markhughes
Full Member
What the? like I have no words.
I happen to agree with that statement, maybe not the parent reaction part though that is likely to be the case at least some of the time.
What the? like I have no words.
But he does get his cock out for peanutsHave you seen Depardieu lately? Gonna be a rough prep for the role.
I've been thinking a lot about him lately. I guess the fact that I don't really have any experience living through Best' performances/career made him a bit depersonalized in my eyes — I only see him as a player, and as a legendary symbol of the club's glorious past. It's easier when it's a historical character that you only retrospectively develop any kind of an admiration for etc.
But Giggs is someone that I watched growing up, watching him grow alongside me, mature and eventually retire... It's a completely different emotional experience. Then there's also the fact that Best obviously had a lot of issues and it was always evident while Giggs had a pretty much perfect image — in his younger days he looked and behaved more like Best, but after that it looked like he became more and more like Bobby Charlton 2.0... And then, out of the blue, you get all that information about how Giggs actually lived his life.
P.S. just wanted to specify this — I'm talking about my own feelings towards those players and the relative difference in perception of two very similar situations. This doesn't in any way mean that I'm making excuses for Best's behaviour.
It's a form of reverse recency bias where you view a action performed in the past as lesser than a recent one. One good example is George Best and Ryan Giggs. I'm far removed from George Best's days and actions, whereas im very involved and familiar with Giggs' debauchery.
The name George Best conjures all kinds of feelings of past pride of the club, whereas Giggs' name is as tarnished as it could be, and yet history would indicate that George Best was far worse.
You agree with the bit about it being part of female DNA?I happen to agree with that statement, maybe not the parent reaction part though that is likely to be the case at least some of the time.
It's a form of reverse recency bias where you view a action performed in the past as lesser than a recent one. One good example is George Best and Ryan Giggs. I'm far removed from George Best's days and actions, whereas im very involved and familiar with Giggs' debauchery.
The name George Best conjures all kinds of feelings of past pride of the club, whereas Giggs' name is as tarnished as it could be, and yet history would indicate that George Best was far worse.
I think that back in the 60s and at least part of the 70s smacking women around was tolerated socially, at least much more than it is now. Just think of how common it was in older films, etc. As a result there was less contemporary criticism of Best and his reputation is less tarnished because of that..
Sean Connery beat his first wife and coincidentally James Bond has many a time slapped a woman
Come on this is just silly. Maybe the prosecution should use that line- 'just look at his eyes, he's clearly a maniac!'People telling you they love you and you are great since 17.
These people are not and never will be like us. Giggs is a maniac. Look at his eyes. If you think celebrities are role models you are dumb.
Charles Barkley was right. Sports celebs aren't role models and never will be notwithstanding a few exceptions.
You also have a media that is hellbent on getting dirt on one if their own and exploiting the fallout. Sickening.
Guilty or not guilty who cares about Ryan giggs the person. We all know he is one of the best united players of all time and one of the best British players too.
If you need a celebrity to show you righteousness you are beyond saving.
I really don’t think that’s true. Though there’s no doubt that women are a little bit more empowered to do something about it than they were then.I think that back in the 60s and at least part of the 70s smacking women around was tolerated socially, at least much more than it is now. Just think of how common it was in older films, etc. As a result there was less contemporary criticism of Best and his reputation is less tarnished because of that..
Come on this is just silly. Maybe the prosecution should use that line- 'just look at his eyes, he's clearly a maniac!'
You agree with the bit about it being part of female DNA?
Not sure what is agreeable in that post, for the simple fact it was posted in relation to the context of what is happening with Giggs.
Sure if this was a thread on the history of females and how culture has changed over the years in relation to marriage and the relationship between husband and wife, then maybe there is some debate to be had, but nothing in that post is agreeable in relation to the discuss at hand.
Had to double check the url, for a second I thought it's rawk and not a United forum.
Yeah, poor girl with no moral agency in all this. How dare Giggs pimp her out to the entire squad.
nothing in that incident indicated Giggs was a sadist. A sadist would publish the sex tape on the internet for the whole world to see.
It's very interesting how (regarding his adultery) a lot of people are unable to look at this without them imagining themselves being in Rohdri's shoes. Only explanation for the hyperbole regarding his character (not speaking to the current case where he's not been convicted)
If nothing else this thread is a perfect example of why the old newbie system was best
Off topic, but I'll take this chance to ask: What is actually the best way to go about to become a full member these days? I would like to, having been on here for some years now. I generally write sensible enough posts, I do not sh*t on our players, or throw my toys out of the pram when we don't get the shiniest new toy (re: Grealish over Sancho). (And, you know, considering this thread, I do not make posts full or misogynism, essentalism and tired stereotypes either). But is the deal that one has to post in the actual newbie forums? I see posts every now and then that make me scratch my head as to how they got there.
Just write with more thoughts insteaf of some quippy remarks. Not have to but it helps.
Newbie system isnt made to weed out non supporters. It's just there to make you know the basic rules of decency and show the mods that you can communicate your thoughts well.
If you follow the above, just be patience your time will come. Newbie can post 5 times in mains daily now so it wasnt that bad.
We have our own child pool to play back then.
Mostly you'll need to learn not to attack the poster, not using phone talk, not posting hoax, not posting illegal material. Just basic stuff really.
You can be as vocal as you want as long as you can defend your opinion. If you think de gea is shit for example you can elaborate on it. Just not in a one liner crude "he's useless"
Once you come to the main, welcome to the jungle.
You might comes across old poster who can be pretty harsh with words, but at least they'll write it in some funny ways, or used to at least. You can have a dig at poster, just dont be a cnut about it. It's a banter forum after all.
Just be yourself. Maintain decency while doing so
"Dear".I don't dear.
Thanks mate. I'm not really finding success through that though. My posts could be longer and more thoughtful I guess, but I certainly do not do the things you mention. Could be some time in the newbie section is what it takes too ;-)
Well at least he's only most famous vice is shagging his brothers wife for 8 years and nothing more.
Does he get the Wales job back now or has that ship sailed?
What an awful week for victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence.
Always feels unresolved when the case just gets dropped. Doesn't really prove anything one way or another.
Yet a good week to confirm that the system wins over mob rule, thank goodness for that.
Does this mean I can keep my «Giggs Fitness» yoga DVD?
I will remember Ryan Giggs flying down the wing first and foremost.
But think the ship has sailed regarding his involvement with football and media.