative' is in fact inherently positive about the potential of the club, whereas you think we'll be lucky to ever break the top 6 again.

 

No, not ever again. But under Ashley given his mindset and the money available to others I cant see it happening.

 

So negative.

 

Thats you not getting home quickly after the run

 

I now have visions of being trapped in a jam on the Felling bypass with my legs cramping up while you wax lyrical about Rob Elliot being the next Gordon Banks

 

[Howmanheyman 32794]

One small point: CT is supposedly a part of 'team positive'. He states that we've always been a shit team, apart from when we hit the lottery when the Prem was formed and had a short period of relative success. 'Team negative' believe the club always has the potential to be a successful one in top flight football with the size of the fanbase, etc ,etc. Haven't we got the positive/negative tags mixed up here?

 

what you have are some older posters who used to watch ossie lead out teams of mascots in front of 14,000 or so fans and younger posters who grew up in the Keegan days. Had I grew up in the Keegan days I would probably be equally negative.

This,CT, is poorly thought out. For years throughout the 'shite' times many fans, players, ex-players, managers and pundits have all speculated on what NUFC would be like if we took off. 14,000 fans wasn't the norm by the way as you should be aware of as on older head. The potential was recognised, so it's a bit misleading to think all the criticism is from those who grew up in the KK era.

[The Fish 10750]

The way I look at it; Deano and Chez have similar viewpoints to CT where the football is concerned. Some posters have similar viewpoints where religion is concerned. O rpolitics. Or music.

 

However, CT is the one called a wum, is the one who riles the others.

 

What does that tell you?

 

Yet noone ever points to a thread where Im a wum

 

You would think if Im so bad the board would be dripping with wummery comments. The bottom line is as in the two bits of proof I have entered tonight, neither post is wummery.

 

Its a myth im afraid which a very small group keep spouting.

 

I even had to go in the loft to dig out old bank statements to prove I used to own a season ticket holder. The wummery im afraid is all on the other side, not mine.

I'll try this again, but in kiddies speak.

 

You say x and wind people up, as exhibited in them being wound up in reaction to your posting.

Chez says x (often in a more acerbic fashion) and people are not wound up as exhibited by them not being wound up in reaction to his posting

 

I'll given an example.

 

You've posted "Yet noone ever points to a thread where Im a wum ", the inclusion of the smiley face lends a condescending tone to the post which winds people up. Either you put it in their deliberately to wind people up or you're a moron.

[Craig 6682]

CT doesn't bother me at all. I don't agree with most of his views on the club but so what, it's a footy message board & he's entitled to his opinions. I certainly don't think a ban is merited just because he annoys some people.

Most of the time I'm the same, to be honest.

 

What he posts doesn't bother me, I ignore it hence why I'm not taking up his offer to trapse through his mountain of shit posts.

 

What bothers me is the amount of fantastic members we've had who've told me they've left this place because they've had enough of him.

 

Anyway that's my piece. It's relevant of sorts but CT will try to bat it aside no doubt telling me i have no right as i'm supposed to be impartial.

[Kevin 1]

CT doesn't bother me at all. I don't agree with most of his views on the club but so what, it's a footy message board & he's entitled to his opinions. I certainly don't think a ban is merited just because he annoys some people.

Most of the time I'm the same, to be honest.

 

What he posts doesn't bother me, I ignore it hence why I'm not taking up his offer to trapse through his mountain of shit posts.

 

What bothers me is the amount of fantastic members we've had who've told me they've left this place because they've had enough of him.

 

Anyway that's my piece. It's relevant of sorts but CT will try to bat it aside no doubt telling me i have no right as i'm supposed to be impartial.

 

They're a bunch of bitches. I'm your buddy craig but i dissagree here buddy.

[snakehips 0]

CT doesn't bother me at all. I don't agree with most of his views on the club but so what, it's a footy message board & he's entitled to his opinions. I certainly don't think a ban is merited just because he annoys some people.

Most of the time I'm the same, to be honest.

 

Same here. He doesn't really get to me at all. I just get the feeling he's been a part-time football follower over the years. And there's nothing wrong with that tbh. For me, he's just like that Arsenal bloke on the Fast Show.

[manc-mag 1]

The way I look at it; Deano and Chez have similar viewpoints to CT where the football is concerned. Some posters have similar viewpoints where religion is concerned. O rpolitics. Or music.

 

However, CT is the one called a wum, is the one who riles the others.

 

What does that tell you?

 

Basically this hits the nail on the head for me and explains what's at the heart of the matter. It's something that got drummed into me in my university 'ivory tower' about the essential difference between an opinion and an argument and Chez is absolutely the correct example to use.

 

First of all, let me say that CT doesn't bother me at all so this isn't a snide by any means, just the situation as I see it:

 

Chez seems to have an opinion about the club's spending which is far from popular on here. It's not to say the club are meeting his aspirations as a fan, but because of his economics discipline, he holds the opinion that the club's spending practices have been within a normal range given the entire (non-emotional) facts. He then supports this opinion with argument, and by this I mean associating relevant facts to a basic premise. This argument can then be scrutinised by the introduction of counter evidence, (which you'll commonly see HF doing) and a genuine debate can be had. Ultimately, whether the argument is sound or not remains difficult to discern-this is mainly due to the fact that not all relevant information is available-but what it always is is entirely valid, because the logic is flawless.

 

Now CT on the other hand, you'll forgive me for this, but what you post really is essentially inane opinion. Your opinions will often be generically very similar to Chez's, but the reaction you get could not be more different. Now as Fish says, the point to remember here is that they are similar opinions. Also, given the natural sentiments of a fan they're very unpopular ones and feelings run pretty high. That being the case, you're going to need to be in the position to argue your point pretty robustly and here you fail completely, because what you spout really is just opinion. Now the thing is, if it's just opinion, it needs to be stated once and once alone. It doesn't need to be gone into at length page after page because debate itself is impossible when you're essentially just parroting a slogan. To do that is antithetical to a sensible football forum. You cite the example of Leazes, but that doesn't assist unfortunately, instead it is amongst the most compelling evidence against you because what he does is essentially the same as what you do except from the polar opposite end of the opinion spectrum. Debate with Leazes is impossible because he is incapable of argument; instead he's been reduced to five years of derailing threads by regurgitating slogans and people get hacked off with the inane nature of that too.

 

I'm not having a go because personally I've nothing against you at all and I've had a good laugh at plenty of your posts, but I think you need pulling up for saying it's mob mentality etc etc. It's not that at all, but it is all to do with Toontastic being a better forum (personal opinion) than any other Toon forum on the net and that is something that the mods and admin have to have in mind. That's to do with a mixture of its humour and it's debate. I actually think you add to the humour (inadvertantly) but do nothing for the debate. I'm not in favour of banning for reasons that are too long and old to go into but are to do with the basic 'constitution' of this place as opposed to N-O but it can be a fine line, so what you're experiencing now, basically, is the mods and admin acting short of that on the grounds you're a wum. Whether that's correct or not, (and for what it's worth I'm not persuaded you are an outright wum because I believe some of your opinions are genuinely held), what I do suspect is that you're essentially driven to post on here by the adverse responses you get to your opinions. Again, I reiterate I'm not in favour of banning, but what Craig says is very apposite-there is a forum for people to just spout pro-Ashley opinions and that's N-O. So for him to direct you there is perfectly in order. The thing is though, and which I think you know very well, if you posted your views on there you'd instantly become anonymous in an absolute ocean of the same rubbish and wouldn't get anywhere near the attention you get on here. And for a large part that's the draw for you in posting here I reckon, in spite of your protests, so I think that point needed to be clearly made while you were playing the victim card.

[Guest alex]

Goodnight, Vienna.

[Christmas Tree 4702]

A lovely post manc mag but I think you just read too much into things.

 

The Chez point is an interesting one and I agree he is a well educated and fair poster who can articulate his opinions very well. This however does not mean his similar opinion to mine is better. I thought about this point last night during the 2.00am feed, (Baby not me) and likened it in my own head to Blair and Prescott. Prescott very rough and just says it like it is, getting some peoples backs up whilst Blair can be charming etc and put exactly the same point across in a much better way.

 

However, it is also very cleat to me on many occasions that I can put a view across which people jump on but then someone like Chez or even Stevie recently in the Enrique thread will agree with and everything calms down. When that happens, that is just the small minded mob mentality.

 

I have asked many times for examples of threads I am alleged to have derailed and my wummery but they are never for coming, even though these are the biggest and most repitive charges against me.

 

I there is only room for the Ashley, Pardew are cunts and we must hate evey thing they say or do opinion then this will just become a very uninteresting board, non reflective of a great deal of genuine Newcastle fans views.

 

Finally, and I will also put this question directly to you. Look at the two situations that have kicked off this week with Tom and Craig. Can you honestly say there was anything wrong with either of those posts. Even if you didnt agree with either post, neither deserved the ott reactions.

 

I think at the end of the day, people should remember this is a football board that attracts taxi drivers to lawyers to submarine commanders and we will all have very different views on players, managers and owners and express those views in different ways ffs.

[Christmas Tree 4702]

And just for the record Big brother has also taken away my ability to edit posts so spelling mistakes will have to stay.

[Tom 14011]

It's a culmination over many an argument over a long period of time. As MancMag references you never quite have the facts to back up your opinion but you will argue your point to your last breath, there was a point where people would argue with you, some still do, I have largely given up. When you are wrong, which is a regular occurrence, you will merely ignore the point & move onto another argument - again frustrating for the person who genuinely cares.

 

This would be generally ok if people were discussing a book or a film but when it comes to something people feel as strongly about as a football club, especially a club like Newcastle who are renowned the world over for passionate support it tends to leave a sour taste in people's mouths.

 

Now in addition to never backing down you are incredibly patronising to people & you often use age in addition to petty insults as a reason to quash peoples opinion, which would in theory work if you are reasonably well travelled or if you were a hardened fan but when there's lads in the early twenties who've been to more games than you it doesn't hold water.

 

After all these traits & more are experienced regularly the person on the receiving end gradually builds up an intense hatred for the man trying to be the loveable idiot which is why two dozen decent posters have buggered off.

 

If you expect people to traipse through 10'000 + posts to prove a point you're sadly mistaken as people don't have time and you really aren't worth it. It's probably important to state at this point that this is no longer an argument or a discussion - it's a dictation - we are past the point of trading blows.

 

As Administrators of the board we have to keep the site running but in addition to this we are also obliged to maintain a level of quality, if the level of quality is interrupted we have a duty to our readership to ask why & act on it - this could be down to the time of year, events taking place at the club or perhaps an indication of the state of the game.

 

However long ago you were flagged as a wind up merchant & you've lived up to it.

 

In addition to this - telling tales about a post from the Piss Up Photo forum (the ''secret forum'') i.e grassing is a further character reference, as if we needed one...

[Kitman 2204]

I don't know why you're putting Chez forward as a Tony Blair figure CT. Educated and knowledgeable he certainly is, but he's also forthright and direct in the way he puts things. He will directly tell people they are talking shit or bollocks, in those terms, someone called him acerbic recently, iirc Chez described his style as robust. In my book that's fair enough if you can back up what you say.

 

FWIW I frequently find his posts insightful, yours have different qualities

 

Incidentally I don't think you could find a more unflattering comparison than John Prescott.

[LoveTheBobby 1]

And just for the record Big brother has also taken away my ability to edit posts so spelling mistakes will have to stay.

 

..tell us yer joking ?..

[manc-mag 1]

A lovely post manc mag but I think you just read too much into things.

 

The Chez point is an interesting one and I agree he is a well educated and fair poster who can articulate his opinions very well. This however does not mean his similar opinion to mine is better. I thought about this point last night during the 2.00am feed, (Baby not me) and likened it in my own head to Blair and Prescott. Prescott very rough and just says it like it is, getting some peoples backs up whilst Blair can be charming etc and put exactly the same point across in a much better way.

 

However, it is also very cleat to me on many occasions that I can put a view across which people jump on but then someone like Chez or even Stevie recently in the Enrique thread will agree with and everything calms down. When that happens, that is just the small minded mob mentality.

 

I have asked many times for examples of threads I am alleged to have derailed and my wummery but they are never for coming, even though these are the biggest and most repitive charges against me.

 

I there is only room for the Ashley, Pardew are cunts and we must hate evey thing they say or do opinion then this will just become a very uninteresting board, non reflective of a great deal of genuine Newcastle fans views.

 

Finally, and I will also put this question directly to you. Look at the two situations that have kicked off this week with Tom and Craig. Can you honestly say there was anything wrong with either of those posts. Even if you didnt agree with either post, neither deserved the ott reactions.

 

I think at the end of the day, people should remember this is a football board that attracts taxi drivers to lawyers to submarine commanders and we will all have very different views on players, managers and owners and express those views in different ways ffs.

 

Without getting bogged down in specific examples, I'm making a very broad point about your posting, your motivation for doing so (merely my opinion) and the nature of this place as a forum, and I think it's a valid one. I reiterate, I personally don't think you're a wum as I genuinely believe that you genuinely hold ludicrously optimistic (and often contradictory) opinions. I think they're an insult to the majority of peoples intelligence and I think people react to that accordingly. The reaction could not be more starkly contrasted when Chez posts.

 

On Tom and Craig mate I don't know as I don't know the exact flash point (some of it was conducted over Twitter I believe you allege). I imagine I've read some of the posts and missed others. Again though really it's a broad point as I see the situation and was picking up on what the Fish initially touched upon. I think what they do in moderating the place can be in the realms of art rather than science and as a result some may act more hastily than others, but overall for the years I've been posting I'm willing to bet this is the most tolerant Toon forum on the internet. If ultimately what you're saying is you think you've been treated heavy handedly though, I think you also need to do that with a clean pair of hands and admit your own private indulgence in being the voice of stupidity sometimes, as I don't think the Holier than though stuff washes.

[Kitman 2204]

Sounds like Tom's going to make CT train with the kids and available on a free transfer. It's Joey Barton all over again

[LoveTheBobby 1]

Sounds like Tom's going to make CT train with the kids and available on a free transfer. It's Joey Barton all over again

 

..in 'skins'

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I'm posting this having read the first sentence of MancMag's post ("Basically this hits the nail on the head for me and explains what's at the heart of the matter.") and nothing else. I saw he had written out a lengthy exposition explaining his thoughts on the matter, but his defence is destroyed by the fact that Deano is really fucking annoying. I'll read through it now, but I'm pretty sure everything he has said will be negated by the perpetual barrage of shite typed up on here by Deano: he's at least as annoying as CT, imo.

[Tom 14011]

And just for the record Big brother has also taken away my ability to edit posts so spelling mistakes will have to stay.

 

..tell us yer joking ?..

 

He was taking the piss with his avatar & signature for about the 40th time so they were removed. Once a poster is transferred to the ''Bairns'' group his ability to edit posts will automatically be removed.