Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

Status
Not open for further replies.
afrocentricity said:
My posts are here for everyone to see, I was impressed with how he handled himself as I would have simply told posters to feck off. Play your games with someone else....
Click to expand...

I'm not playing games. I'm disagreeing with you that claiming her sexual past makes Greenwood less likely to be guilty is a good point, I'm describing how you act when pressed on something concrete, and I'm describing your tone policing. You're right, your posts are here for everyone to see, including me.

You're doing exactly what I said you were going to do, because that is always what you do.
 
NotThatSoph said:
I asked you a question, I didn't use any angry words. By your standard that should be both polite and measured, yet now you suddenly care enough about substance to give an aggressive response. I guess what I wrote is worse than the type of victim blaming that lawyers aren't allowed to engage in because of rape shield laws.

Yes, I can read, so I know some things about what you're like. Of course I don't know you as a person, but you don't know the other people here like that either, and that doesn't stop you from constantly talking about what they are like. When someone like Derek enters the thread, you couldn't be happier. Because of the obscene things he was saying, people will react. You then get to sit "in the middle", talking vaguely about some "good points" without having to commit to anything concrete, you get to tone police and criticize anything taking a position. This is Christmas for you.

When asked about specifics, you disengage. Either directly, by saying that you don't care, or indirectly by deflecting or not answering. You're going to do the same thing now.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
NotThatSoph said:
I'm not playing games. I'm disagreeing with you that claiming her sexual past makes Greenwood less likely to be guilty is a good point, I'm describing how you act when pressed on something concrete, and I'm describing your tone policing. You're right, your posts are here for everyone to see, including me.

You're doing exactly what I said you were going to do, because that is always what you do.
Click to expand...
Ok so you're going to prove the guy right, even though I suggested you all move on? I can't stand posters that repeatedly misrepresent what people say (to the extent of falsification), you need to take a good hard look at yourself. Do you not think this turns people off even though you and others have very valid points?

Let me be clear, if you saw me state the above, or anything even remotely like it. Quote it. Until that moment, {your post can} feck off into the sun.
 
Last edited:
afrocentricity said:
Ok so you're going to prove the guy right, even though I suggested you all move on? I can't stand posters that misrepresent what people say (to the extent of falsification), you need to take a good hard look at yourself. Do you not think this turns people off even though you and others have very valid points?

Let me be clear, if you saw me state the above, or anything even remotely like it. Quote it. Until that moment, {your post can} feck off into the sun.
Click to expand...

The guy made a long list, and was called out on the worst of it. A discussion spawned about those things, like him claiming that her sexual past and who she is friends with makes Greenwood less likely to be guilty. In the midst of that disagreement, you pop in to say that he's making good points.

Now, to be fair to you, I can certainly believe that you didn't know what you were calling good points. It wouldn't surprise me at all if you didn't even read the comments, or at most skimmed through, and therefore completely missed what you were defending. I can totally see you observing someone defending Greenwood, people reacting angrily, and you charging in with no regard for what was actually said in your role as the tone police. Resulting in you describing someone blaming her sexual past and her friend group as someone "making good points".
 
NotThatSoph said:
The guy made a long list, and was called out on the worst of it. A discussion spawned about those things, like him claiming that her sexual past and who she is friends with makes Greenwood less likely to be guilty. In the midst of that disagreement, you pop in to say that he's making good points.

Now, to be fair to you, I can certainly believe that you didn't know what you were calling good points. It wouldn't surprise me at all if you didn't even read the comments, or at most skimmed through, and therefore completely missed what you were defending. I can totally see you observing someone defending Greenwood, people reacting angrily, and you charging in with no regard for what was actually said in your role as the tone police. Resulting in you describing someone blaming her sexual past and her friend group as someone "making good points".
Click to expand...
You're a bit weird..... I think you should ignore me from now on.
 
Rood said:
Absolutely fine to tell someone their opinion is nonsense as long as you explain why without insults and personal attacks - that was my issue here as it adds absolutely nothing of value to the forum.

And BTW BigDerek was banned so MOTWYW.
TBF he was a bit long winded and made some controversial claims that deserved push back but I found the different perspective refreshing in a thread that mostly follows the same circular arguments.

I note you were one of the few who responded without hysteria so kudos to you, would have been interesting to hear your further thoughts on the response that you were given.
Click to expand...

Again it goes back to the fact that there is a report function and mods. Far, far more people debated his points than attacking him.

Not sure what he was banned for specifically so hard to say much.

I wouldn't have responded as he took an already long winded exchange and nearly doubled the length of post to the point that it just becomes a pain in the arse to even format a response point by point.
 
Raoul said:
The chants are a harbinger of what United would have to deal with if he ever returned.

Also, I find this bit at the end of Getafe's statement interesting - equating the chants in a category that includes "violence", which given Greenwood's original assault charge (among other things) will probably sit oddly with a number of fans.
Click to expand...

It would have been much much worse if he'd returned for United, there were already chants even when he wasn't playing - would have been another unnecessary distraction for the rest of the players

Loaning abroad was definitely the best option to start with
 
Wumminator said:
No I’m not - I’ve called them exactly right and they don’t like it.
Click to expand...

You're saying people with a different opinion than yours should be banned from the forum. I don't particularly want or need Greenwood back but that is an absurd take.
 
afrocentricity said:
We look like we are close to something good, but it's not happening. Atrocious luck, injury crisis, tactics that I'm still not sure about, in fact somebody make it make sense. What is he trying to do? and how is it going to elevate us to contenders? This midfield plan.
Click to expand...

Wrong thread ? :wenger:
 
Wumminator said:
No it's not.

I think some opinions are vile.
Click to expand...
This forum allows vile opinions. You're allowed to be racist or homophobic or misogynistic. Basically talk like a racist politician and you'll get fans and following on here. Just don't promote it.
 
Snow said:
This forum allows vile opinions. You're allowed to be racist or homophobic or misogynistic. Basically talk like a racist politician and you'll get fans and following on here. Just don't promote it.
Click to expand...

Thats quite the claim. Care to show evidence of posts allowing such things that went unpunished? I have never seen any of that on here
 
Snow said:
This forum allows vile opinions. You're allowed to be racist or homophobic or misogynistic. Basically talk like a racist politician and you'll get fans and following on here. Just don't promote it.
Click to expand...

Show me examples please?
 
dan1509 said:
Thats quite the claim. Care to show evidence of posts allowing such things that went unpunished? I have never seen any of that on here
Click to expand...
Read between the lines. It's not allowed to promote it but people talk that way here in plenty of threads. This thread is full of people that have been defending the violence towards women being OK under the guise of a failure of a justice system not prosecuting.
 
Snow said:
You're not allowed to promote it. You don't have to promote misogyny for you being a misogynist.
Click to expand...

Well that’s just the wording. We certainly ban anyone who is outright racist or makes comments deemed unacceptable. It is very hard to make a judgement call on whether someone is or isn’t something based on their posts on a forum (some are sneaky and tread the fine line), but we do our best. Please report anything you see that has gone unnoticed/unchallenged.
 
Solius said:
Well that’s just the wording. We certainly ban anyone who is outright racist or makes comments deemed unacceptable. It is very hard to make a judgement call on whether someone is or isn’t something based on their posts on a forum (some are sneaky and tread the fine line), but we do our best. Please report anything you see that has gone unnoticed/unchallenged.
Click to expand...
It's not just the wording, it's the rules. The rules you adhere to when making decisions on if you should give warnings or bans. You have to absolutely lose your shit to get a ban on here. Most pieces of shit on the internet aren't blatant in their views becusse they know they go against the masses. Therefor they speak more subtly like "Courts didn't find Greenwood guilty and therefor he's innocent". That's just another way of saying "I don't care what he did, I still want him to play with us" which is just an acceptable way of condoning violence.

In this thread and others we have had posters who claimed to have listened to the tapes but still don't think Greenwood did anything guilty. Now, I get that you might be living in denial because you're his family something but if you spend hours on the internet defending his innocence then you surely must believe what he did wasn't wrong, i.e. defending violence. Fine by the rules because you're not promoting it, you're defending it.

On another tangent search for the word Amadeus and you'll find evidence of harassment because I don't know what else to call it what that posters goes through just because he's got a very strong opinion on a manager. I'd report more if the function would consistently work and I'd also complain less if the ignore function would work but they're about as functional as our defenses at the moment.
 
Snow said:
On another tangent search for the word Amadeus and you'll find evidence of harassment because I don't know what else to call it what that posters goes through just because he's got a very strong opinion on a manager.
Click to expand...

Come on, mate.

He's a WUM (of some kind).

Yes, of some kind being the relevant term, because he ain't a garden variety one.

If he isn't a WUM, he has issues that the moderators on the Caf are not qualified to deal with.
 
Didn't follow 100+ pages of "debates" here, I keep seeing comments that "the comments in this thread are outrageous/disgusting" etc without quoting the problematic comments, wonder what are the outrageous/disgusting comments or stances? is it "I am gonna support Getafe" or "I am gonna buy a Greenwood shirt?" or something like that?
 
JeffFromHK said:
Didn't follow 100+ pages of "debates" here, I keep seeing comments that "the comments in this thread are outrageous/disgusting" etc without quoting the problematic comments, wonder what are the outrageous/disgusting comments or stances? is it "I am gonna support Getafe" or "I am gonna buy a Greenwood shirt?" or something like that?
Click to expand...

What has been the view of this issue among United supporters you know in Hong Kong ?
 
Wumminator said:
Genuinely don’t understand why we aren’t banning posters who openly and brazenly call for Greenwood to come back. Some have got Getafe shirts ffs.
Click to expand...
Not that I want Greenwood back, but..... I forgot how it feels to live in an autocratic regime? I thought I will never witness it ever again.
 
Giggsyking said:
Not that I want Greenwood back, but..... I forgot how it feels to live in an autocratic regime? I thought I will never witness it ever again.
Click to expand...

What the absolute feck do you mean? It’s a message board I want to have a level of quality to it - not a political statement.
 
Raoul said:
What has been the view of this issue among United supporters you know in Hong Kong ?
Click to expand...

TBH, from our local fan online forums or facebook pages, most are like:
1. Greenwood is a scumbag, he deserves punishment (United fans are entitled not liking him to be our player, just like any player else), but it does not deserve "death sentence" to footballing career. Benzema blackmailed with sex tape, Marcos Alonso killed a girl driving drunk, these are not inferior offences to domestic violence ("imagine the girl killed by Marcos Alonso is your daughter?"), but they both played as usual at club level at least.

2. Media/Opposition fans makes a big fuss about it just because Greenwood is a Man Utd player. If the same thing is committed by a City/Liverpool/Chelsea/Arsenal player, he will be playing as usual for sure. Media/opposition fans' scrutiny on Mendy and Partey's rape cases were much smaller for instance.

3. Sorry that it could be controversial or contentious - some United fans are very vocal against Greenwood because they deliberately or consciously want to avoid being viewed as "misogynistic" as a social pressure. If a United player beats up his son or his brother (it is equally a domestic violence), the fans would make a much smaller fuss about it.
 
Last edited:
From the Guardian today

“One player who will not be part of United’s plans next season is Mason Greenwood. The 21-year-old joined Getafe on a season’s loan in the summer after it was decided he should continue his career away from Old Trafford at the end of a six-month internal investigation into allegations against the striker, and the club will stand by their decision not to make him available to Ten Hag.”
 
NicolaSacco said:
From the Guardian today

“One player who will not be part of United’s plans next season is Mason Greenwood. The 21-year-old joined Getafe on a season’s loan in the summer after it was decided he should continue his career away from Old Trafford at the end of a six-month internal investigation into allegations against the striker, and the club will stand by their decision not to make him available to Ten Hag.”
Click to expand...
Excellent.
 
NicolaSacco said:
From the Guardian today

“One player who will not be part of United’s plans next season is Mason Greenwood. The 21-year-old joined Getafe on a season’s loan in the summer after it was decided he should continue his career away from Old Trafford at the end of a six-month internal investigation into allegations against the striker, and the club will stand by their decision not to make him available to Ten Hag.”
Click to expand...

Seems weird that this is just a footnote in a story about the Ratcliffe saga. Wouldn't this have been a bigger story if it were coming from the club?

The article continues: "Greenwood’s Manchester United contract runs until 2025 but he will not be permitted to reintegrate into the squad after his loan at Getafe, leaving the club open to selling him next summer."

As it's written, this seems like quite a big deal for the MG saga.
 
Taribo's Gap said:
Seems weird that this is just a footnote in a story about the Ratcliffe saga. Wouldn't this have been a bigger story if it were coming from the club?

The article continues: "Greenwood’s Manchester United contract runs until 2025 but he will not be permitted to reintegrate into the squad after his loan at Getafe, leaving the club open to selling him next summer."

As it's written, this seems like quite a big deal for the MG saga.
Click to expand...

Yeah I thought that too. Could easily have had its own article.
 
NicolaSacco said:
From the Guardian today

“One player who will not be part of United’s plans next season is Mason Greenwood. The 21-year-old joined Getafe on a season’s loan in the summer after it was decided he should continue his career away from Old Trafford at the end of a six-month internal investigation into allegations against the striker, and the club will stand by their decision not to make him available to Ten Hag.”
Click to expand...

Good. We have an answer, whether people like it or not, and can move on now.
 
I’m sure it will be reviewed by the new football people and a decision not driven by social media will be made.
 
NicolaSacco said:
Yeah I thought that too. Could easily have had its own article.
Click to expand...
Better to just bury it in the many other United stories at the moment. Whatever side of the fence people are on re his playing for United again, I think everyone can agree he doesn't need even more headlines about him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.