so this agenda thing.

[franksinatra]

Just picked up the I paper and the Times and it is all pretty much positive about City. I often read negative things about City, but similarly read numerous positive articles. If an agenda exists then the negative reports would be consistent throughout the paper or journalistic world.

A case in point is the Daily Mail. Widely regarded as an anti-city paper yet Martin Samuel writes for them who is fully supportive of our position on FFP as a recent thread has highlighted.

Maybe just maybe some journalists see City in a positive light and others in a negative light and there articles reflect this. No agenda just a number of opinions by journalists how they see the football world.

 

[bluesoup]

Come on agendists - get your pens ready, city up next on sly sports...

 

[Shirley]

Appears now the deal Baconface struck with the FA fixture panel was give us easy fixtures to start and we will play promising English youth players!!!

 

[franksinatra]

Appears now the deal Baconface struck with the FA fixture panel was give us easy fixtures to start and we will play promising English youth players!!!

I genuinely do not know if you are being serious or taking the mickey out of the agendaistas with this far-flung theory

 

[Blue Mooner]

The onus isn't on those who wish to disprove something - the burden of establishing proof is on those who assert something to be the truth.
That's how the legal system works.
That's how scientific theory works.
And you can't prove a negative anyway.
No mention of us again on the shipping forecast this morning, if you'd like to make a note.

Thanks for the lesson.

I think you'll find I have done in many previous posts, including very recently & funnily enough exactly the one's you choose to ignore.

You have proven precisely nothing.
Nothing exists until it's existence can be proved.
You can quote all the random snippets of tabloid verbiage you like, but it doesn't constitute proof of anything, other than lazy, incompetent journalism from biased hacks paying their bar bills, but then we knew that already.
I don't need to prove that something I don't believe in doesn't exist.
You, on the other hand do, and haven't done to date.
I'll leave you to your Don Quixote-esque adventures.

I don't believe that football's governing bodies or the media are run to promote the interests of ALL football clubs. Because I don't believe it, according to your sanctimonious prose, I don't have to have to prove it. I don't need to prove something that I don't believe exists.

 

[Len Rum]

People just finding things to get pissed off about and completely ignoring things like this, for a change.

Some city fans will go to any means to try and prove an agenda doesn't exist.

The onus isn't on those who wish to disprove something - the burden of establishing proof is on those who assert something to be the truth.
That's how the legal system works.
That's how scientific theory works.
And you can't prove a negative anyway.
No mention of us again on the shipping forecast this morning, if you'd like to make a note.

FFS fetlocks , you're beginning to sound like Mr. Logic from Viz.
What do you want - a Leveson enquiry?
There's plenty of examples of agenda or bias (whatever YOU want to call it) against City in this thread.
Start a thread of your own with examples of pro City stories if you want to present the opposing argument.

 

[SWP's back]

The onus isn't on those who wish to disprove something - the burden of establishing proof is on those who assert something to be the truth.
That's how the legal system works.
That's how scientific theory works.
And you can't prove a negative anyway.
No mention of us again on the shipping forecast this morning, if you'd like to make a note.

Thanks for the lesson.

I think you'll find I have done in many previous posts, including very recently & funnily enough exactly the one's you choose to ignore.

You have proven precisely nothing.
Nothing exists until it's existence can be proved.
You can quote all the random snippets of tabloid verbiage you like, but it doesn't constitute proof of anything, other than lazy, incompetent journalism from biased hacks paying their bar bills, but then we knew that already.
I don't need to prove that something I don't believe in doesn't exist.
You, on the other hand do, and haven't done to date.
I'll leave you to your Don Quixote-esque adventures.

That's not exactly true is it.

 

[Deleted member 58678]

And there we have it, Len.
I have the same circuitous journey to nowhere with folk in the Cellar every time we have a 'religion' thread, and the parallels here are clear.
Folk of faith all believe in some form of God, regardless of any quantifiable proof or evidence.
Agenda-istas do the same, regarding their belief in an agenda.
Now being a pragmatic kind of guy, I tend to believe in what can be proven, rather than that which can't - to me this seems an eminently sensible and reasonable way to think, which explains why I personally don't believe in the existence of either an agenda or a supreme being.
Yet on here, we have agenda-istas who are quite happy to laugh at those of faith for believing in something which cannot be proven in the deity department, whilst quite happily signing up for believing in something which also can't be proven in the agenda department.
It's like a selective pick 'n' mix into the realms of hypothesis, and both funny and ironic in equal measure.

Orchestrated agenda or just plain bias pandering to the old Big 4 team's fans makes no difference.

City get reported in a worse light, in general, than the old elite. The proof is in the papers on a daily basis.

^^THIS^^

The proof list is too big it should be plain to see every day.

Arsenal get it worse than us.

 

[Don Davido de la Manchesta]

Certain journalists are rubbish, some are rags, some are desperate to appeal to 'clicks' on line. Some a combination of all three, while others, the more established, the more impartial and confident aren't. These are the few who are actually interested in news and don't fear the sack and therefore will tend to do a decent job. Sadly most hacks are insecure, greedy, dumb and lazy. It's no so much of a conspiracy, more of a daily desperate drip, drip of shite for the masses of modern 'fans' around the globe.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Some city fans will go to any means to try and prove an agenda doesn't exist.

The onus isn't on those who wish to disprove something - the burden of establishing proof is on those who assert something to be the truth.
That's how the legal system works.
That's how scientific theory works.
And you can't prove a negative anyway.
No mention of us again on the shipping forecast this morning, if you'd like to make a note.

FFS fetlocks , you're beginning to sound like Mr. Logic from Viz.
What do you want - a Leveson enquiry?
There's plenty of examples of agenda or bias (whatever YOU want to call it) against City in this thread.
Start a thread of your own with examples of pro City stories if you want to present the opposing argument.

Sorry if my use of logic offends, but that's what you tend to use when you seek to establish the truth.
You, on the other hand, are reduced to trawling through the media for ever-increasingly bizarre snippets of trivia that add up to the sum total of fuck all.
I have made you look foolish numerous times already on this thread, and the task is becoming wearisome by now, as you bring nothing new to the party.
I note that you have yet again moved the goalposts to 'agenda or bias' when I have never disputed bias - you really are becoming increasingly desperate, Len.
If it's all the same to you, I'll post what I like, when I like, where I like, and if you don't like it then frankly I couldn't care less.
Keep posting though, because you do provide me with a few laughs, albeit they are all at your expense.

 

[Bill]

funny as fuck this.

i can't see it so its not there.

ycmiu.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

i take it when you say media you mean more than the dying tabloids desperate for limited intellects to follow them.if that is so on the day of the super cup sky went with rooney getting the captains armband again a six hour love in ensued no other captain has had this .bias proved. uniteds biggest blow is sky losing coverage of the epl it limits the amount of pressure they can and have put on the epl and more importantly refs i stopped buying or going on the muen website because of bias and their mother paper both have improved of late. as for agendas that depends whether you have your head in a bucket of sand and do not believe religion has any part of the fa" s make up

 

[Len Rum]

The onus isn't on those who wish to disprove something - the burden of establishing proof is on those who assert something to be the truth.
That's how the legal system works.
That's how scientific theory works.
And you can't prove a negative anyway.
No mention of us again on the shipping forecast this morning, if you'd like to make a note.

FFS fetlocks , you're beginning to sound like Mr. Logic from Viz.
What do you want - a Leveson enquiry?
There's plenty of examples of agenda or bias (whatever YOU want to call it) against City in this thread.
Start a thread of your own with examples of pro City stories if you want to present the opposing argument.

Sorry if my use of logic offends, but that's what you tend to use when you seek to establish the truth.
You, on the other hand, are reduced to trawling through the media for ever-increasingly bizarre snippets of trivia that add up to the sum total of fuck all.
I have made you look foolish numerous times already on this thread, and the task is becoming wearisome by now, as you bring nothing new to the party.
I note that you have yet again moved the goalposts to 'agenda or bias' when I have never disputed bias - you really are becoming increasingly desperate, Len.
If it's all the same to you, I'll post what I like, when I like, where I like, and if you don't like it then frankly I couldn't care less.
Keep posting though, because you do provide me with a few laughs, albeit they are all at your expense.

OK fetlocks let's cut the crap.
You said you've never disputed 'bias'
So I assume you're disputing 'agenda'.
Could you please enlighten us as to why?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Bigenda.

 

[Len Rum]

Bigenda.

As in the bearing at the end each con rod in a car?
Or a large penis head?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Bigenda.

As in the bearing at the end each con rod in a car?
Or a large penis head?

Either. Both. I'm led to believe it's very much a personal thing.

 

[City Glory While Others Fade]

FFS fetlocks , you're beginning to sound like Mr. Logic from Viz.
What do you want - a Leveson enquiry?
There's plenty of examples of agenda or bias (whatever YOU want to call it) against City in this thread.
Start a thread of your own with examples of pro City stories if you want to present the opposing argument.

Sorry if my use of logic offends, but that's what you tend to use when you seek to establish the truth.
You, on the other hand, are reduced to trawling through the media for ever-increasingly bizarre snippets of trivia that add up to the sum total of fuck all.
I have made you look foolish numerous times already on this thread, and the task is becoming wearisome by now, as you bring nothing new to the party.
I note that you have yet again moved the goalposts to 'agenda or bias' when I have never disputed bias - you really are becoming increasingly desperate, Len.
If it's all the same to you, I'll post what I like, when I like, where I like, and if you don't like it then frankly I couldn't care less.
Keep posting though, because you do provide me with a few laughs, albeit they are all at your expense.

OK fetlocks let's cut the crap.
You said you've never disputed 'bias'
So I assume you're disputing 'agenda'.
Could you please enlighten us as to why?

I'd give up while you ahead.
I don't understand these city fans who can't see the media agenda yet take pleasure from trying to argue against it...you'd be put up against a wall and shot as a traitor in WWI for that that sort of behaviour!!

 

[Burtonblue]

Bigenda.

Is that the same as transsexual?

 

[Blue Mooner]

Sorry if my use of logic offends, but that's what you tend to use when you seek to establish the truth.
You, on the other hand, are reduced to trawling through the media for ever-increasingly bizarre snippets of trivia that add up to the sum total of fuck all.
I have made you look foolish numerous times already on this thread, and the task is becoming wearisome by now, as you bring nothing new to the party.
I note that you have yet again moved the goalposts to 'agenda or bias' when I have never disputed bias - you really are becoming increasingly desperate, Len.
If it's all the same to you, I'll post what I like, when I like, where I like, and if you don't like it then frankly I couldn't care less.
Keep posting though, because you do provide me with a few laughs, albeit they are all at your expense.

OK fetlocks let's cut the crap.
You said you've never disputed 'bias'
So I assume you're disputing 'agenda'.
Could you please enlighten us as to why?

I'd give up while you ahead.
I don't understand these city fans who can't see the media agenda yet take pleasure from trying to argue against it...you'd be put up against a wall and shot as a traitor in WWI for that that sort of behaviour!!

I think all but the most delusional city fan has conceded that there is a bias across most of the media, but for the odd pockets of virtue. (Martin Samuel being the most notable exception)

I think the disagreement now boils down to what can be classed as an 'agenda' and whether the bias that we see in the media, within governing bodies and through FFP constitutes an agenda.

 

[Len Rum]

FFS fetlocks , you're beginning to sound like Mr. Logic from Viz.
What do you want - a Leveson enquiry?
There's plenty of examples of agenda or bias (whatever YOU want to call it) against City in this thread.
Start a thread of your own with examples of pro City stories if you want to present the opposing argument.

Sorry if my use of logic offends, but that's what you tend to use when you seek to establish the truth.
You, on the other hand, are reduced to trawling through the media for ever-increasingly bizarre snippets of trivia that add up to the sum total of fuck all.
I have made you look foolish numerous times already on this thread, and the task is becoming wearisome by now, as you bring nothing new to the party.
I note that you have yet again moved the goalposts to 'agenda or bias' when I have never disputed bias - you really are becoming increasingly desperate, Len.
If it's all the same to you, I'll post what I like, when I like, where I like, and if you don't like it then frankly I couldn't care less.
Keep posting though, because you do provide me with a few laughs, albeit they are all at your expense.

OK fetlocks let's cut the crap.
You said you've never disputed 'bias'
So I assume you're disputing 'agenda'.
Could you please enlighten us as to why?

Silence
Calme
On n'entende rien
Que des branches.