|
Post by John Lennon on Jan 4, 2011 0:31:39 GMT
Ive posted this elsewhere, but feel this needs to be said.
Dont knock Oxford fans who pay good money, go home and away every week, and have an opinion when we lose. We all come from different walks of life and deal with things differently. This is a forum, where opinions are given, and rightly so. If things arent good, why cant peope have a moan?? Sometimes they are right. Just because people are negative, when they have reason to be, doesnt mean they are anti Oxford United
|
|
|
Post by 'Beav' on Jan 4, 2011 0:34:08 GMT
I think the point is they are 'overly negative' when they think they have reason to be when they don't.
lordwilliam for example... seen that thread where he's the biggest doom mongerer in the world?
|
|
|
Post by chippy on Jan 4, 2011 8:50:39 GMT
I think the point is they are 'overly negative' when they think they have reason to be when they don't. lordwilliam for example... seen that thread where he's the biggest doom mongerer in the world? Good thread that one. Opinions are what a forum is all about. But I'll repeat myself when I say that no-one on here is made of teflon. We can all be singled out for flak if we are spouting one opinion in November and then totally changing our stance a week later. Also, when criticised, resorting to personal insults rather than offering a decent reply. (Lord William)
|
|
|
Post by ox4eva on Jan 4, 2011 8:56:43 GMT
Letds share our opinions, although some do post a lot of crap Enjoy, you could be dead tomorrow...
|
|
|
Post by bobster on Jan 4, 2011 9:01:15 GMT
Presumably that also goes for not knocking those who have more optimistic views. There have been equally scathing attacks on 'disciples' of Chris Wilder.
|
|
|
Post by Gavin Archery on Jan 4, 2011 9:06:26 GMT
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. This is a forum for the exchange of opinions and facts. Mustn't confuse opinion with fact. My opinion is OUFC are the greatest. Fact is we are not. :-(
|
|
|
Post by YellowHoods on Jan 4, 2011 9:06:56 GMT
I think the point is they are 'overly negative' when they think they have reason to be when they don't. lordwilliam for example... seen that thread where he's the biggest doom mongerer in the world? So who decides when a particular opinion trips over that invisible line from just "negative" to "overly negative"? Who decides what degree of negativity is acceptable? I suggest we don't get precious over other people's opinions. Let Paul Ayres, lord william, Uncle Tom Cobley and all say what they like. If you strongly disagree you can say what you like back to them. If you really want to go down the road of "judging" comments, then there's only one person entitled to do so - East Stand Boy. It's his forum. It's not a democratic organisation with elected officers and we don't even pay a subscription, so talk of having a "right" to do or say anything is nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by peterdevo on Jan 4, 2011 9:20:41 GMT
We all have opinions and so long as they are put across without verbal abuse that should not be a problem. I don't see every game and have my own opinions. I saw the goals on Sky at atorquay and thought our finishing for once was exceptional. Jacks third goal in particular was superb. If that is lack of creativity as I saw mentioned earlier, bring it on
|
|
|
Post by Gavin Archery on Jan 4, 2011 9:23:30 GMT
I think VAT is a tax on us all.
I think Bale is the best player Spurs have had since Hoddle.
I think Sepp Blatter should be removed from office. Biggest knob since John Holmes.
|
|
|
Post by Yellow River on Jan 4, 2011 9:37:39 GMT
I think the point is they are 'overly negative' when they think they have reason to be when they don't. lordwilliam for example... seen that thread where he's the biggest doom mongerer in the world? So who decides when a particular opinion trips over that invisible line from just "negative" to "overly negative"? Who decides what degree of negativity is acceptable? I suggest we don't get precious over other people's opinions. Let Paul Ayres, lord william, Uncle Tom Cobley and all say what they like. If you strongly disagree you can say what you like back to them. If you really want to go down the road of "judging" comments, then there's only one person entitled to do so - East Stand Boy. It's his forum. It's not a democratic organisation with elected officers and we don't even pay a subscription, so talk of having a "right" to do or say anything is nonsense. Perhaps stepping over the 'invisible line' is when someone posts personal abuse, such as "you silly Cnut"
|
|
|
Post by YellowHoods on Jan 4, 2011 9:46:45 GMT
So who decides when a particular opinion trips over that invisible line from just "negative" to "overly negative"? Who decides what degree of negativity is acceptable? I suggest we don't get precious over other people's opinions. Let Paul Ayres, lord william, Uncle Tom Cobley and all say what they like. If you strongly disagree you can say what you like back to them. If you really want to go down the road of "judging" comments, then there's only one person entitled to do so - East Stand Boy. It's his forum. It's not a democratic organisation with elected officers and we don't even pay a subscription, so talk of having a "right" to do or say anything is nonsense. Perhaps stepping over the 'invisible line' is when someone posts personal abuse, such as "you silly Cnut" Abuse is not opinion. It's abuse.
|
|
|
Post by Yellow River on Jan 4, 2011 10:01:07 GMT
Perhaps stepping over the 'invisible line' is when someone posts personal abuse, such as "you silly Cnut" Abuse is not opinion. It's abuse. True YH. It that case overly negative or positive opinions for that matter are reasonable on a forum but personal abuse is not. However is there an invisible line for personal abuse? For example is calling someone silly or stupid on a forum reasonable? IMO it's probably OK, whereas calling someone a Cnut is not.
|
|
|
Post by hairy on Jan 4, 2011 10:04:05 GMT
So people are not allowed to disagree with one another? Maybe people should stop being so soft and learn to take a bit of abuse, it is only a few words on a computer screen. If you dont want people to disagree with what you write dont post anything, publish and be damned and all that shite.
|
|
|
Post by YellowHoods on Jan 4, 2011 10:14:15 GMT
Abuse is not opinion. It's abuse. However is there an invisible line for personal abuse? For example is calling someone silly or stupid on a forum reasonable? IMO it's probably OK, whereas calling someone a Cnut is not. Interesting point. I think it's alright to call someone a moronic, retarded c*nt if you insert a smiley afterwards. That makes it sort of ironic and cosy.
|
|
|
Post by Potters Right Boot on Jan 4, 2011 10:14:49 GMT
My 'opinion' is that this forum has gone down the toilet.
|
|
|
Post by malcolmnl on Jan 4, 2011 11:32:29 GMT
Sticks and stones etc.
I think that there are some real w@nkers on this forum. Some of you think the same or worse of me. So what? It won't kill me to be called a name in the heat of a discussion. Just hope that when the alcohol has been flushed that sense prevails.
Facts are facts and must be correct. Opinions are personal and should be respected even when in total disagreement.
I accept being called an idiot, fool or bighead or anything like that. We all should. What is not acceptable is too much swearing when directed at a person.
|
|
|
Post by fantasticmrox on Jan 4, 2011 12:26:58 GMT
Sorry but I don't agree with such "everyone is entitled to their opinion" rubbish.
The fact is, a lot of people have opinions that are ill-informed and I don't see why their voices deserved to be heard above those who actually know what they are talking about.
I think the following quote from Harlan Ellison sums it up quite nicely:
"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."
Quite.
|
|
|
Post by yelloexile on Jan 4, 2011 12:36:58 GMT
If there wasn't a difference of opinion there'd be no debate.
FMO sums it up well. There's a difference between opinion, and trying to pass off opinion and speculation as fact - such as claims of dressing room unrest etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by YellowHoods on Jan 4, 2011 13:09:44 GMT
I found FMO's post one of the most thought-provoking for ages. Not sure I quite agree with it though. Collin's dictionary definition of "opinion" is -
"Belief not founded on certainty or proof, but on what seems probable."
So, for example, I'm entitled to say my opinion is that Constable, Midson or Craddock will end up top scorer this season. That's probable, but not certain as it's a future event and anything could happen to our squad. I would say I'm entitled to that opinion, however uninspiring it may be as a debating point. So am I entitled to it under FMO's logic, or would it be considered uninformed because so much could change, and I don't know what those changes might be?
Debate, if you can be bothered.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Jan 4, 2011 13:20:46 GMT
Yeah but that's just one opinion about what opinion means; here's dictionary.com:
o·pin·ion –noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
There's 4 others.
Probability (IMHO) hasn't anything to do with it, it's just what a person thinks.
|
|