What's tired is the same old tedious straw man of arguing that anyone who'd criticize Ben Arfa in the slightest is somebody who'd like to see us start with Shola and Obertan every game.
He's obviously a good player but he had abysmally bad games against Brighton and Blackburn that highlighted his weaknesses. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make.
Well done, deal with an alleged strawman with a strawman of your own. Whose saying you can't criticize him? What's the point though if it's not in the context of how we should line up against Villa? I guess if you just like to moan, then by all means go ahead
If that's a straw man, what exactly is the main point of Wullie's argument then?
Because I never said he should be dropped, I never said he wast terrible, I merely criticized his recent performances and that is apparently grounds for ridicule. How is that qualitatively different from "you can't criticize him?"
Again, your argument seems to boil down to "if you're criticizing him you must argue for dropping him or else you're just moaning."
Where's the straw man then?
We're going around in circles. You can criticize HBA (or any other player for that matter), no one is saying you can't. It's just pointless if you're not relating to a) our potential future line up and the b) the alternatives we have. So others (myself) included are well justified to say that you're just moaning. Do you expect everyone to just nod in agreement with you?
We are going in circles because you're argument is unreasonable. I'm "moaning" if I say "he played badly and that highlighted his weaknesses"?
I don't expect people to nod in agreement but I expect people to be civil and speak intelligently as opposed to just misrepresenting and belittling anyone they don't agree with.
"You think Obertan should start? " doesn't count as intelligent discussion.
Nice! So others should not belittle your argument and you start your first sentence by already saying that my argument is unreasonable...good example right there!
The whole point of the Obertan point is just to put the argument in context i.e. despite HBA's weaknesses he is still the best we have for that particular position because relative to the other options we have, he is still the best we have. I'm sorry you don't find that as intelligent discussion. The best I can say is that we are just arguing from two different angles. You just want to highlight his weaknesses (and perhaps strengths) whereas others and myself are looking at the debate from the context of how the team should line up going forward.
Is accusing me of doing whatever I say you're doing your "thing"?
There's a clear difference between "I think you're being unreasonable" and "Obertan/Shola lover LOLZ"
If you only care about how the team is going to line up then why do you feel the need to attack me for mentioning his weaknesses? It's not like I disagree that he should start ahead of Obertan in the first place?
You never responded to this post from Wullie did you? http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,91227.msg3502484.html#msg3502484
I'd be interested to know what these weaknesses are that you keep banging on about; you keep mentioning the term weaknesses without specifying what you think they are.
These would be detailed in the series of posts that were made several pages back before this degenerated into childishness.
What's tired is the same old tedious straw man of arguing that anyone who'd criticize Ben Arfa in the slightest is somebody who'd like to see us start with Shola and Obertan every game.
He's obviously a good player but he had abysmally bad games against Brighton and Blackburn that highlighted his weaknesses. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make.
Well done, deal with an alleged strawman with a strawman of your own. Whose saying you can't criticize him? What's the point though if it's not in the context of how we should line up against Villa? I guess if you just like to moan, then by all means go ahead
If that's a straw man, what exactly is the main point of Wullie's argument then?
Because I never said he should be dropped, I never said he wast terrible, I merely criticized his recent performances and that is apparently grounds for ridicule. How is that qualitatively different from "you can't criticize him?"
Again, your argument seems to boil down to "if you're criticizing him you must argue for dropping him or else you're just moaning."
Where's the straw man then?
We're going around in circles. You can criticize HBA (or any other player for that matter), no one is saying you can't. It's just pointless if you're not relating to a) our potential future line up and the b) the alternatives we have. So others (myself) included are well justified to say that you're just moaning. Do you expect everyone to just nod in agreement with you?
We are going in circles because you're argument is unreasonable. I'm "moaning" if I say "he played badly and that highlighted his weaknesses"?
I don't expect people to nod in agreement but I expect people to be civil and speak intelligently as opposed to just misrepresenting and belittling anyone they don't agree with.
"You think Obertan should start? " doesn't count as intelligent discussion.
Nice! So others should not belittle your argument and you start your first sentence by already saying that my argument is unreasonable...good example right there!
The whole point of the Obertan point is just to put the argument in context i.e. despite HBA's weaknesses he is still the best we have for that particular position because relative to the other options we have, he is still the best we have. I'm sorry you don't find that as intelligent discussion. The best I can say is that we are just arguing from two different angles. You just want to highlight his weaknesses (and perhaps strengths) whereas others and myself are looking at the debate from the context of how the team should line up going forward.
Is accusing me of doing whatever I say you're doing your "thing"?
There's a clear difference between "I think you're being unreasonable" and "Obertan/Shola lover LOLZ"
If you only care about how the team is going to line up then why do you feel the need to attack me for mentioning his weaknesses? It's not like I disagree that he should start ahead of Obertan in the first place?
I'm being attacked on the internets!!
Ouch!
I was wondering when somebody was going to show up to pull the "he's actually taking an argument seriously, what a loser" tactic.
What you wanna take seriously is troop movements on the North Korean border. Bam!
