jma said:
I don't look down on the person as a whole, as anyone who judges a person on purely matters regarding football terms should be sectioned.
This sort of comment is generally followed with a sentence which begins with the word BUT and then goes on to explain that the previous sentence is exactly how you feel, thus exclaimimg to those unfortunate enough to be listening to you that you do indeed need sectioning....
jma said:
However, (close enough eh) I have no problem whatsoever in admitting that I most definitely do look down and have contempt for the action of 'gloryhunting' and the motivations and human characteristics that drive someone to do it.
and what exactly is a glory hunter? Is your definition something along the lines of this.... "Somebody who makes a decision and choses to have an association with something that they ought not to be connected with for reasons relating to success". Well who decides whether they have a right to have this association? You? Me? Who?
So answer me this oracle, if you were to relocate to another country for whatever reason and settle there, would any future family that you had follow City. Are they then Glory Hunters as they themselves have no actual geographic attachment to Manchester? Or is this sort of association OK with you?
jma said:
In any other walk of life I would have no time for someone trying to associate themselves in a contrived, shallow, false way with something purely because it is glamorous, successful and gives a little bit of reflective glory.
Like somebody liking a band which comes from, lets say New York?
I'm confuesd... So us mancs are the only ones who can "really" appreciate the music of the The Stone Roses because we were the only ones who were there when it first kicked off? What about a band that you've followed since their genesis but who are from a different city? Is this OK? Just so long as we were there in the begining? What about people who were dead when we were born but whose music we have since heard and that we now appreciate, we're not allowed to like them are we? I take it this is how you feel? 'cause I'm getting more confused with your views by the second ...
jma said:
Or for anyone whose opinion is that they are 'passionate' about something because they look for results on the internet or buy a garment of clothing once a year. So why should I have a different view when it comes to football. I don't like shallow, vain actions in any walk of life. Therefore, I don't look kindly upon them in football either.
I also have a low threshold, but mine is for bigotry, and yes, mine also applies to any area of life as well; I have no time for people who's opinions are simply that, their own thoughts, backed up with no background understanding of a subject and who's only retort when asked to explain their ideas is simply the line "..'cause that's what I think, tha'sall"
jma said:
That's not to say that I don't recognise why the club needs them and why City are keen to encourage them. Or that I would try to stop someone latching onto a successful club that has no connection to them and deluding themselves that they are 'part of it' - I have no control over their actions and neither should I.
but it does sound like you would like to have that control, wouldn't you? And you haven't answered the simple question posed to you earlier by another poster as to what you define as "Part of it"? Everybody can be part of it can't they? They may have different ideas as to what "part of it" means to them, but they can all still be "part of it" in their own way, however large or small, can't they? Or does this "part of it" you speak of have different levels of "part of it"-ness? Remind me again, was it you who scored the winner against QPR? Or did you supply the cross for the second? Or just stand in the crowd cheering making yourself feel like you were "part of it"?
jma said:
But yeah, I consider the emotions, choices and characteristics that drive people to convince themselves they are 'part of' something superficially successful, that they obviously only are because they choose to say they are, to be extremely negative and not characteristics I'd admire in any walk of life.
and you are convincing yourself that you are MORE "part of it" because you go to the games at the moment and you still have the same 1990s purple away shirt? Ego can cause some very ugly characteristics can't it? Some may even say that arrogance is a fairly negative characteristic and one which is both superficial and deluded. Not very admirable either.
jma said:
I know this is an unpopular view though. Not least because people don't like thinking of their actions through such a prism.
Which one of us isn't thinking here?
Think, think some more, think a little bit more, THEN type.