[Siderite]

If you don’t go to games, it does make it harder to comment on the performance of the team, but off pitch matters can still be understood as well.

[Siderite]

Yes, I do think welcoming more fans in and not having monkey chants or banana skins thrown at black players is a good thing about football today and if everyone but the likes of Deerey are happier with that, I am not ashamed to say I would prefer to be round the likes of Deerey than anyone being a racist, homophobic and sexist berk.

1 user thanked author for this post.

TheJuryeffsOut

[Siderite]

Just adding context to say Deerey’s defensive comments don’t come from nowhere. Just a thought.

Your issues with other posters shouldn’t be used against others and the agenda about goalies isn’t coming from Deerey alone.

[Siderite]

I see the Watson critics, who are not obsessed by the goalkeeper, are slamming Watson for the goal conceded again on social media, as if he was the only factor.

[Siderite]

The defence of the goalkeeper comes about because there are some, including WonderGoals on this thread, who treat every single goal conceded as a chance to talk about how ‘right’ they are with regards to a ‘goalkeeping crisis’ at the club because they stated there would be one from having Campbell and Watson as goalies.

It was made out we would likely be struggling because of their poor goalkeeping, yet we rarely concede more than one goal a game and many of the goals conceded have others culpable and aren’t the howlers they are often initially derided as. This hyperbolic criticism is bound to get pushback.

I don’t get why the criticism can’t be a little more measured. Watson doesn’t keep as many clean sheets as Fitzsimons and many of the goals he does concede are ‘could do better’ even if they aren’t the Sunday League level howlers they are referred to. Would we need a better goalkeeper to push on? Maybe, but this is the National League and with a few tweaks sorted, Watson at least could be an OK keeper at this level.

It’s hard to have measured debate when a section just want to speak as if we have plonked some bloke from the pub in net.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Rene Artois

[Siderite]

To be fair, they aren’t outright stating it as such, but there are some too much in the ‘just asking questions’ territory for me. https://x.com/mgell1s/status/1979110960846496194

Dan, being replied to, saying it is ‘strange’ too, as if there is something more going on

[Siderite]

I see the latest conspiracy is that Campbell isn’t really injured, but that’s a cover for Butler to avoid admitting that he isn’t good enough.

[Siderite]

[Siderite]

TwoWrights wrote:

billpuntonsghost wrote:

Interesting video,TwoWright. Did you find my video interesting?

No, it was the usual ‘believe in God or else’ guff. If you were from Syria instead of the Scunthorpe area, you’d most probably be posting Islamic guff.

billpuntonsjinn

1 user thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights

[Siderite]

[Siderite]

It will always look like an agenda when the same people make the same point after every goal Watson or Campbell concedes. Before the season, it was being said it would risk relegation. It hasn’t, so they can’t be that bad, even if there is room for improvement.

[Siderite]

Watson isn’t perfect, nor is Campbell, but we haven’t conceded that many. Yet you seem determined to write them off and be seen as right.

[Siderite]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

..remind me,Phil,who was manager when we tonked Nottm Forest 4-0 at Forest,who was manager when we tonked Huddersfield 4-1 at their ground ( when both were top of the league at their time). Who had teams that scored five,six and seven goals in games at home during his glorious time as manager. Just saying.

That was before Adkins. He said best since Adkins, which doesn’t negate those good times. Adkins was still a great manager for us who brought us over the line for 2 promotions and memorable wins against Millwall in the playoffs, Sheff Wednesday, Newcastle, 4-0 at Palace and more.

[Siderite]

They were right? So we should have got rid of Butler, even though we did gain promotion and have now turned a corner, when there is no guarantee a replacement would have done better? It takes some chutzpah to declare yourself correct when we were told not sacking him would see us midtable or not achieving anything and those saying he might learn and improve are wrong when he learned and improved.

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

We wouldn’t be where we are now had the ‘Butler Out’ brigade had their way last season so why there’s a frequent need to undermine and criticise his decision making is baffling. ‘It’s all opinion’ some might say, but it’s more than opinion when it’s prominent on social media. That’s just heckling and can’t do any good.

Some will still say they were right, and their critics wrong, while saying Butler only changed because of reading comments on here, Twitter, crowd reaction or a board ultimatum. A negative opinion on Butler at the time was fine, there was a bad run, but it was very impulsive. Criticism was not always constructive. Managers can learn and there was little appreciation of that and maybe there should be more patience and consideration of that.

Being wrong is fine, but it’s the continued assertion from some that there was nothing wrong in knee jerk reactions to a bad run of form, while those who urged patience and thought he might learn were still wrong. And, no, this isn’t an attempt to crow. I have been as wrong as those were about Butler.

[Siderite]

Clunan was a decent player for NLN, but he was never anything more. Could organise a midfield, but his passing, strength and class would elude him at this level. Our midfield is now much better. It’s a true competition as to who gets in because we are loaded with decent players in that area.

6 users thanked author for this post.

Cliff Byrne's Right Peg, Deereyme66, iron64, Sanfran49, Northumbiron, ironfromafar

[Siderite]

[Siderite]

He has only done well because he listened to the know it alls online.

[Siderite]

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

Is it time for supporters sceptical about our keepers to concede a football coach / manager may actually know better than them?

Yeah, but he flapped for a cross v Forest Green, so the good performances and few goals conceded don’t count.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe, Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Who needs rigorous research into complex biology, that goes over most non-specislists’ heads, when you can have YouTube videos from people of obvious agendas cherry picking and distorting the science? That’s definitely a reliable way of providing evidence.

[Siderite]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

You are behind the curve,Siderite.

There have been no papers in contemporary science that has given evidence for a global flood or animals going on to an arc, 2 by 2, and somehow knowing to go to distinct locations today.

[Siderite]

Fifty Pence wrote:

People who believe in your god and the divinity of a certain Palestinian Jew are Christian, in my humble opinion, regardless of their thoughts on certain books in the Bible (which was written, selected and translated by humans, regardless of where the original story came from)

Jesus was not Palestinian, he was Judean. If you were to go back and ask him, he would have been confused at the term, which wasn’t used for another century when Hadrian wanted to remove Jewish links to the area.

[Siderite]

Creationism (note I am not saying Christianity or belief in deities) has been laughed out if court and scientific consensus many times. The ideas of a global flood were rubbished from the 18th century, ever since James Hutton.

[Siderite]

Those Christians would say they are the true Christians, cite sources to prove it, and call others untrue Christians. The no true Christian argument reminds me of ‘true communism has never been tried’ when a Marxist tries to escape the challenges of communist issues. Those communists who were in power would say the are true communists, and those saying otherwise are communist counterfeits.

Besides, I find your arguments to be very much like the intolerant Christians who cause misery for others. Not saying you are like those who used it as justification for killing the heretic, but you have a negative view of and appear hostile to anyone outside your branch of Christianity. Including other Christians on here. It’s this kind of polarised view which can cause tribalism and issues.

[Siderite]

The existence of other ideologies that have caused harm is not proof that Christianity is any better.

I have tried to stay out of this because I think it’s unfair for people to bring up religion on an unrelated post. I do not agree with your fundamentalist mindset, but don’t want to snark too much to make it seem like I dismiss the more moderate.

In the past, when Christianity was stronger in Europe, pre-enlightenment, many horrors were committed in the name of God. The genocide of the Cathars for being heretics, Crusades, where in the First Crusade, during the sacking of Jerusalem, Jews and Muslims had to scramble to tops of buildings to escape the slaughter for being heathens. Murder of Pagans in the Baltic region by Teutonic knights, the Spanish Inquisition, witch hunting and more. Jews and Romanies endured so much extreme discrimination and persecution by Christians, using the excuses that they are Christ killers or use Christian children for food.

This was the reality of Christian Europe for centuries. Sure, Christianity moderated post-enlightenment, but you have criticised enlightenment mindsets previously, and there has been Christian authoritarianism since. It wasn’t the end. Franco and Ante Pavelic, who was an eager collaborator in the Holocaust, were Christian and based their countries on the religion. Idol worshipping Catholics, so you might just dismiss them.

The problem isn’t godlessness when it comes to causing misery. The problem is ideological certainty and obsession, where people see themselves as being morally pure or right because of their religion or political persuasion. This can lead to dehumanising of the other because they are a different tribe and engage in taboos to the ideology which need to be stamped out, thus eliminating any kind of empathy that might cause the ideologue to refrain from empathy. Religion may give people comfort and a purpose, but it can lead to demonisation of those out of the religion, especially when they see those outside as being tricked by the Devil or in league with it. Politics can give a similar purpose to people and we need to have some sort of framework to believe society should be run by, but it can also lead to demonising others for not being part of your political view, since people think they are right and anyone against it must be wanting to harm society. Especially for the extremes, like fascism or communism, which asserts themselves to be right and makes arguments against those who disagree as being agents of the bourgeois or elite conspiring against the people.

The existence of intolerance outside of Christianity is not evidence that it can be better or that there aren’t other secular worldviews less prone to authoritarianism. You would no doubt see them as communism too and see authoritarianism there anyway because it suits.

I am not going into the talking animal nonsense because a book with unsubstantiated claims is better than evidence we have gleaned through science.

[Siderite]

Who will win in the battle of the Iron podcasts?

Voted.

1 user thanked author for this post.

SST

[Siderite]

The ppeaceful, non-violent right are at it again with their love of debate and free speech. It’s only the left who are radicalised to hatred.

https://x.com/lrozen/status/1968821680509182206

[Siderite]

The government of free speech wants to get more dissenting voices fired for free speech:

https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1968467593620070909/photo/1

[Siderite]

The right had a point that there was too much eagerness to censor from some on the left. Police going round to people’s homes for tweets expressing opinions was daft and wrong. Which is why it is so frustrating to see so many of the same people cheer on hounding of those who dared to criticise Kirk. It’s not even about those who said ghoulish things about Kirk, but many want anyone who dared to say anything negative to face repercussions. People like Stephen Miller want the opposition to the Republicans categorised as domestic terrorists. So much for free speech.

At least, with the left, it was often just silly university professors and activists. Now the government is pushing for what is allowed to be said and broadcast, with threats to news channels for wrongthink. Sounds like that totalitarian Marxist government coming into place for me. :-)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Author]

Posts