The right back situation

Whilst Waz posts with far more positivity these days. His previous posts show how immature he was, maybe still is if/when he contradicts his latest posts in 12 months.
 
Waz's post on the Richard Hughes thread was his way of calling Neil a #### (insert own four letter word), without actually saying it.
 
Neil Dawson said:
Is Neto still a sp**tic? I’d just confirm this with a ye or ne as you will get another ban if you reply in full.
Click to expand...

Why would you keep repeatedly mentioning that? He got banned for it and apologised when he came back and has seemingly leaned from it and changed his behaviour. If you find it as as offensive as you intimate why continually bring the word up just to win an internet argument? Even going so far as to accuse Rob of "being ok with it" or whatever you said.

Looks like more Neil Dawson moral high ground pontificating which in reality is anything but.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Why would you keep repeatedly mentioning that? He got banned for it and apologised when he came back and has seemingly leaned from it and changed his behaviour. If you find it as as offensive as you intimate why continually bring the word up just to win an internet argument? Even going so far as to accuse Rob of "being ok with it" or whatever you said.

Looks like more Neil Dawson moral high ground pontificating which in reality is anything but.
Click to expand...
Its relevance is that if you are rehabilitating after a ban for this then accusing others of not being behind players is a bit rich. Just as posting f### Hughes then doing a tribute to him a few months later continues the habit of misleading people on here.

It’s interesting you like to hold me and a couple others to account for any supposed hypocrisy but for others it’s fine for them to move on and not be reminded of things they say before. You wouldn’t have an ‘agenda’ here would you?
 
Neil Dawson said:
Its relevance is that if you are rehabilitating after a ban for this then accusing others of not being behind players is a bit rich. Just as posting f### Hughes then doing a tribute to him a few months later continues the habit of misleading people on here.

It’s interesting you like to hold me and a couple others to account for any supposed hypocrisy but for others it’s fine for them to move on and not be reminded of things they say before. You wouldn’t have an ‘agenda’ here would you?
Click to expand...
if it has bothered you so much why have you waited untill he stopped agreeing with your views on hughes before bringing it up?
 
Neil Dawson said:
Its relevance is that if you are rehabilitating after a ban for this then accusing others of not being behind players is a bit rich. Just as posting f### Hughes then doing a tribute to him a few months later continues the habit of misleading people on here.

It’s interesting you like to hold me and a couple others to account for any supposed hypocrisy but for others it’s fine for them to move on and not be reminded of things they say before. You wouldn’t have an ‘agenda’ here would you?
Click to expand...

The difference is when it is about football matters. Pointing out his hypocrisy in relation to Hughes is one thing but repeating an offensive word and trying to turn it into a moral argument is another.

What is the justification for you repeating a word you apparently find so offensive? It is still an offensive word and it is now you who are repeating it.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
The difference is when it is about football matters. Pointing out his hypocrisy in relation to Hughes is one thing but repeating an offensive word and trying to turn it into a moral argument is another.

What is the justification for you repeating a word you apparently find so offensive? It is still an offensive word and it is now you who are repeating it.
Click to expand...
It’s not a moral argument. It’s one about hypocrisy. You have a go at people for not supporting players/ directors when you have a track history of more severe abuse of both. Without using the terms that person used the argument doesn’t make sense.
 
Neil Dawson said:
It’s not a moral argument. It’s one about hypocrisy. You have a go at people for not supporting players/ directors when you have a track history of more severe abuse of both. Without using the terms that person used the argument doesn’t make sense.
Click to expand...
What makes little sense is the amount of time you spend talking about me, not been on all day and I come on to find multiple posts by you about me. Do you honestly have nothing better to do?
 
From what I've seen this season, Smith has quite rightly been first choice, young Aaron's is an able deputy, and the lesser spotted Fredericks seems to have vanished into Dawsons hot air.
 
Neil Dawson said:
It’s not a moral argument. It’s one about hypocrisy. You have a go at people for not supporting players/ directors when you have a track history of more severe abuse of both. Without using the terms that person used the argument doesn’t make sense.
Click to expand...

Of course it's possible to make the point without repeating the word. I'm doing it now.
 
Neil is certainly not shy of taking (labouring...) moral high ground to win a battle ;)

It is an offensive word (to many) but afaik it wasn't used repeatedly.

Not end of world imo, and imo is just being laboured/repeatedly brought up to win the battle/get people on side against person arguing with.

To be blunt. It was said once. And not aimed at someone with that disability or similar. Get over it and don't be so precious.
 
MB1980 said:
Neil is certainly not shy of taking (labouring...) moral high ground to win a battle ;)

It is an offensive word (to many) but afaik it wasn't used repeatedly.

Not end of world imo, and imo is just being laboured/repeatedly brought up to win the battle/get people on side against person arguing with.

To be blunt. It was said once. And not aimed at someone with that disability or similar. Get over it and don't be so precious.
Click to expand...
I didn’t see it at the time, and if I had I wouldn’t have demanded any ban.

But just because not specifically directed at a disabled person it doesn’t mean that other disabled people wouldn’t be hurt by the slur. Thats not being precious. Don’t excuse ableism.
 
smith's renaissance has been extraordinary but he's now 33
if aarons' is now fully fit will the manager be tempted to give him a run of games for the rest of the season?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;