Search results

To go a little more fancypants, there's also a map charting locations of where people have tweeted the ribbon locations: http://www.skybluesblog.co.uk/tie-a-sky-blue-ribbon-map/

It stands up when you admit that your thing about all players being about nothing but money is little more than opinion. When you tell us 'this is what they should do, otherwise X Y and Z' it falls apart completely. As admitted, you don't know these people.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, you've iterated a few times that money is the main motivation behind the inactivity of people you claim should be doing something, and if not they don't care. I'd say that to know this is true of someone, you really should be familiar with them otherwise it's...

This is Oggy I'm talking about. You know him personally and so know that he's a greedy coward rather than jeopardising his job like a brave moral soul would?

But if he isn't coming forward, you know it's down to greed and cowardice rather than just assuming so, right?

Where are you even getting this idea that morality involves caring about every human in existence? The post you've quoted explains why that makes no sense, and to say so would be immeasurably stupid. Which is why I didn't, yet you've somehow answered as if I did.

And in the same post referred to Baker hinting at it as a lack of 'balls' because he and other players I assume you don't know need to earn money. You're on familiar terms with Oggy then, I guess?

Nobody said that. If that was the case, morality would be literally impossible. The point in that sentence is that you don't know the man, so cannot possibly talk about his morals. All you're doing is making assumptions that toe your line.

Except that you admit that you don't know him or have never met him, so how are those the facts exactly? The insinuation is there and is clear. Whistle-blowers have morals, footballers who aren't jeopardising their career like you definitely would (like those who aren't doing anything...

Here, where you question why no players have spoken out, respond to someone claiming Baker has hinted at it with something about testicles, and then insinuating that only whistle-blowers have morals.

It's that premiumtv or something similar that runs the majority of club sites. Their design's a bit wonky and illogical.

So you're in absolutely no position to comment on his morality.

As I said, it's very easy to put yourself in the position and say 'this is what they should do'. Carl Baker's settled with a young family, is it immoral of him to not disrupt that?

Lucrative career or not, it's a little easy to sit here and claim these people should endanger their jobs.

Are we still not better than this?

Just in case people are sceptical about protests working, my anti-Dominos campaign (see post #19 and also some angry pages in my diary) has resulted in a new branch opening on Gosford Street and happy to deliver my way. PEOPLE POWER

Is he the guy who invaded the stage at the Brits while hammered? EDIT NOTE TO SELF: read whole thread before posting

Was that the plan with Moldovan too? I remember him not being here too long.

Didn't Zuniga come with a bit of a reputation too? I'm sure he was South American golden boot or something to that effect.

Just start a rumour about Deleted member 5849 and use that to attack him with a big 'if it's true' caveat, that's a good tact.