CanadaSaint

Perhaps it was a Freudian slip.

In signing a left-footed player it seems clear that Adkins was looking not just for a central defender but for a complement to Fonte - and probably more of a "stay at home" defender so Fonte can keep pushing forward when the opportunity presents itself. Given that they've had time to work on things, I'd be really surprised if Hooiveld doesn't start.

I am not offended by posters with an opinion I don't like. How many times do I have to say that for it to register with you? That's yet another example of the style you don't want to change. When you get into flare-ups, which is so very often, you have a nasty habit of misrepresenting what others said in a desperate attempt to make yourself look better. Your "not a true fan" hysteria fits into the same category (read the Walsall thread to see how you concocted that lie, as I futilely challenged you to do several times before). And here's another part of your "style". All of that is usually accompanied with the pitiful wail that posters like you are being hounded because you say things that others don't like. Try this one for size: THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT YOU It's about any and all of the posters who are over the top with their negative comments. The Walsall thread was such a good example. Yes, the cap fits very snugly on your head and on the head of some others who have been on here wailing about the thread topic. It really says everything about you that you arrogantly refuse to accept the point being made and then accuse others of arrogance.

I liked that post a lot as well but let's not lose the point. My intent was not to suppress negativity because some is certainly justified. I certainly don't think Adkins or (especially) Cortese are fault free, although I applaud them both on the bigger picture level, and I also blow hot and cold on individual players. Perhaps most important, my intent certainly wasn't to suppress input or to tell people "not to air their views". This isn't about being right or wrong. God, I (reluctantly) supported SISU. The intent was to highlight the unjustified and sometimes downright nasty over the top posts that annoy and alienate people. Even allowing for the anger and frustration of a bad loss, there are IMO no good excuses for some of the stuff posted on here. I'm sorry if reasonable people think the thread is out of order but if it causes posters to think a bit more before they hit "submit" it has achieved its goal. It has, for the most part, been a good discussion.

The intention was to trigger a discussion on a dimension of this forum that has alienated a lot of people and p*ssed off a lot more. I fully accept that people will be negative when we lose and positive when we win - I'm exactly that way myself. My wife gives me space on loss days and hasn't used the "It's only a game" line in fifteen years. However, the kind of hysterical, over-the-top negativity we see in post-loss discussions, but also in things like transfer window and new signing threads, goes way beyond the pale and doesn't make this a better forum. Far from it. I'd love to see a bit more balance, and if the controversial link to the Walsall post-game thread helps that to happen, fantastic. For me, the post of the thread so far was this one: Right there is the point of the thread. I hope it's heeded.

Thanks for the advice but I don't believe in putting people on ignore, and I'm really chilled. I believe in offering my opinion and trying to support it with some kind of rationale, and I do enjoy opposing views as long as they are reasonably stated and have something to support them. I've learned a lot here. My support for the opinion that excessive negativity is a problem on this forum is that Walsall thread, although there are certainly others, so I've offered an opinion and supported it. Maybe you should take your own advice and put me on ignore.

So do I. Well, annoying but not necessarily offensive because positive posts don't usually contain unwarranted insults about players and management and demands for firings. and three lines later:

I brought attention to a posting style that I - and many others - find annoying to the point of being offensive. You and Alpine are attacking me on a personal level for doing that - i.e., you're doing something that you're so damned quick to criticize others for doing. The two of you are so wound-up about the underlying point, so keen to defend indefensible posts, so cornered by the criticism from so many, that you've become what you both claim to despise. It's actually rather sad.

Yes, and opinions invite responses - that's the whole point of the thread. This response comes some six months after the fact, and it illustrates that some of the opinions expressed at the time were even more utterly ridiculous than they seemed at the time. I was highlighting the negativity, and lots and lots of people added the ridicule.

No it doesn't, unless they're so embarrassed about what they posted that they wouldn't post it again. The thread demonstrates that people may be held to account for their publicly-stated opinions. As an academic (I assume you are, based on your screen name), surely you don't have a problem with that notion, do you?

Vilify a poster? Not at all - I was vilifying the mindless negativity that infests this forum, and doing so without naming anyone. It doesn't come from just one poster, it comes from a number - of whom you are one. The fact that a number of people quoted Hypo is by the by - they could have quoted others. My point has been made - better by Wes Tender than by me. Tough if you don't like it.

My point exactly, expressed better than I could have stated it.

This from the poster who squeals like a little kid if anyone posts anything resembling a personal attack on him. You make the point better than I ever could.

You still don't get it, do you? It's not about me being right - not at all. It's about you being wrong with your endless negativity - again and again and again. Now that your buddy in arms, Alpine, has turned up, you're full of p*ss and vinegar again.

Most people were engaging in a reasonably civil discussion until you came along, but then I wouldn't expect you to like the subject matter. Why would a Mod lock it - because you don't like the discussion or the idea of being held to account for what you post?

My intention (whether he believes it or not - and he won't) wasn't to humiliate Hypo (because he's certainly not the only one) but to highlight the stupidity of the over-the-top, knee-jerk negativity that infests this forum. At least Hypo has the balls to visit the thread and stand up for himself. It's only by revisiting the past that we can improve the future, and I - for one - would like to see less of the negativity on here. We don't all have to be happy-clappy all the time, but FFS let's enjoy being fans a bit more, with all the ups and downs that it entails.

The reaction in some quarters to our failure to make some big signings really got to me yesterday, so I thought I'd pull up the last thread when I "lost it" with some of those who IMO are needlessly and/or excessively and/or perpetually negative. If you want a chuckle, take a run through this thread from last March with the hindsight of how that season turned out, and where we sit today: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?28596-Walsall-1-0-Saints-Post-Match-Reaction&highlight

You said exactly the same about me not long back (I'll have to look up the post) but that all went down the toilet when I had the temerity to call you on your constant negativity. You really don't like it when people call you on that, do you? Every time someone takes issue with what you post, which is quite often, you start whining about the forum not tolerating different opinions. It's your security blanket and you wheel it out when you inevitably lose your debates.

You really need to grow up and start wondering why so many people take issue with you. It is quite a common thing, isn't it?

My reference to uninformed comment was more aimed at people like you rather than the Celtic fans, but carry on twisting what I originally said in that typical way that causes so many people to take a run at you. saintstr1 provided another perspective and backed it up with something other than bile and negativity based on seven games. Unlike you, I tend to look for the positive first - or withhold comment until I know a little more.

Yes because I'm pretty sure that there will be a fair few like you and our other negative posters among them. They paid a lot of money for him but he hasn't exactly played enough to warrant the kind of negativity they show - seven games. Just like you and me, they haven't seen enough of him to reach an informed opinion.

Thank you for one of the very few pieces of informed input on the subject - some sense among the uninformed childish negativity. Unfortunately, the people on here who should be "eating humble pie in a few games" are probably the same ones who will be saying "I knew he'd be a good signing". That's how they work.

Virtually all of us think we need to strengthen in the middle of the back - ideally someone with a good left peg. So far, so good. I'm not remotely worried if some Celtic fans don't rate him because the thing about central defenders is that they operate very much as a pair. As long as he can dovetail well with Fonte we could have a much better player than the one the Celtic fans are talking about.

I'm with you on this but LTC is right that he has oodles of skill. I'm also with you that I wouldn't see him as Sam's kind of player. However, Sam's the kind of manager who will either kill him or cure him, and if he cures him he's done a damned good deal. I'm still glad we're not sniffing.

I'm not talking about liking him, LTC. I'm saying I don't rate him because he doesn't produce often enough, and I suspect a chunk of the reason is that he rates himself too highly to offer the kind of commitment necessary. Does he have the talent? Yes. Does he have the commitment? Not in my view, and I suspect that's Harry's problem with him - too much of a floater. I respect your opinion but I'm surprised you'd talk about him in the same breath as Lallana, who has both those qualities - and a chunk of humility to go along with them.