Mourinho or Mancini

[Anonymous]

Didnt you call all the mancini lovers sad bastards the other day?

No, i didn't. However i had to check and funnily enough heres what popped up.

The rags are out in force on this thread tonight
Sad bastards.

In a thread about Mancini no less.

 

[Pam]

There's an interesting double standard on Bluemoon at present. Reading back through this thread, or certainly last night's input, I don't think I posted anything particularly outlandish. I said "i can't stand Mancini" - which really, lets be honest, is hardly the crime of the century when you consider some of the things posted about players (both City players and players of other clubs), journalists, politicians, religions, etc. on the forum. Yet one of the moderaters felt the correct thing to do was ban me for being deliberately provocative. Very strange behaviour and a pretty big double standard when you consider what passes as acceptable on here on a day to day basis.

I suspect the guy above calling me and Dave pricks didn't get banned. And I suspect were I to ask why he wasn't banned I'd be told "report the post". Maybe the moderater who banned me will have the courtesy to reply to this post and explain why in fact the posts above (and all the other openly abusive ones) in this thread are ok.

It comes to something when you can call Prophet Muhammad a paedophile, Jesus a drunk, the Pope a ****, but passing comment on Mancini is censored.

If it's any consolation, I'm cool with you and DD not liking Mancini. I think I understand where you are coming from with it now although of course I don't agree.

It's only fair to point out though that Mancini is greater than all of those three above :D

Forza, Strongbow.

 

[bobmcfc]

There's an interesting double standard on Bluemoon at present. Reading back through this thread, or certainly last night's input, I don't think I posted anything particularly outlandish. I said "i can't stand Mancini" - which really, lets be honest, is hardly the crime of the century when you consider some of the things posted about players (both City players and players of other clubs), journalists, politicians, religions, etc. on the forum. Yet one of the moderaters felt the correct thing to do was ban me for being deliberately provocative. Very strange behaviour and a pretty big double standard when you consider what passes as acceptable on here on a day to day basis.

I suspect the guy above calling me and Dave pricks didn't get banned. And I suspect were I to ask why he wasn't banned I'd be told "report the post". Maybe the moderater who banned me will have the courtesy to reply to this post and explain why in fact the posts above (and all the other openly abusive ones) in this thread are ok.

It comes to something when you can call Prophet Muhammad a paedophile, Jesus a drunk, the Pope a ****, but passing comment on Mancini is censored.

Nobody can ever expect you to like Mancini as a person but in the grand scheme of things it cannot be denied he's achieved great things here. He's a hothead sometimes and makes errors but he is more than capable and worthy of managing this club and its dressing room. Not many could have stood up to the pressure of a job like this and he will go down in history as one of our greatest.

 

[bernabias home shirt]

Didnt you call all the mancini lovers sad bastards the other day?

No, i didn't. However i had to check and funnily enough heres what popped up.

The rags are out in force on this thread tonight
Sad bastards.

In a thread about Mancini no less.

That was aimed at dd(not didsury dave or you) as i told you on the thread
He only post when we lose,and has been pointed out on here by quiet a few posters so in my opinion he is a sad bastard

I will do a bit of trolling as i know you also somewhere did say sad bastard :)

 

[robbieh]

There's an interesting double standard on Bluemoon at present. Reading back through this thread, or certainly last night's input, I don't think I posted anything particularly outlandish. I said "i can't stand Mancini" - which really, lets be honest, is hardly the crime of the century when you consider some of the things posted about players (both City players and players of other clubs), journalists, politicians, religions, etc. on the forum. Yet one of the moderaters felt the correct thing to do was ban me for being deliberately provocative. Very strange behaviour and a pretty big double standard when you consider what passes as acceptable on here on a day to day basis.

I suspect the guy above calling me and Dave pricks didn't get banned. And I suspect were I to ask why he wasn't banned I'd be told "report the post". Maybe the moderater who banned me will have the courtesy to reply to this post and explain why in fact the posts above (and all the other openly abusive ones) in this thread are ok.

It comes to something when you can call Prophet Muhammad a paedophile, Jesus a drunk, the Pope a ****, but passing comment on Mancini is censored.

The issue as I see it was not that you said "I hate/fucking can't stand whatever Mancini", it was the fact that for years you have said you don't rate the guy at all for a variety of technical, man management reasons. Now while many disagree with you on that it is a perfectly valid if slightly tiresome argument.

However your rant last night suggested an irrational dislike of Mancini that suggested that whatever he does you will continue to hate him.

It was almost an epiphany to the rest of us where suddenly you revealed your real agenda. As such it caused a storm which was to be expected.

 

[Anonymous]

It was almost an epiphany to the rest of us where suddenly you revealed your real agenda. As such it caused a storm which was to be expected.

Not it wasn't to be expected, no "real agenda" was revealed, and if it was an epiphany to you that I don't like Mancini then I'm fucking shocked as you've been telling me for nigh on two years that I hate him, have an agenda against him, and am not objective.

 

[robbieh]

It was almost an epiphany to the rest of us where suddenly you revealed your real agenda. As such it caused a storm which was to be expected.

Not it wasn't to be expected, no "real agenda" was revealed, and if it was an epiphany to you that I don't like Mancini then I'm fucking shocked as you've been telling me for nigh on two years that I hate him, have an agenda against him, and am not objective.

I haven't been telling you that you hate him. I have merely been saying that you are wrong in your assessment of his abilities. You don't rate Mancini whereas I think he's done a pretty decent job under difficult circumstances. Circumstances it now seems that you used in defence of Mark Hughes.

While most neutral observers would agree with you on purely managerial grounds Mourinho has the edge. But I don't hear you whining that Silva is rubbish and we should replace him with Iniesta.

Yesterday in vino veritas you just came out and said it. It has nothing to do with his tactics, CV, man management (which I know you don't like), you just hate Roberto Mancini.

What I would like to know has he ever done to you? And does it all go back to the treatment of Stephen Ireland?

 

[Anonymous]

you just hate Roberto Mancini.

What I would like to know has he ever done to you? And does it all go back to the treatment of Stephen Ireland?

Firstly, hate is a very strong word. My post said "I can't fucking stand". As for why, it's very well documented on the forum and in threads such as this one so I don't think I need to repeat it for anyone's benefit. If nothing else I've been asked to be less provocative generally about Mancini, which is fair enough, but for that reason alone I'm not going to repeat the reasons as they will again lead to another ten pages of accusations and counter accusations.

Your Stephen Ireland comment. I was a City supporter before I met Stephen Ireland, I was City supporter when he couldn't get games under various managers, and I was a City supporter after he left. I was one of the people on here who said that Mancini should be allowed to buy and sell whoever he wishes to, and it's not like we sold Ireland and bought Graham Dorrans. We've signed the likes of Silva, Nasri, Milner, Aguero, etc. So no, it's got fuck all to do with Stevie.

Anyway, my post this morning was more about being banned for being deliberately provocative when I feel I was no such thing last night.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

you just hate Roberto Mancini.

What I would like to know has he ever done to you? And does it all go back to the treatment of Stephen Ireland?

Firstly, hate is a very strong word. My post said "I can't fucking stand". As for why, it's very well documented on the forum and in threads such as this one so I don't think I need to repeat it for anyone's benefit. If nothing else I've been asked to be less provocative generally about Mancini, which is fair enough, but for that reason alone I'm not going to repeat the reasons as they will again lead to another ten pages of accusations and counter accusations.

Your Stephen Ireland comment. I was a City supporter before I met Stephen Ireland, I was City supporter when he couldn't get games under various managers, and I was a City supporter after he left. I was one of the people on here who said that Mancini should be allowed to buy and sell whoever he wishes to, and it's not like we sold Ireland and bought Graham Dorrans. We've signed the likes of Silva, Nasri, Milner, Aguero, etc. So no, it's got fuck all to do with Stevie.

Anyway, my post this morning was more about being banned for being deliberately provocative when I feel I was no such thing last night.

You shouldn't even be allowed in the Etihad, let alone on Bluemoon, for wanting to change the manager. Didn't you read the forum last night?

 

[ChrisNUFC]

What i fail to understand is why DD's and Billy's opinions upset everyone so much.

Fair enough if you don't agree, but everyone is entitled to their opinions, no? If someone thinks differently to you is it really that much of an issue? Why let it annoy you.