Media thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t believe you, especially as you are the one attacking me personally throughout your posts for some unknown reason (both in response to me but indirectly in response to other posters). I’ve moderated quite a few forums, including those focusing on politics and economics, and I have found attacking the poster, rather than the argument, is a very poor strategy, ironically much more akin to policing than moderating.

I have to be honest, I have quite surprised by your initial reaction to my post and your subsequent comments. I would have thought, from our previous interactions and your posting history, you were someone that understood how the media engine works and our place in it. And I would have never expects such aggressive behaviour, as if I had been attacking you directly, which I most definitely have not.

At any rate, as I have shared my thoughts, and it seems we are not going to agree on this (and you don’t seem to be open to a real debate on the subject), I will leave it here.

Just a reminder, though: we’re on the same side.

I've not attacked you personally.

Disagreeing with you and even questioning your judgement in this matter is not a personal attack, it does not speak to you as a person, or a blue.

But in this matter I believe you to be wrong.
 
I've not attacked you personally.

Disagreeing with you and even questioning your judgement in this matter is not a personal attack, it does not speak to you as a person, or a blue.

But in this matter I believe you to be wrong.
I think a few of your comments were more than just questioning my judgment and indicating you thought I was wrong.

But I will take you at your word that they weren’t intended to be personal attacks, even if they came off that way to me.

Nor were my responses to you.

I think you are wrong on this particular subject. You think I am wrong.

But we both think the likes of Delaney, Harris, Schindler, Conn, etc. are wrong (and in some cases, wronguns, full stop), so we do have some common ground.

I am happy to focus on that moving forward.
 
They did a small piece on Radio 4's 'Today' programme this morning. I was delighted to hear Chris Bird being interviewed. The interviewer did the 'tainted' trophies thing and got put down immediately and he argued that the PL had acted in a inappropriate way with the timing of the charges etc. She did refer to our ownership as being ADUG and amazingly the term 'state-owned' was not mentioned. Chris Bird referred back to our relegation in 1998 and the move to the new stadium which I think he was in charge of and emphasised our great achievements. I particularly liked the way he scorned the opportunity to compare our treble with United and he pointed out that as City fans we are only really concerned with our own achievements and not those of United. He was asked if our funding by an AD billionaire (note again not the AD state) was difficult for rival clubs to compete with and he made the point that our owners had invested in the club's infrastructure and not been so concerned about taking profits out of the club - unlike a lot of other PL clubs. All in all he referred to the sort of points that we have made on here. So well done Chris for telling it as it is like a true City fan. I suppose the programme has a really small audience compared to the typical media outlets who besmirch our name. But I was left with the feeling that it would be great if this could happen more often. I expect the usual suspects to deliver more and more venom as we pull further away from our rivals which is inevitable if they continue trying to stop us through devious means rather than concentrating on their own issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.