In the Daily Mail football pull out today, in the "League 2 this weekend" section they have as ZERO OF THE WEEK and I quote...…"Gary Johnson: Cheltenham have been found out. The overly physical approach that served them well last term seems not to be working this time round. Johnson selling last year's top scorer Mo Eisa to son Lee at Bristol City also has not helped. They are 22nd after no goals or points from their opening three games with a 1-0 defeat at home to Carlisle the latest disappointment."
Were we overly physical and if we were did it serve us so well last year given where we finished?
Zero of the week
Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin
-
- Posts: 29820
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Yes...overly physical with our tiny strikers and wingers.
Lazy and incorrect reporting from the Daily Mail as always. The fact the Mail state this gives me optimism we are going to do quite well!!
Lazy and incorrect reporting from the Daily Mail as always. The fact the Mail state this gives me optimism we are going to do quite well!!
What tiny strikers and wingers? You have lost me I am afraid.RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:Yes...overly physical with our tiny strikers and wingers.
Lazy and incorrect reporting from the Daily Mail as always. The fact the Mail state this gives me optimism we are going to do quite well!!
Ha Ha And all those who voted Brexit are thick northerners with tattoos and tracky bottoms.vickeryc wrote:Anything reported in the Daily Mail, unfortunately, is not worth reading for reasons that are obvious to anyone vaguely intelligent and of a fair-minded disposition. I hope I haven't unintentionally offended anyone!
So those who read the Mail have low intelligence, most ridiculous statement on here for a while {and there have been many]
Thankfully you're the minority.
-
- Posts: 29820
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Don’t apologise; the insult of the Mail and its readership justified as far as I am concerned.vickeryc wrote:I obviously hit a raw nerve. Apologies for any offence!
Wow that is some new landmark in generalisation!! Only RCS can easily identify that all people reading and particular news paper holds identical views to the paper and of limited intelligence. Yet at the same time take the stance that while he personally may read some newspapers, it does not mean he holds the same views!!!! Amazing
-
- Posts: 29820
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
I am not talking about views or opinions or political stance. Just the tendency for the Mail to poorly, and sometimes deliberately incorrectly, report accurate data and information. No worse than some other tabloids, but much more frequent than broadsheets, and especially the FT and Economist.Ihearye wrote:Wow that is some new landmark in generalisation!! Only RCS can easily identify that all people reading and particular news paper holds identical views to the paper and of limited intelligence. Yet at the same time take the stance that while he personally may read some newspapers, it does not mean he holds the same views!!!! Amazing
You only have to go on Facebook or forums to see how many people blindly repeat and believe incorrect data and information published by the Mail.
So yes, I will generalise about anyone who absorbs and believes false information without having the perspicacity or knowledge to be aware of inaccuracies or to look up the source or evidence elsewhere.
I don’t always agree with the Telegraph or Guardian, and whilst both are becoming more sketchy in their use of fact to support their agendas, both of which I do not agree with, at least the data and evidence, even if selective, are generally reported properly and accurately.
I buy the Daily Mail every day, then I read the sports pages(and very good they are too) and do the crossword. I would also like to think that I am almost vaguely intelligent, and certainly fair-minded. I don't believe you "unintentionally" offended anyone at all, you knew very well what you meant,and yes I am offended. Anyway must go,just getting in my car to drive to Macclesfield, are you?vickeryc wrote:Anything reported in the Daily Mail, unfortunately, is not worth reading for reasons that are obvious to anyone vaguely intelligent and of a fair-minded disposition. I hope I haven't unintentionally offended anyone!
Sorry. If you go anywhere near facebook (other social media outlets areavailable), and expect anything but the views of the last bastions of the insane and those aggrieved on behalf of someone else. Then you have lost all reason. I don't read the Mail, but I am presuming it has no more or less agendas or mistakes than all other printed press. The degree by which they are inaccurate depends largely on how close to your own views they are
Oh, you've rumbled me for the arrogant bigot you obviously think I am! Perhaps I shouldn't have equated intelligence and fair-mindedness in the way that I did; however, I was basing my opinions of the Mail on the banner headlines that frequently and blatantly scream racism and intolerance, which I personally find offensive.little mo wrote:I buy the Daily Mail every day, then I read the sports pages(and very good they are too) and do the crossword. I would also like to think that I am almost vaguely intelligent, and certainly fair-minded. I don't believe you "unintentionally" offended anyone at all, you knew very well what you meant,and yes I am offended. Anyway must go,just getting in my car to drive to Macclesfield, are you?vickeryc wrote:Anything reported in the Daily Mail, unfortunately, is not worth reading for reasons that are obvious to anyone vaguely intelligent and of a fair-minded disposition. I hope I haven't unintentionally offended anyone!
Not sure what this has to do with attending the Macclesfield game tonight though!
Yep, same as me mo, and nearly 24 million others & nearly 10 million online.little mo wrote:I buy the Daily Mail every day, then I read the sports pages(and very good they are too) and do the crossword. I would also like to think that I am almost vaguely intelligent, and certainly fair-minded. I don't believe you "unintentionally" offended anyone at all, you knew very well what you meant,and yes I am offended. Anyway must go,just getting in my car to drive to Macclesfield, are you?vickeryc wrote:Anything reported in the Daily Mail, unfortunately, is not worth reading for reasons that are obvious to anyone vaguely intelligent and of a fair-minded disposition. I hope I haven't unintentionally offended anyone!
And in all the years have never seen a Racist headline.
I believe it's down to headlines such as these. You know some people can't tolerate the use of the words foreigner or migrant in anything other than a positive setting, and it's just an easy cop-out to say it's racist. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=daily ... RVtK0E6byM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:
-
- Posts: 29820
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Your assumption is incorrect. And the inaccuracies are not based on views. If official data says X and the Mail claims it says Y then regardless of whether you believe it or not it is objectively wrong. And when more people think Y is the case than X then it is bad for society.Ihearye wrote:Sorry. If you go anywhere near facebook (other social media outlets areavailable), and expect anything but the views of the last bastions of the insane and those aggrieved on behalf of someone else. Then you have lost all reason. I don't read the Mail, but I am presuming it has no more or less agendas or mistakes than all other printed press. The degree by which they are inaccurate depends largely on how close to your own views they are
-
- Posts: 29820
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
No problem with such headlines as long as the information and data is correct.Shade wrote:I believe it's down to headlines such as these. You know some people can't tolerate the use of the words foreigner or migrant in anything other than a positive setting, and it's just an easy cop-out to say it's racist. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=daily ... RVtK0E6byM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:
If such headlines don't fuel racism then I don't know what does. Before I'm accused, I'm not suggesting everyone who buys the Mail is a racist - they may have other reasons for reading it. I simply find such headlines needlessly inciteful and provocative to some - just my opinion.