Nigel's Done One

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Utter ****e.

Any terrorist can access the stadium 24/7

FACT

The fact that it hasn't been blown up is not because of the effectiveness of the gate, but because the stadium is not a ****ing target.

I suspect any consultant/advisor will have a vested interest in keeping the status quo as they are probably linked to the original crazy decision to build the bastard, and are attempting to cover their collective arses.

And all to be decided by the brain- dead mouth breathing Councillor Cox and Evans types who make up our council.
The same council who are intending putting an even bigger security gate around the Guildhall for exactly the same reasons, but we are paying for that one.
 
.
Turok the Dinosaur Hunter ? means nothing to me. I didn't know we had that type 'generation' posting on here ? I mistakenly thought this was a site for Hull City supporters ?
The generation of fans brought up on video games ( if that's what they are) are also the fans who were also brought up on Hull City as a Premier league club, and FA Cup Finalists, league cup semi finalists, million pound footballers playing for us, etc, etc. My generation hung onto the memories of a FA Cup 6th round replay with Chelsea and the Third Division Title in 65/66.
Perhaps our definition of a supporter is different.
I don't look for reasons not to support the club. If I had of done I'd have chucked it donkeys years ago.
The offended I refer to are on here, being offended by a remark I made that I consider the opinions of those who actually still attend games over those who don't.
It had nothing to do with gays, women, or black people.

I know it didn't. You seem to skim read a lot, based on your responses. You don't seem to get what the word 'offended' actually means. Annoyed and offended aren't the same thing. Offence is taken at something that is in conflict with your moral stance on the subject. I get annoyed if a bird ****s on my newly washed car, I don't get offended by it. When people say 'oh they're offended', what they actually mean is 'it's mental that they don't get what it is I'm saying, how come they don't think like I do?'. Like you actually sort of want them to be offended so you can scald them for it.

I said that your generation were, for the most part, happy to stand aside in the name of social acceptance and allow gay people, BAME and others to be marginalised and harassed. The current generation coming through as adults don't stand for that. It isn't because they're offended, it's because it's a ****ing ****ty thing to allow to happen and had more people had the balls to tackle it in the 60s and 70s, it probably would have gone a long way to sorting the problem sooner. My generation doesn't stand for it, not one jot. Neither does the generation beneath mine. These kids aren't soppy or soft, they're the exact opposite. There are kids at my school who would happily sit and watch 'It' or play GTA until 2am. There are also kids who go to City and prefer playing football. Any road down, they're smarter, more progressive, more tolerant and more clued in to society than we ever were. The idea that they're 'easily offended' stems from the generation above being shocked that they don't like racist jokes or digs at LGBT people. It doesn't offend them, it annoys them. And so it should. And it should have done 40 years ago.

I was born in the late 80s, I grew up playing outside and video games, I had a nice balance between the two. I first went to City in 1993, so I've been going a decent chunk of my life, I wouldn't chuck the towel in because our owners are dicks. But, I respect those that choose not to go; as the old adage says 'you pay your money, you take your choice'. It doesn't make their opinion on the club any less valid than yours. Now, if you went to a match and they didn't and they said a player was ****, then you're a more reliable source. But I don't think that's what you were alluding to. I didn't fight in the Boer War, but I can have an opinion on it based on historical fact. I would of course concede any incorrect points to somebody who was there or an expert who was more knowledgeable. So if you were telling me about the club in the late 60s, I'd trust what you're saying over somebody that wasn't there. But I'd still listen to the person that wasn't there, because as you alluded to, they're entitled to an opinion and I'd respect that.
 
I know it didn't. You seem to skim read a lot, based on your responses. You don't seem to get what the word 'offended' actually means. Annoyed and offended aren't the same thing. Offence is taken at something that is in conflict with your moral stance on the subject. I get annoyed if a bird ****s on my newly washed car, I don't get offended by it. When people say 'oh they're offended', what they actually mean is 'it's mental that they don't get what it is I'm saying, how come they don't think like I do?'. Like you actually sort of want them to be offended so you can scald them for it.

I said that your generation were, for the most part, happy to stand aside in the name of social acceptance and allow gay people, BAME and others to be marginalised and harassed. The current generation coming through as adults don't stand for that. It isn't because they're offended, it's because it's a ****ing ****ty thing to allow to happen and had more people had the balls to tackle it in the 60s and 70s, it probably would have gone a long way to sorting the problem sooner. My generation doesn't stand for it, not one jot. Neither does the generation beneath mine. These kids aren't soppy or soft, they're the exact opposite. There are kids at my school who would happily sit and watch 'It' or play GTA until 2am. There are also kids who go to City and prefer playing football. Any road down, they're smarter, more progressive, more tolerant and more clued in to society than we ever were. The idea that they're 'easily offended' stems from the generation above being shocked that they don't like racist jokes or digs at LGBT people. It doesn't offend them, it annoys them. And so it should. And it should have done 40 years ago.

I was born in the late 80s, I grew up playing outside and video games, I had a nice balance between the two. I first went to City in 1993, so I've been going a decent chunk of my life, I wouldn't chuck the towel in because our owners are dicks. But, I respect those that choose not to go; as the old adage says 'you pay your money, you take your choice'. It doesn't make their opinion on the club any less valid than yours. Now, if you went to a match and they didn't and they said a player was ****, then you're a more reliable source. But I don't think that's what you were alluding to. I didn't fight in the Boer War, but I can have an opinion on it based on historical fact. I would of course concede any incorrect points to somebody who was there or an expert who was more knowledgeable. So if you were telling me about the club in the late 60s, I'd trust what you're saying over somebody that wasn't there. But I'd still listen to the person that wasn't there, because as you alluded to, they're entitled to an opinion and I'd respect that.
Skim reading is a necessity for your posts methinks :emoticon-0105-wink:
 
I’m none the wiser

It was a game on the N64, a games console that came out in 1997. At the time, it was quite controversial, because Nintendo had always been a more 'family friendly' company. So a game about a foul-mouthed squirrel going through hours of adult content in the style of a family friendly game came as a bit of a shock.

I mean games like that, Resident Evil, Duke Nukem and Mortal Kombat were designed with adults in mind, hence their 18 ratings. We still played them, like. Just had to get our parents to buy them.
 
The same council who are intending putting an even bigger security gate around the Guildhall for exactly the same reasons, but we are paying for that one.

I walked down that street this week.

Have done many times over the years.

I think if someone was going to bomb Hull the Guildhall would be well down the list.

I think Private Fraser from Dad's Army must have been the consultant.
 
It was a game on the N64, a games console that came out in 1997. At the time, it was quite controversial, because Nintendo had always been a more 'family friendly' company. So a game about a foul-mouthed squirrel going through hours of adult content in the style of a family friendly game came as a bit of a shock.

I mean games like that, Resident Evil, Duke Nukem and Mortal Kombat were designed with adults in mind, hence their 18 ratings. We still played them, like. Just had to get our parents to buy them.
Ah ok
I’d been a parent for 12 years by then, but don’t remember that on the Christmas list
 
Ah ok
I’d been a parent for 12 years by then, but don’t remember that on the Christmas list

It sort of went under the radar. Conker had already been in another game called 'Diddy Kong Racing' and was a happy go lucky kid's character. Rare (the software developers) took him and made him into a foul-mouthed drunkard who shot weasels and brutalised teddy bears.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dennisboothstash
I said that your generation were, for the most part, happy to stand aside in the name of social acceptance and allow gay people, BAME and others to be marginalised and harassed. The current generation coming through as adults don't stand for that. It isn't because they're offended, it's because it's a ****ing ****ty thing to allow to happen and had more people had the balls to tackle it in the 60s and 70s, it probably would have gone a long way to sorting the problem sooner. My generation doesn't stand for it, not one jot. Neither does the generation beneath mine. These kids aren't soppy or soft, they're the exact opposite. There are kids at my school who would happily sit and watch 'It' or play GTA until 2am. There are also kids who go to City and prefer playing football. Any road down, they're smarter, more progressive, more tolerant and more clued in to society than we ever were. The idea that they're 'easily offended' stems from the generation above being shocked that they don't like racist jokes or digs at LGBT people. It doesn't offend them, it annoys them. And so it should. And it should have done 40 years ago.
.

Rubbish.
 
I know it didn't. You seem to skim read a lot, based on your responses. You don't seem to get what the word 'offended' actually means. Annoyed and offended aren't the same thing. Offence is taken at something that is in conflict with your moral stance on the subject. I get annoyed if a bird ****s on my newly washed car, I don't get offended by it. When people say 'oh they're offended', what they actually mean is 'it's mental that they don't get what it is I'm saying, how come they don't think like I do?'. Like you actually sort of want them to be offended so you can scald them for it.

I said that your generation were, for the most part, happy to stand aside in the name of social acceptance and allow gay people, BAME and others to be marginalised and harassed. The current generation coming through as adults don't stand for that. It isn't because they're offended, it's because it's a ****ing ****ty thing to allow to happen and had more people had the balls to tackle it in the 60s and 70s, it probably would have gone a long way to sorting the problem sooner. My generation doesn't stand for it, not one jot. Neither does the generation beneath mine. These kids aren't soppy or soft, they're the exact opposite. There are kids at my school who would happily sit and watch 'It' or play GTA until 2am. There are also kids who go to City and prefer playing football. Any road down, they're smarter, more progressive, more tolerant and more clued in to society than we ever were. The idea that they're 'easily offended' stems from the generation above being shocked that they don't like racist jokes or digs at LGBT people. It doesn't offend them, it annoys them. And so it should. And it should have done 40 years ago.

I was born in the late 80s, I grew up playing outside and video games, I had a nice balance between the two. I first went to City in 1993, so I've been going a decent chunk of my life, I wouldn't chuck the towel in because our owners are dicks. But, I respect those that choose not to go; as the old adage says 'you pay your money, you take your choice'. It doesn't make their opinion on the club any less valid than yours. Now, if you went to a match and they didn't and they said a player was ****, then you're a more reliable source. But I don't think that's what you were alluding to. I didn't fight in the Boer War, but I can have an opinion on it based on historical fact. I would of course concede any incorrect points to somebody who was there or an expert who was more knowledgeable. So if you were telling me about the club in the late 60s, I'd trust what you're saying over somebody that wasn't there. But I'd still listen to the person that wasn't there, because as you alluded to, they're entitled to an opinion and I'd respect that.

Sorry mate but you will never win the Best fan who is allowed an opinion if you've only been going since 1993 but as you say you've been going a good chunk of your live that percentage will move you up the table a fair way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edelman
Sorry mate but you will never win the Best fan who is allowed an opinion if you've only been going since 1993 but as you say you've been going a good chunk of your live that percentage will move you up the table a fair way.

I don't want to win anything, I'm not talking about knowledge of the club, I'm talking about making the decision about who is a fan and who isn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edelman