Mike Ashley

[AyeDubbleYoo]

As if people haven't clicked by now.

 

I was replying to Inochi, not Raconteur.

 

You think I'm trolling?

 

If you support or explain anything Pardew does in any way over a long-ish period, a lot of people start saying this.

[Hanshithispantz]

What the fuck is going on here?

[Guest neesy111]

As if people haven't clicked by now.

 

I was replying to Inochi, not Raconteur.

 

You think I'm trolling?

 

If you support or explain anything Pardew does in any way over a long-ish period, a lot of people start saying this.

 

[LRD]

What the f*** is going on here?

 

Having pies, marra. Looks pretty on the outside but lacks substance inside.

[Oakie Doke]

http://img4.joyreactor.com/pics/post/funny-pictures-auto-graph-thing-375754.jpeg

[LRD]

Best pie chart here tbf.

[Guest icemanblue]

As if people haven't clicked by now.

 

I was replying to Inochi, not Raconteur.

 

You think I'm trolling?

 

I don't think you're trolling at all. Exactly the opposite, to be honest. You're offering clear, concise reasoning to your own opinions. People don't have to agree, as it's still an opinion, but at least you're making an effort to provide your evidence. Those charts do paint a clear picture of your argument in this instance, and they look lovely.

[Jack Flash]

"I don't want Pardew here. Here's 40 pages of reasons why he should stay"

 

Aye.

[Happy Face]

I don't think you're trolling at all. Exactly the opposite, to be honest. You're offering clear, concise reasoning to your own opinions. People don't have to agree, as it's still an opinion, but at least you're making an effort to provide your evidence. Those charts do paint a clear picture of your argument in this instance, and they look lovely.

 

Cheers.

 

I was surprised Dave seemed to be suggesting it it because I thought he would know from my previous form on here that I'm not any sort of WUM at all.  I know from posting here before that good posters like him and Wullie can easily understand the basic points I'm making, while not necessarily having to agree at all.

 

Can't see anything in those diagrams or the description of them that could be construed as trolling.

[Toondave]

http://img4.joyreactor.com/pics/post/funny-pictures-auto-graph-thing-375754.jpeg

 

fantastic 

[alexf]

Ben Arfa only started 16 league games in both the last two seasons. I know he just wasn't selected for half of last season but I hold out hope that any team interested in him will see his appearance record for us and think better of it.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Ben Arfa only started 16 league games in both the last two seasons. I know he just wasn't selected for half of last season but I hold out hope that any team interested in him will see his appearance record for us and think better of it.

 

I genuinely can't see anyone buying him for the kind of money it would take for us to let him go.

[Happy Face]

"I don't want Pardew here. Here's 40 pages of reasons why he should stay"

 

Aye.

 

I don't want Pardew at the club for exactly the same reasons I didn't want him from day 1.  That doesn't mean I started chanting "Pardew out!" at his first game against Liverpool.  All of his failings that are apparent now were apparent then.  If anything, he has over achieved in his time here, considering my expectations.

[alexf]

Also seeing how many games Jonas has started makes me sad. He really has had a terrible season and it says alot that he almost had the most amount of starts.

 

Cisse starting so many also shows how badly we need new strikers. You have to be able to freshen up your attack and manage your striker's form throughout the season so that when he has a bad patch (as Cisse did) you can rest him.

 

We simply couldn't do that with having Shola as the back up and Pardew not having much faith in using Gouffran upfront until very recently.

[TRon]

 

Here you can see just inconsistent the past season has been.  This time, only 3 managed 30.  We had to go through the 8 most played players before we'd covered half of the seasons selections.  27 players were needed this time. with only 2 playing 2 games or less. Which means our core was a much wider spread of 25 players.  There was none of the consistency in team selection of the year previous, and with that comes less opportunity to work up a settled system.

 

On the other hand that blows Pardew's biggest excuse out of the water, tiredness, Europe, extra games, blah blah. You can't have it both ways.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

 

Here you can see just inconsistent the past season has been.  This time, only 3 managed 30.  We had to go through the 8 most played players before we'd covered half of the seasons selections.  27 players were needed this time. with only 2 playing 2 games or less. Which means our core was a much wider spread of 25 players.  There was none of the consistency in team selection of the year previous, and with that comes less opportunity to work up a settled system.

 

On the other hand that blows Pardew's biggest excuse out of the water, tiredness, Europe, extra games, blah blah. You can't have it both ways.

 

I think with Europe, lack of training/preparation time is almost more important than tiredness.

[Happy Face]

 

Here you can see just inconsistent the past season has been.  This time, only 3 managed 30.  We had to go through the 8 most played players before we'd covered half of the seasons selections.  27 players were needed this time. with only 2 playing 2 games or less. Which means our core was a much wider spread of 25 players.  There was none of the consistency in team selection of the year previous, and with that comes less opportunity to work up a settled system.

 

On the other hand that blows Pardew's biggest excuse out of the water, tiredness, Europe, extra games, blah blah. You can't have it both ways.

 

I don't think you have to have played every game in a season to get tired.  Benitez was complaining about tiredness at Chelsea before christmas.  Sissoko played something like 10 games in 30 days after he signed.  1 game every 3 days for a bloke that's never played the game at the pace we do in England.  It was inevitable his form would wane.

[TRon]

 

Here you can see just inconsistent the past season has been.  This time, only 3 managed 30.  We had to go through the 8 most played players before we'd covered half of the seasons selections.  27 players were needed this time. with only 2 playing 2 games or less. Which means our core was a much wider spread of 25 players.  There was none of the consistency in team selection of the year previous, and with that comes less opportunity to work up a settled system.

 

On the other hand that blows Pardew's biggest excuse out of the water, tiredness, Europe, extra games, blah blah. You can't have it both ways.

 

I don't think you have to have played every game in a season to get tired.  Benitez was complaining about tiredness at Chelsea before christmas.  Sissoko played something like 10 games in 30 days after he signed.  1 game every 3 days for a bloke that's never played the game at the pace we do in England.  It was inevitable his form would wane.

 

Which makes it even more surprising Pardew didn't use Anita more as he's a central midfielder who could definitely have been used more if other midfielders were suffering from fatigue.

[Interpolic]

 

Here you can see just inconsistent the past season has been.  This time, only 3 managed 30.  We had to go through the 8 most played players before we'd covered half of the seasons selections.  27 players were needed this time. with only 2 playing 2 games or less. Which means our core was a much wider spread of 25 players.  There was none of the consistency in team selection of the year previous, and with that comes less opportunity to work up a settled system.

 

On the other hand that blows Pardew's biggest excuse out of the water, tiredness, Europe, extra games, blah blah. You can't have it both ways.

 

I don't think you have to have played every game in a season to get tired.  Benitez was complaining about tiredness at Chelsea before christmas.  Sissoko played something like 10 games in 30 days after he signed.  1 game every 3 days for a bloke that's never played the game at the pace we do in England.  It was inevitable his form would wane.

 

His form nosedived after 2 or 3 games.

[Raconteur]

I don't think you're trolling at all. Exactly the opposite, to be honest. You're offering clear, concise reasoning to your own opinions. People don't have to agree, as it's still an opinion, but at least you're making an effort to provide your evidence. Those charts do paint a clear picture of your argument in this instance, and they look lovely.

 

Cheers.

 

I was surprised Dave seemed to be suggesting it it because I thought he would know from my previous form on here that I'm not any sort of WUM at all.  I know from posting here before that good posters like him and Wullie can easily understand the basic points I'm making, while not necessarily having to agree at all.

 

Can't see anything in those diagrams or the description of them that could be construed as trolling.

 

You are trolling because your initial response to my post was a textbook straw man. In fact, I reproduce the wikipedia example, because it so closely parallels your post:

 

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

 

    Person 1 has position X.

    Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

        Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.

        Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]

        Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]

        Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

        Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

    Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

You then punctuated said straw man with a gratuitous, trolling smiley face.

 

Next, you ignored the entirety of my argument with a one line, logically dubious "Our players played significantly fewer than players at other clubs due to injury" and attempted to support this hypothesis with the explosion of colour that in no way countered my argument nor added to your own. Therefore, another textbook fallacy; this time the red herring. (Further, when ignoring my argument, you skipped over the grounds on which I consider injury to be an invalid defense of our poor form, which still stands unchallenged).

 

Your explanations were based on sandy foundations at best, and can be countered on a number of grounds. For instance, the addition of five first team players in January. The impact of this, for instance, sees Debuchy starting 14 games and Simpson 12 (accoring to your figures), which theoretically adds weight to your position of "wider spread of core players." In fact, it has nothing at all to do with injuries yet seemingly adds credence to your argument. Your argument also ignores the ridiculous team selections of the manager, which has seen starts given to players such as Perch and Bigirimana that a better manager might have given to Anita. (And while that may be wildly hypothetical, is there a single Toon fan who would have chosen Perch or Bigirimana over Anita, ever? Anita could easily have as many starts as Jonas, which would have narrowed the spread of core players, to use your parlance.) Again, while seemingly adding to your theory, it in fact has nothing to do with injuries.

 

Therefore, sir, I suggest that your arguments are specious, your logic flawed and your manner of debate fallacious. And given your well-established preference of piling blame on Ashley while absolving Pardew, I stand by my labelling of you a troll.

 

And given my lengthy response to a troll, you probably got that thrilling tingle just from seeing a wall of text. That's okay, I only replied because I was sad that decent posters like Ian W and Inochi felt the need to stick up for you. Those two are principled debaters who defend their positions well. You, sir, do not.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I stuck up for him because I didn't think he was trolling, I still don't. I thought trolling meant posting things deliberately to win people up or belittle them, which he wasn't doing at all.

[Interpolic]

I still don't understand why Marveaux was on the pitch for so few minutes over the course of the season despite nearly always being available for selection and setting up and scoring goals a lot of the time he featured. Well I do understand it but I can't accept it.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I still don't understand why Marveaux was on the pitch for so few minutes over the course of the season despite nearly always being available for selection and setting up and scoring goals a lot of the time he featured. Well I do understand it but I can't accept it.

 

Agree with you on this one, there are a few similar examples of weird selections and substitutions, obviously.

[Incognito]

I don't think you're trolling at all. Exactly the opposite, to be honest. You're offering clear, concise reasoning to your own opinions. People don't have to agree, as it's still an opinion, but at least you're making an effort to provide your evidence. Those charts do paint a clear picture of your argument in this instance, and they look lovely.

 

Cheers.

 

I was surprised Dave seemed to be suggesting it it because I thought he would know from my previous form on here that I'm not any sort of WUM at all.  I know from posting here before that good posters like him and Wullie can easily understand the basic points I'm making, while not necessarily having to agree at all.

 

Can't see anything in those diagrams or the description of them that could be construed as trolling.

 

You are trolling because your initial response to my post was a textbook straw man. In fact, I reproduce the wikipedia example, because it so closely parallels your post:

 

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

 

    Person 1 has position X.

    Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

        Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.

        Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]

        Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]

        Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

        Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

    Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

You then punctuated said straw man with a gratuitous, trolling smiley face.

 

Next, you ignored the entirety of my argument with a one line, logically dubious "Our players played significantly fewer than players at other clubs due to injury" and attempted to support this hypothesis with the explosion of colour that in no way countered my argument nor added to your own. Therefore, another textbook fallacy; this time the red herring. (Further, when ignoring my argument, you skipped over the grounds on which I consider injury to be an invalid defense of our poor form, which still stands unchallenged).

 

Your explanations were based on sandy foundations at best, and can be countered on a number of grounds. For instance, the addition of five first team players in January. The impact of this, for instance, sees Debuchy starting 14 games and Simpson 12 (accoring to your figures), which theoretically adds weight to your position of "wider spread of core players." In fact, it has nothing at all to do with injuries yet seemingly adds credence to your argument. Your argument also ignores the ridiculous team selections of the manager, which has seen starts given to players such as Perch and Bigirimana that a better manager might have given to Anita. (And while that may be wildly hypothetical, is there a single Toon fan who would have chosen Perch or Bigirimana over Anita, ever? Anita could easily have as many starts as Jonas, which would have narrowed the spread of core players, to use your parlance.) Again, while seemingly adding to your theory, it in fact has nothing to do with injuries.

 

Therefore, sir, I suggest that your arguments are specious, your logic flawed and your manner of debate fallacious. And given your well-established preference of piling blame on Ashley while absolving Pardew, I stand by my labelling of you a troll.

 

And given my lengthy response to a troll, you probably got that thrilling tingle just from seeing a wall of text. That's okay, I only replied because I was sad that decent posters like Ian W and Inochi felt the need to stick up for you. Those two are principled debaters who defend their positions well. You, sir, do not.

 

I think you're completely barking up the wrong tree tbh.

[pi_D]

I still don't understand why Marveaux was on the pitch for so few minutes over the course of the season despite nearly always being available for selection and setting up and scoring goals a lot of the time he featured. Well I do understand it but I can't accept it.