Originally Posted by
My_Wife_Camille
These are all hibs.net related (could probably have a whole separate thread for this)
People who think that posting a laughing smilie is any form of argument/rebuttal/response to something they disagree with. I mean, I get it. The implication is that the post, or argument made is so bad that it’s not worth actually responding to properly and that they are somehow intellectually inferior to you and not worth your time. What it actually shows though is that the person is clamped and doesn’t actually have anything valuable to add themselves.
The notion that ‘boo boys’ gather and discuss which player to irrationally target with negativity. Nope, the poorer players who make more mistakes and are not as effective will always come into more criticism. It’s not a coincidence that Liam Craig was a so called ‘target’ of the ‘boo boys’ while John McGinn isn’t.
The notion that “the people who said x are the same that said y” when x and y contradict each other. Sorry but that’s a lazy argument and I can say with a degree of certainty that it’s not true in most cases. One recent example was that the people who are having a go at Cummings are the same that won’t say a bad word about Scott Allan. Really? The same people? I don’t believe it.
In a discussion, if you make a post about a player you don’t rate (for example) and you just lost all the bad things he does then you are rightly accused of being narrow minded, unbalanced and unfair. However when you do post a balanced argument and give examples of good things they have done too (in the interest of fairness) you are accused of contradicting yourself. I had one discussion about Liam Craig where one poser accused me of both!
The notion that only ‘positive’ posts can be ‘well thought out, balanced and fair’. I can’t ever recall seeing a post with a negative tone being described as being any of the above. Surely you don’t have to agree with somebody for their argument to be fair?
People who think that an opinion is ‘pish’, ‘nonsense’, ‘rubbish’ etc just because it is negative in tone.
The idea that somebody who has a negative opinion on one thing therefore has a negative opinion on the whole club and that they ‘can’t wait to stick the boot it’.
The argument where a person gives their opinion and somebody responds with a near unanswerable question with the belief that it proves their point.
For example:
Person A : Slivka misplaces too many passes
Person B : Really? What was his pass completion rate? What exact pass did he misplace?
On the flip side, if person A is able call person B’s bluff and comes back with concrete proof of the number of passes Slivka misplaced then they are accused of being sadcases with nothing better to do than find evidence of Hibs players misplacing passes.
Puns.
People who who still haven’t grasped what the SPFL is. People who call the Premiership the SPFL for example.