The Agenda (Merged)

[aguero93:20]

Just watching MOTD, and they opened with various famous giantkilling clips (Sutton, Wrexham etc etc). And they didn't even have the decency to show Shrewsbury or Halifax's epic wins over us. The media ignoring us again, FFS. I'm going to write an angry letter to the Daily Mail about this. There's a definite agenda against us.

-Outraged from Mayo

Fixed.

 

[jimharri]

Just watching MOTD, and they opened with various famous giantkilling clips (Sutton, Wrexham etc etc). And they didn't even have the decency to show Shrewsbury or Halifax's epic wins over us. The media ignoring us again, FFS. I'm going to write an angry letter to the Daily Mail about this. There's a definite agenda against us.

-Outraged from Mayo

Fixed.

"Outraged from Moss Side/Longsight via Mayo".

Fixed yet again.

;-)

 

[Len Rum]

Just watching MOTD, and they opened with various famous giantkilling clips (Sutton, Wrexham etc etc). And they didn't even have the decency to show Shrewsbury or Halifax's epic wins over us. The media ignoring us again, FFS. I'm going to write an angry letter to the Daily Mail about this. There's a definite agenda against us.

weak.

 

[baildon blue]

just checking The Observer sports section this morning,
A total of nine of the 16 pages of the sports pull-out are devoted to football, with much of these nine pages focusing on the FA cup
with yesterdays match reports together with comment on todays 3rd round ties...Manchester City, the champions of england are not mentioned in any way shape or form whatsoever..very strange.

Got radio 5 on in the background, a similar approach with yesterdays talking points and todays ties discussed...over the last two hours again, no mention of the champions of england,not a single word.

OOPS, my mistake, Sir john Hall, the ex newcastle owner is being interviewed, and he has just said that he and his fellow owners could not compete with the foreign billionaire owners who have come in and taken over chelsea and manchester city,that they are ruining football.interesting point sir john, giiven that neither chelsea or City were under foreign billionaire ownership at the time he ran newcastle and enjoyed almost unfettered domination of the transfer league market, pumping millions into the geordies attempt to chase league titles and make an impression in europe-City and chelsea could not compete with Newcastle at a time they ruled the roost along with the rest of the elite in english football.

Sir john hall also failed to mention that Southampton in todays game have managed to make an impression amongst the big boys , rubbing shoulders with the foreign ownership that has supported Utd and liverpool in the modern game.

folk only see what they want to see.

Yes we must have been ruining football since 1955, the last time Newcastle won a domestic trophy. I must have imagined all those huge clubs which have won trophies since Newcastle like: Luton, Coventry, Ipswich, Leicester, Derby, Wigan, Wimbledon, Sheffield Wednesday, Blackburn, Southampton, Portsmouth and....Sunderland. People like Hall have made a lot of money off the back of Newcastle fans for decades. We suffered in the same way under Swales. Hall's comments are ludicrous but don't expect anyone in the media to challenge this well-worn narrative.

You didn't mention Oxford United .
League Cup winners in 1986

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Just watching MOTD, and they opened with various famous giantkilling clips (Sutton, Wrexham etc etc). And they didn't even have the decency to show Shrewsbury or Halifax's epic wins over us. The media ignoring us again, FFS. I'm going to write an angry letter to the Daily Mail about this. There's a definite agenda against us.

weak.

Not as weak as continually stating that there is a narrative against City, which proves the agenda, then saying that the agenda is confirmed because nobody is writing about City. Tautology of the first order!

 

[Sigh]

Just watching MOTD, and they opened with various famous giantkilling clips (Sutton, Wrexham etc etc). And they didn't even have the decency to show Shrewsbury or Halifax's epic wins over us. The media ignoring us again, FFS. I'm going to write an angry letter to the Daily Mail about this. There's a definite agenda against us.

weak.

Not as weak as continually stating that there is a narrative against City, which proves the agenda, then saying that the agenda is confirmed because nobody is writing about City. Tautology of the first order!

That's not tautological.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

weak.

Not as weak as continually stating that there is a narrative against City, which proves the agenda, then saying that the agenda is confirmed because nobody is writing about City. Tautology of the first order!

That's not tautological.

It's a rhetorical tautology in that; It is a logical argument constructed in such a way, generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different phrasing or terminology, that the proposition as stated is logically irrefutable, while obscuring the lack of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated conclusion. (A rhetorical tautology should not be confused with a tautology in propositional logic.)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Not as weak as continually stating that there is a narrative against City, which proves the agenda, then saying that the agenda is confirmed because nobody is writing about City. Tautology of the first order!

That's not tautological.

It's a rhetorical tautology in that; It is a logical argument constructed in such a way, generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different phrasing or terminology, that the proposition as stated is logically irrefutable, while obscuring the lack of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated conclusion. (A rhetorical tautology should not be confused with a tautology in propositional logic.)

A blended Scotch isn't a Whisky of the first order.

 

[waspish]

Not as weak as continually stating that there is a narrative against City, which proves the agenda, then saying that the agenda is confirmed because nobody is writing about City. Tautology of the first order!

That's not tautological.

It's a rhetorical tautology in that; It is a logical argument constructed in such a way, generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different phrasing or terminology, that the proposition as stated is logically irrefutable, while obscuring the lack of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated conclusion. (A rhetorical tautology should not be confused with a tautology in propositional logic.)

Hey?

 

[The perfect fumble]

Not as weak as continually stating that there is a narrative against City, which proves the agenda, then saying that the agenda is confirmed because nobody is writing about City. Tautology of the first order!

That's not tautological.

It's a rhetorical tautology in that; It is a logical argument constructed in such a way, generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different phrasing or terminology, that the proposition as stated is logically irrefutable, while obscuring the lack of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated conclusion. (A rhetorical tautology should not be confused with a tautology in propositional logic.)

"There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." - Oscar Wilde

Ergo, when they talk about us it's shit and when they don't talk about us it's shitier.