Pires back at Arsenal

[USMartin]

Actually the wall here is the Gooners who want to pretend that because the Board says money is available that proves they want it to be spent and aren't preventing that happening, and believe its all purely coincidental.

[mcdowell42]

Actually the wall here is the Gooners who want to pretend that because the Board says money is available that proves they want it to be spent and aren't preventing that happening, and believe its all purely coincidental.

I dont think you are getting through.

[brazilianGOONER]

Actually the wall here is the Gooners who want to pretend that because the Board says money is available that proves they want it to be spent and aren't preventing that happening, and believe its all purely coincidental.

maybe you didn't zee it like wenger, so i'm gonna enlarge it:

my dad taught me something very wise when i was a kid:

"it's no good talking to a wall, son. it just won't hear you"

it seems your dad didn't tell you that, g88ner

(just joking, USM!)

[marcengels]

my dad taught me something very wise when i was a kid:

"it's no good talking to a wall, son. it just won't hear you"

it seems your dad didn't tell you that, g88ner

(just joking, USM!)

You're dad wasn't Socrates, was he?

[flash gunner]

I sometimes wish i cared enough to get involved

Too busy watching Johnny Cash I guess

Maybe thats the problem

[brazilianGOONER]

my dad taught me something very wise when i was a kid:

"it's no good talking to a wall, son. it just won't hear you"

it seems your dad didn't tell you that, g88ner

(just joking, USM!)

You're dad wasn't Socrates, was he?

[Pilly]

my dad taught me something very wise when i was a kid:

"it's no good talking to a wall, son. it just won't hear you"

it seems your dad didn't tell you that, g88ner

(just joking, USM!)

You're dad wasn't Socrates, was he?

Or Garrincha?

[USMartin]

I sometimes wish i cared enough to get involved

Too busy watching Johnny Cash I guess

Maybe thats the problem

Nah watching the man in black is never a problem

[g88ner]

Actually the wall here is the Gooners who want to pretend that because the Board says money is available that proves they want it to be spent and aren't preventing that happening, and believe its all purely coincidental.

You're exaggerating people's views to make them look gormless and stupid.

You know full well that the vast majority of gooners feel that it's a combination of factors, such as financial constraints AND Wenger's desire to develop a team rather than buy a team, that has contributed to the lack of money spent (and yes, there's plenty of quotes from Wenger to back that theory up)

No one thinks it's "purely coincidental" - they just aren't willing to shift all blame onto the board. If you can't see the merits of that argument, then fair enough - just don't belittle it.

Next!

[brazilianGOONER]

Actually the wall here is the Gooners who want to pretend that because the Board says money is available that proves they want it to be spent and aren't preventing that happening, and believe its all purely coincidental.

You're exaggerating people's views to make them look gormless and stupid.

You know full well that the vast majority of gooners feel that it's a combination of factors, such as financial constraints AND Wenger's desire to develop a team rather than buy a team, that has contributed to the lack of money spent (and yes, there's plenty of quotes from Wenger to back that theory up)

No one thinks it's "purely coincidental" - they just aren't willing to shift all blame onto the board. If you can't see the merits of that argument, then fair enough - just don't belittle it.

Next!

a simple post that sums it all up

[USMartin]

Actually the wall here is the Gooners who want to pretend that because the Board says money is available that proves they want it to be spent and aren't preventing that happening, and believe its all purely coincidental.

You're exaggerating people's views to make them look gormless and stupid.

You know full well that the vast majority of gooners feel that it's a combination of factors, such as financial constraints AND Wenger's desire to develop a team rather than buy a team, that has contributed to the lack of money spent (and yes, there's plenty of quotes from Wenger to back that theory up)

No one thinks it's "purely coincidental" - they just aren't willing to shift all blame onto the board. If you can't see the merits of that argument, then fair enough - just don't belittle it.

Next!

I'm not I agree there are a wide range of views on these matters as you describe. My point is that the "wall' as it were is a specific group of a few Gooners who feel as I have stated. If you believe I was referrring to all Gooners who don't sahre my views that is simply incorrect though if I was not as clear as I should have been I was mistaken in not being clearer as well.

But there absolutely is this wall I refer to and as I describe it. I could even name the bricks in it if you like.

In the meantime though why haven't you addressed my question about the Board's use of fear-mongering in the wake of accusing me of engaging in it? I am really suprised by this.

[g88ner]

How is that scaremongering? I am asking them if they will show the same anger toward the Board they do the manager.

You asked a loaded question, and the way you presented the scenario was designed to limit the reply (yes, being the only reasonable answer) to one that suits your agenda - an agenda that focuses anger and complaint away from Wenger, and onto the board.

It's scaremongering because you've continually repeated this 'threat' again and again, without backing it up with proof and instead use a tactic of exaggeration and fear of what might happen (in your apocalyptic world where the board screw us over and leave us debt laden) to influence the views of others, and garner support. Repetition of this 'fear' is a well used tactic in scaremongering, and one you've used frequently.

What pray tell is scary about that? Unless in fact supporters are afraid to criticize the Board...

Another common, and underhanded, tactic.

It's clearly ridiculous to think people would be "afraid" to criticise the board, and I'm sure you know that. I could just as easily accuse you of being "afraid" to criticise Wenger, but I won't because it's just plain daft - you have an opinion, as do others, and that doesn't mean you're "afraid" of the alternative. To rhetorically pose such a question is a cheap shot to help present other people's arguments to appear ridiculous. You're effectively attempting to mock them.

But its especially ludicrous when compared to Board members repeatedly raising the spectre of Leeds and Pompey to justify not investing more in the football team when we clearly could afford to invest more money without risking ending up in that horrific situation. Given that that situation would in fact actually scare many Gooners, myself included how can you call falsely suggesting that is an inevitability or even a likelihood if more money invested in the football team any thing other than absolute scaremongering and fear tactics?

Agreed - Wenger and the board have misled us on numerous matters for years!

And given that what the Board is engaging in is undeniable scaremongering by any standard how can you sincerely compare my question to that?

I've never made such a comparison.

[USMartin]

You asked a loaded question, and the way you presented the scenario was designed to limit the reply (yes, being the only reasonable answer)

NOT AT ALL. I simply see a clear reluctance to criticize the Board with the same intensity as the manager when frankly it’s highly debatable just who is responsible for these policies. If you offer the presumption of innocence to one side why impose the presumption of guilt on the other. As SAFC suggested in the poll about is Mr Wenger a c**t maybe the Board are the ones who should be addressed as c**ts.

I don’t believe either should be. I just find it very questionable that some Gooners are willing to aim far more vitriol at the manager then the Board. That was the whole point of the question. As you demonstrate below you have read way too much into my points here.

to one that suits your agenda - an agenda that focuses anger and complaint away from Wenger, and onto the board.

This simply not true. I simply want to the team back in the right direction. If I thought Arsene Wenger was refusing to spmnd money made available to him to strengthen the team as the Board has implied every year since 2005, I would be happy to support the Board sacking him and appointing someone willing to spend the extra money available to them to gehuinely try to return the team to where it was from 1998-2005. I would have no problem with that.

I simply don’t believe that is the case and that the Board has basically paid Mr. Wenger not spend in recent years and to basically take the heat for them. I posted in reply nine years worth of misleading comments from multiple Board members about how there would be no change in how we invested in the football team – if anything one Board suggested there would be even more investment in the team going forward – and I think I have presented plenty of evidence to support the questions I have raised. Just not some “smoking gunâ€

[USMartin]

It's scaremongering because you've continually repeated this 'threat' again and again, without backing it up with proof and instead use a tactic of exaggeration and fear of what might happen (in your apocalyptic world where the board screw us over and leave us debt laden) to influence the views of others, and garner support. Repetition of this 'fear' is a well used tactic in scaremongering, and one you've used frequently.

You mean like Peter Hill-Wood has continually done when he suggests that spending more money will lead to us ending up like Leeds? That kind of scaremongering? Or is it different for the Board to do it – again.

[USMartin]

Another common, and underhanded, tactic. It's clearly ridiculous to think people would be "afraid" to criticise the board, and I'm sure you know that. I could just as easily accuse you of being "afraid" to criticise Wenger, but I won't because it's just plain daft - you have an opinion, as do others, and that doesn't mean you're "afraid" of the alternative. To rhetorically pose such a question is a cheap shot to help present other people's arguments to appear ridiculous. You're effectively attempting to mock them.

Again I just don’t understand the open hostility toward the manager being so muted toward the Board when its unclear at best who is responsible for our decline since 2005 and who has been misleading about what is happening or why. Especially reading the following:

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/ ... 97910.html?
'For years we have no money. Now we have money and we cannot find players to buy'
So we have proof the Board have misled us – you even agree they have . So why do you seem so put off by asking why people are willing to be use just rude and obscene language toward the manager but not the Board. Sorry but I just get that behavior – or your reaction to questioning it. I mean. Unless you believe the manager is lying, which could be true – but why would the Board not sack him immedaitely for effectively calling them liars, then?

Again – I just don’t get the will to blame Mr. Wenger without irrefutable proof justifying that or the vitiriol that follows and the reticence to apprach the Board the same way

I wouldn’t mock anyone about this because that implies it’s a laughing matter and the furture of Arsenal whatever we may believe is anything but a laughing matter.