Officially the most fascinating club in the country - FC Twente [R]

They went away without signing because his agent wasn't there. You urged him to sign without his agent, that's why they're mad.

 

That's why they feel they were pressured according to what I've read in Sweden. He was probably only there to negeotiate and how is he supposed to sign with no legal representation?

Twente has done Stam dirty recently so this wouldn't be the first time you were in conflict over/with a player, seems to happen a lot lately (with Janssen the most recent).

Did Munstermann really say that about the agent? Interesting.. lol.

 

You should know this, but allow me to inform you lol,

Twente still owe Stam some money and he called Munsterman a "pathetic figure" only a few weeks ago for things he said about Ronnie after he had left. Let's say they weren't really positive.

I think Guidetti can be a big hit in Holland, but it's not looking good for you.

 

I donot know if it is a deviation in your mind or if it is a trick you learned in your debating club, but you even after being told you do it a few posts ago keep on doing it, namely ignoring what I precisely put in debate and make up something in your own mind to attack and than pretend as if it is my opinion you attack. You time after time do it and even when it must be clear to you by now that we look through it you stubbornly keep on playing the same trick.
But I put you on my ignore list first and formost after your below the belt punch and second because I've had enough of your constant deliberate misinterpretation of what people's points of view are.
FC Twente has a warm spot inside me since Dick van Dijk scored a hattrick against Ajax in the 5-0 trashing, but your constant speeding of the track when it is about Twente players or Twente it self makes me sick.

 

Fey is right, you're always misleading in discussions lol. You ask me about Stam and when I responded you stray away and make it about me instead just like you did with Fey by calling him xenophobic.

All the Munsterman badmouthing has been done by your ex players Elia, Stam and Janssen so I don't really see the need to bring up Ajax like you do with a lot of topics.

I really thought that Koeman wanted the job, but with Adriaanse all of a sudden the favourite might indicate that Ronald had allegedly turned you down. Be honest, someone like Hitzfeld never really was in the picture was he?

 

hey, I put johan neeskens on ignore, but I still see her posts?

edit: ok it works now

 

It's called denial--and it's not a river in Egypt --

this is the strong belief that outside of Ajax-PSV and Feyenoord no other team matters or even exists except to make these 3 look better--this is the belief and no other team really matters

Hey if AZ or Twente win it well--reality hits them in the head--but it must be a minor aberration and the best team did not win that year

Now that Ajax has won again for the first time in 7 years we can go back to our reality and every other team is unworthy of any credibility

the truth is 90% of the folks here are fans of these 3 teams so the fact that this board is biased is because of population following this board

This is based on the history of the Eredivisie--it's really a shame that there is no even playing field in football and the large teams will always have the edge

 

There is expressing opinions with arguments on a subject and there are fallacies especially fallacies of the lowest form, as guild by association to smear people and their position with loaded people and terms. The first one is a healthy exchange to find a deeper truth about a certain subject and gain progress in our collective thought process on this board. The second one is to blur the truth on the matter and to distract people from the debate to fit your own agenda. In the first one people exercise honesty in the second one dishonesty. In the first one people have a curious approach towards other debaters and are happy when the others expand their thinking, in the second one people have tunnel vision, try to corner people with things they didn't say and pretty much only attack. They only attack, to prevent from saying to much, as they are afraid to get caught. Caught? Yes. They are victim from their own mindset, as just winning was their goal all along. The person with the curious approach happily shares how he is reasoning, as then people can make the steps with him and point out to him where he might go wrong, if that is the case. In that way, either the curious person or his fellow debaters have always learned something from the exchange, as that was his main goal. People here can judge, who was more characterized by the first approach and who by the second in this last debate.

I remember a game, Italy vs Holland, where after the game you went on the Italian message board. An Italian poster over there, abused a picture of a women that was victim of domestic violence to make fun of you in a distasteful way. You raised the issue at customer service in the light of sexism on Big soccer and rightfully so. Abusing victims to make fun on a message board or abusing victims because it fits your agenda is maybe just as distasteful. Trowing in those little casual remarks, as ''20th century history'' and ''xenophobia'', just shows how far you are prepared to go to smear other people in an exchange. You can also say, it shows how careless you in fact are about those people who have suffered so much in our history. As long as you can win an argument, with abusing them in a debate where it's totally uncalled for, it's oke. The fact whether you do this in a ''pious fraud'' kind of way, where the end justifies the means and you think your hart is on the right place or not is irrelevant. In that case, tossing around those remarks in an inappropriate discussions for it, erodes the meaning of their suffering and importance. I don't think people making more apathetic for those time periods by misusing them in a damn football debate shows any kind of awareness and respect to the groups that have been victim in 20th century European history.

I think you should have stopped with you first sentence to Feyenoordsoccerfan. Those last two sentences sound more like justifications for what you did and making it almost like, it is a problem that he should get used to, when he operates on a message board. Really? No. His intuition and judgement on the matter is correct. His action to distence himself from you is appropriate. I have come to known Feyenoordsoccerfan as somebody who prides himself to be in the company of multiple female's in daily life, throwing in humor where he can, fan of his club, supporter of Clockwork Orange, but above all else, he has been the main defender of the Dutch youth system on this Dutch board. When I was still thinking like..."oh well, young Dutch kids getting used to English competition early on can be a good thing'', he rejected that notion completely long ago and rightfully so. That's why you smearing his position as ''xenophobia'' is not just a mischaracterization, but a petty character assassination attempt. You have been posting with him for 4 or 5 years now and I can totally understand how this remark must have given him a bad taste in his mouth, as it did with me. This recent discussion crossed exactly his years old mantra about Dutch youth development that is purely sport related and I got it in a split second what he said and where he was coming from, as it is in line with his total body of work.

I will try to end with a positive note, that I think it was mature of you to offer excuses, however I want to remind you that offering those, while continuing to use the fallacies "guild by association'' and the ''straw man'' will in fact only accelerate the distrust between you and him and others. The fallacies have been pointed out to you, time and again and so continuing to use them starts showing evil intend. The fact you have been member of a debating club, makes believing in innocence and ignorance a bloody hard task. If the intend is there it is not a sign of strength but one off shallowness and weakness. A sign of hopelessly mixing up settings and purpose. This board is a different set up, that gives room to people to expand their thinking without a clock ticking that forces people to speak in soundbites. Getting this and changing your approach from having an own agenda to being curious, results in total different discussions.


Cheers

 

You are responsible for what you type and after many posts, a certain style of reasoning can be seen. In this case a fallacious one that is. That you can't see a logical reason, does not justify the use for guild by association in any way and that was Feyenoordsoccerfans point. So full stop there. He thought it was under the belt and it was. The only one that was not prepared to expand her thought process, kept restating something that was not debated and refused to answer questions, was you. For you to call upon logic is .... disturbing to say the least. We haven't been able to touch on each others logic fully because 95% of my energy went to restoring the clear picture of the debate, you systematically blurred. I hope you realize by saying you respect my opinion you say you will look again at it. re-spect (Latin: look again at it). Yes I will look at yours again, but the difference is I have addressed every single sentence you have typed, while you have responded on less than 40% of mine and then i'm being generous. But this wasn't about me, but about another poster you have known for about 5 years and who dis trussed you know. You apologizing to him, implies future self control and thoughtfulness. Hope your word means something so trust can return slowly.

 

LOL. I don't understand why some of you feel like your responses need to be addressed every single f&*$!g bit of it... Who the hell are you? You don't pay for that kind of service in this board. Even my 2-year old niece knows she's not getting anything she wants. Geez, for pete's sake, we are having informal conversations here. You are not in the the death-penalty court. What if you logic is false every now and then, who cares, chill down.. there are other serious problems to solve, hey how about that world's financial meltdown, eh?

 

Stam sued Twente because you neglected to pay what he was due.

http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/voetbal/fctwente/9795308/__Stam__Rechtszaak_tegen_Twente__.html

 

This is life at the top. If, as you predict, Twente is going to be a regular placeholder at the top of the table then Twente fans need to stop with the victim mentality and get used to being the target of abuse. When you're a plucky underdog, you're easy to like. But when you sit at the top, people are going to find reasons to dislike you. It goes hand in hand with success.

Ajax fans are used to it. PSV fans are used to it. Feijenoord fans would be used to it if they ever finished in the top 3. If Twente is going to spend a lot of time in the top 3, then Twente fans should get used to it.

 

Everyone is his own master in terms of the input and contribution he wants to offer on Big soccer. You are, I am and Neeskens is. However the last one appeals to logic and happily states a false choice after it, in this case hating/fearing Twente players or foreigners. Which is another fallacy. She systematically continues to do this. That is completely something else than having a false logic so now and then. Funny enough I clicked on a rep I received a year ago recently just for fun and I smiled when I saw a post from somebody I hadn't noticed before. This is what he said:


18 Aug 2010, 12:07 AM, PsychedelicCeltic:

Seriously, stop it with your fanboy crap (red. Neeskens). You've always been one of the hardest people to argue with on this board because you're the master of strawman arguments, moving the goal posts and all sorts of other argumentative methods designed to mask actually ever admitting you're wrong, but your hard headed refusal to admit somebody who loves Holland so much he cries when they win a game might not be the best candidate to play for the Oranje is just so nonsensical I'm having a hard time admitting you're not being ironic somehow, even if he plays for your beloved poxy provincial club.

That discussion was also about Douglas by the way .

I notice, you have other expectations from a message board than I have and I don't subscribe to the presumption I would have problems with people having a false logic so now and then. On the contrary, I fully acknowledge to be subject of that myself and expect others to correct me in a kind and good spirited way if that is possible. If your aim here is to have informal conversation as you say, I will pick that up in regard to you and keep that in mind for the future, or you can leave the discussion for what it is and watch some other treads. The subtitle of Bigsoccer is ''share the passion'' which will result sometimes in passionate discussions. Tossing around loaded associations (as Neeskens does) and then asking people to chill when they are pissed off about it (as you do), creates a weak and dishonest setup. She knows what she is doing, she is responsible for what she says, is not mental disabled, so she has to act like a big girl in a big world. She either retracts what she says or has to back it up. When you step away from that concept, the quality of the conversation will drop down dramatically.

 

Pointing out a poster systemically uses fallacies is not a strategy to discredit a poster, but an attempt to stay on topic, keep it honest and go back to the argument. You insisting to be the victim here rather than the smart instigator who was member of a debating club in her student years tells me you don't want to chance your chosen conduct, despite apologizing to Feyenoordsoccerfan. It tells me you don't take full responsibility. I even think the Dutch board, compared to the Real Madrid forum, United forum, Arsenal forum etc etc, is pretty strict on ad hominem attacks. However the use of a refined guild by association is far more hurtful to a person than calling him a mother******. The first one links a person and his position with real life history and injustice, the second, I have heard a million times trowed at me playing football when making a stupid mistake. The first one says something about a guys core believes and his character, the second one in many cases is also used to address certain behavior (doesn't have to, but in many cases it is). The first one is dark, heavy and not funny at all, the second one can be funny sometimes. The first step is to take responsibility for what you write. If I drop that concept, I can start to understand where you are coming from. However I value that concept to much and I think it is a proven method to ensure a basic quality a debate needs to have to be worth having at all.