The Gooner Forum

There is no defensive ploy you took sonething out of context deliberately because that's easier than telling truth for you.

And don't accuse me of abusing everyone mate. The only abusive or oscene language I have directly at some is you - and you have justified it every bit both when it happened and after the fact. You're just a gutless creep who only cares about being honest and honorable when it suits him.

I don't need to hide behind anyone. You're just someone who will say anything when they can't just win an argument based on the facts, and apprently quite proud of showing such slack ethics and morals in your charecter. Good for you you're proud to be a prick. How nice.

Maybe you'll get me banned - but you'll still be you and can't change that - game set and match to me even if I get banned because better that then have to know I was a person who treated other people as you do.

Well, much as I have enjoyed discussing Liverpool's toxicity, I am now going to visit Uncle Ned.

Hasta luego, peeps.

Oops.....didn't switch off in time

Bollocks.

I don't want you banned, Martin.

And thanks for calling me a prick. Makes a change.

QuartzGooner wrote: USMartin.

So I have not mentioned every detail of the scheme.
But that is not an intentional "witholding of information".
Of course there is a difference in how the schemes were paid for, but I consider that difference a technicality.
The impact of borrowing a huge amount of money, redeveloping Highbury,and paying it back, cannot in my opinion, be fully judged straight away.
Especially when the club is paying back the new stadium bond over many years too.

A technicality? You mean like the technicality that allowed the Bush Administration to continue to insist Iraq had to be invaded because it jhasd weapons of mass destruction when it had inofrmation that in fact Iraq did not have those weapons

Or a technicality like when the Bush Administration continued to make a case that Iraq was involed in 9/11 when it had information that proved Iraq was not?

That sort of techincaility?

Quartz I do understand why you are offended by being called dishonest. What I don't understand is why you aren't offended by being dishonest.

All you have to do is make the argument you make above after disclosing this "technicality" about the difference in how they were paid and I will withdrew my criticims of that argument as dishonest so long as you present the argument that way. If you choose not tpresent it that way you choose to be dishonest and deserve to be called dishonest.

USMartin

How on earth can you compare the Iraq War with the Arsenal Stadium redevelopment!

You wonder why people dislike you, re-read your above post.

A difference of opinion is what it is.

But then you start throwing around labels like "Dishonesty".

You make some good points, but ruin them by these, "Accusations",
How can anyone take you seriously if you do that?

I still do not know why you were banned from another Forum, but if you were posting there in the style that you post here, I can understand why they would ban you.

QuartzGooner wrote: USMartin

How on earth can you compare the Iraq War with the Arsenal Stadium redevelopment! .

You wonder why people dislike you, re-read your above post. .

Quartz all that is being declared in fact is the - or your personal - concept of a technicality. Get real here.



A difference of opinion is what it is.

No it would be a difference of opinion if presented this

QuartzGooner wrote: Of course there is a difference in how the schemes were paid for, but I consider that difference a to be secondary. The impact of borrowing a huge amount of money, redeveloping Highbury, and then paying it back, cannot in my opinion, be fully judged straight away.

That would not be right in my view but it would be an honest expression of a contrary opinion. I could not question anything other than whether in fact that is correct and certainly could not question your honesty or candor.

QuartzGooner wrote: But then you start throwing around labels like "Dishonesty".

And when you refuse to include those details it is dishonesty, especially when its pointed out that you should and you refuse to then defend this by acting like its some mere technicality and has no possible relevance of any sort

QuartzGooner wrote: You make some good points, but ruin them by these, "Accusations",
How can anyone take you seriously if you do that?

Ah yes the dad defence

Son: Dad can I borrow the car for the weekend
Dad: No son
Son: You Suck dad
Dad; And that’s why I’m not letting you use it, son

I’m sorry Quartz but while I have never let you get away with a cheap point, the truth is long before I was making these or any other accusations you were fighting me with the same energy and defending the Board with same passion as now. So come on, mate.

QuartzGooner wrote: I still do not know why you were banned from another Forum, but if you were posting there in the style that you post here, I can understand why they would ban you.

Actually its kind of like that little play above. I mean to say that even the moderators could find no forum rules I actually broke but chose to take action anyway and its when I challenged them on why they were taking action given that they knew no forum rules were broken they used my refusal to just accept their decision to punish me given that fact as justification to act (so I guess we’ll know what happens to me next) to ban me..

Basically I was arrested without justification then when I reacted badly to one of the cops at the station they booked me for that instead.

Basically some people objected to my views or how I presented them and they had support from or the ear of a couple of moderators who took the action. As Isay and this is indsutable the majority of forum regulars were strongly opposed and this opposition persisted after my departure on a number of occasions and can still flare up.

As I say a moderator confirmed I had broken no actual forum rules and even referred to their intention to revise the rules becauiuse of what happened to me the actual rules reamin the same as they were then and as far as I know all the way back to the forum's creation. Which to me says a lot about just how serious the need to act against me even though no forum rules had ever been broken by me.

One more thing to note is that while initially the moderator (if you read the forum at all it'd be easy to figure out who we are discussing)who pressed this action was quite up-front about what he was doing and why and perhaps felt the move was supported by the forum members as soon as several members challenged this action it was determined the matter was private and that forum members had no right to know what was happening or to express any opinion of it or why which only heightened their anger about the matter.

Quartz and others. you might aswell give up have a read(it's a long read)

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthre ... tin+Daoust

You can search 'just saying something isnt right' as well on the same forum

it is like a blue print for what has been going on on this site and having read some of the other posts on the other sites he suggested it appears to be the same there aswell.

Oh and Martin before you bang on about me miss reading the posts I have just spent two hours reading through these sites and I can fully understand why eventually you get banned. You do turn to personal attacks on people who do not take with your point of view. You constantly repeat post after post after post. You do open new threads just to continue your argument that have been argued long and hard to which you do not like the answers and so start again seemingly hoping that posters have forgotten what you have posted previously.

I have read the Steve Gleiber forum and it seems you got yourself in an argument with one of the mods and when it was suggested away of keeping you on the board you spat your dummy out and went crying to Mrs Gleiber who by reading the letter you recived gave no backing to you but just left it up to the board mods to deal with.

This seem to me to be an unhealthy obsession(says me who has just spent the morning reading through 100's of posts!!!!!!!) and almost addictive to you.

Please stop posting so many posts about the board there are many other things Arsenal and non Arsenal related to discuss on this forum it would be a shame that in the end you were to become ignored or even worse banned for something

stg wrote:Quartz and others. you might aswell give up have a read(it's a long read)

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthre ... tin+Daoust

You can search 'just saying something isnt right' as well on the same forum

it is like a blue print for what has been going on on this site and having read some of the other posts on the other sites he suggested it appears to be the same there aswell.

Oh and Martin before you bang on about me miss reading the posts I have just spent two hours reading through these sites and I can fully understand why eventually you get banned. You do turn to personal attacks on people who do not take with your point of view. You constantly repeat post after post after post. You do open new threads just to continue your argument that have been argued long and hard to which you do not like the answers and so start again seemingly hoping that posters have forgotten what you have posted previously.

I have read the Steve Gleiber forum and it seems you got yourself in an argument with one of the mods and when it was suggested away of keeping you on the board you spat your dummy out and went crying to Mrs Gleiber who by reading the letter you recived gave no backing to you but just left it up to the board mods to deal with.

This seem to me to be an unhealthy obsession(says me who has just spent the morning reading through 100's of posts!!!!!!!) and almost addictive to you.

Please stop posting so many posts about the board there are many other things Arsenal and non Arsenal related to discuss on this forum it would be a shame that in the end you were to become ignored or even worse banned for something

Again Stg - my advice for you would be to learn the details before speaking out of turn.


The probl;em is that when people decide they don't like certain views they treat other people differently than they would if they post views they like.

That is natural and perfectly reasonable.

However its different when moderators get involved. Sincve you have chosen again to engage in this short of shoddy and slective reporting of details, I feel its only fair that I clarify a few things.

Fiest of all that in over seven months of the that debate I did not receive any disciplinary action or warning from moderators. Save for one that was twithdrawn because another moderator reviewed the situation and detemined the action taken against me was unjustified and the moderator in question was punishing me for my views.

His replacement however ended up well , let's note this. Before he bacame a moderator this was the kind of stuff he would asay(in PMs of course - real courage of his convictions type- would fit in well with some here unfortunately)"Eat shit and die you pathetic twat", and he was expected to modertae emotional debates with a hint of objectivity. Well he was trusted to anyway, and wiythin one week after seven months without anythuing but one warning that was removed by other modertaors i had foru warnings all from this very objective fellow.

Why I was banned had nothing to do with my conduct in the forum - but oustide . Ironically enough I was banned in effect trying to prevent my banning. I took my case to have this modertaor removed or at least admonished for his administering his personal feelings before the forum rules. Apparently this violated some arcane rule about personally complaining against other forum members. Which was not what I was doing - this was a moderator using his authority againsyt me because he peronally disliked my views and was acting against me based on that - but that was the determination that was made. Indeed I'm not suere it was ever formally said I was banned by anybody - I still can use the PM functions and and my homepage, and the sole refernce by anyone to waht happened was vague remark about a month later about my absence.

It's a shame you feel its alright to provide details that suit your interest without knowing all the details or choosing not to post all the details you do know iif they don't support your case. And it's your choice to do that. And that means no matter how you try to justify or rationalize it it says far more about you and your personal conduct and ethics than you can hope to say about me or mine in the end. I don't even have to go out and try to prove it by cherry-picking details that suit my opion and posting them and avoiding posting the info I don't want to. I can just say loook at what you choose to post and how you choose to post. And make no mistake its your choice. You're adult now. Big boys don't blame other people for how they choose to act.

And even iif no one else here will tell you that for any number opf reasons, you know it because you know yourself better than anyone else.

BY the way my addiction clealry seems every bit your addiction to. But again that's your choice. I'm not going to let pusss out and say it's anyone else's fault. You just can't live with views you don't like and like the courage to just say that, because well its easier to attack others when you're the victim.

But like I say you're just revealing what kind of people you really are in the end. Of course you'll blame someone else - in the case me, because I'll doubt people like you and olgit take responsibility for your conduct ever. Someone else always makes you do it.

Indeed I could even say that sounds like some psycholgical disorder where you can't control your actions and maybe you listen to voices telling you waht to do, but I'm no therapist and It would irresposible to pretend otherwise, and I know better. You choose to do these things and act this way toward people who don''t think the way you want. No makes you and olgit who you are or do what you do but the two of you.

So this basically in the end is who you are when it suits you to be. Turth and ethics are meaningless to you when defending your vision of how things ought to be. You are like Sir Alex Ferguson shameless about winning any way you can happy to accept trophies you know you didn't earn and to cheat wherever you have to when its easier then hard work.

Your philosophy that drives yourr actions - at least those I have seen is "It's gotta work better than the truth" How proud this must make you. The only thing more shameful would be if that in fact did make you proud.

Thanks for the heads up STG.

USMartin

So with you it all comes down to, "People who defend the board, or who do not back my campaign for more openness from the board, are bad people who are dishonest".

I just think you have a personality that fixates on one thing.
Either that or talking about the Arsenal Board on Forums is your hobby.

You could have written academic articles on "The Use of perspective in the paintings of Hieronymous Bosch",

Or a series of reports on "Road surface problems in the Tri-State Area"

Or a website about "Nationalist aspirations in Tajikstan".

For some reason you have chosen the Arsenal Board.



Quiz show Mastermind is brought back to BBC1.
I can see it now.
Hosted by ex world's strongest man Magnus ver Magnusson (Magnus Magnusson having passed away a few years ago).

Contestants:

Name: Mr ****
Specialist Subject: Whitstable

Name: BrazilianGooner
Specialist Subject: Ladyboys of Brazil

Name: DB10Gooner
Specialist Subject: Looking Up at The World

Name: US Martin
Specialist Subject: The Arsenal Board 2005+

Winner - MR ****!

Not for me to say you can or cannot talk about it but having read a load of your posts, I do not think your excessive debates are healthy or constructive or productive for yourself or the others lured into taking part.

Oh one last thought.

Here's good question - what exactly has changed since then in the club's policies. What's changed since 2007? What's changed since 2006? Seriously tell me what's changed in our policies since then. You're right I have questioned this since 2005 and kept questioning. What geunine answers do we have now that we didn't have then? Or didn't you notice that.

Nothing bar the criticism levelled at the club be it at the manager, the Board or both.

And even then you are correct a majority - albeit significantly smaller than you'd have us believe - still tend to be behind the Board or at least unwilling to seek further information about the reality of what is happening and why.

The fact is if things continue this way you'll be in the minority soon. At which point you'll do the surrender-monkey thing and instead of fighting for what you believe you'll join everyone esle and pretend you were always with them. Once again - it works better than the truth.

QuartzGooner wrote:...

Quiz show Mastermind is brought back to BBC1.
I can see it now.
Hosted by ex world's strongest man Magnus ver Magnusson (Magnus Magnusson having passed away a few years ago).

Contestants:

Name: Mr ****
Specialist Subject: Whitstable

Name: BrazilianGooner
Specialist Subject: Ladyboys of Brazil

Name: DB10Gooner
Specialist Subject: Looking Up at The World

Name: US Martin
Specialist Subject: The Arsenal Board 2005+

Winner - MR ****!

......

QuartzGooner wrote:

flash gunner wrote:can we stop the bullshit on here lads.....????? USmartin you have to accept people dont agree or dont want to go along with your view on the board of Arsenal but also it seems everyone else is bumming eachother up to have digs at USMartin ie quartz is winning the boxing match, quality posts or animations that depict Martin but not Quartz or oldgit etc etc etc....

Now i have nothing against USMartin, Quartz, olgit or anyone else on here but its becoming quite tedious and im suprised you all havent got better things to do

Sorry Flash but there is no notion of us wanting to join up for digs at USMartin.

His argument style, and his accusations of others "withholding information" to deceive other posters, or to simply win an argument with him, is not cool, and it has to be dealt with.

Him and I have something in common in that we both use quite long posts, argue hard, and keep arguing a point when many would have stopped, all of which can wind others up.

But I like to think I argue to the point, but I believe it has been USMartin's habit to split hairs.
Or turn a discussion into an argument about people deceiving others, or into an argument about the very framework of the argument, that has wound up a number of posters.
Good posters, who add to the Forum.

It has to be dealt with or various people will continue to take issue with Martin and his argument techniques, rather than the subject matter/issues of his post.
They will see him as WUM, and if he is genuinely not one, he needs to change the way he writes and how he speaks to people.

Sorry Quartz but by the way i read it there seemed to be an element of ganging up on USMartin, all patting eachother on the back about funnies etc and then laying into him with the next one.... Maybe i got it wrong just saying how it read to me

USMartin wrote:Oh one last thought.

Here's good question - what exactly has changed since then in the club's policies. What's changed since 2007? What's changed since 2006? Seriously tell me what's changed in our policies since then. You're right I have questioned this since 2005 and kept questioning. What geunine answers do we have now that we didn't have then? Or didn't you notice that.

Nothing bar the criticism levelled at the club be it at the manager, the Board or both.

And even then you are correct a majority - albeit significantly smaller than you'd have us believe - still tend to be behind the Board or at least unwilling to seek further information about the reality of what is happening and why.

The fact is if things continue this way you'll be in the minority soon. At which point you'll do the surrender-monkey thing and instead of fighting for what you believe you'll join everyone esle and pretend you were always with them. Once again - it works better than the truth.

Well said Martin