Liverpool FC Forum

RED BEERGOGGLES wrote:roy is lkie TOm bak;eer takking Liverp[ol back to t he glorty days in hios TArdiis
Somebosy te;l me to g o to bed fffs

What was I drinking   

NANNY RED wrote:Who the fuc.kin hell is that posting in blue.

Hes gotta be a little kid with his one liners shorly,

NANNY RED wrote:Who the fuc.kin hell is that posting in blue.

Hes gotta be a little kid with his one liners shorly,

ben oseman wrote:hahahahhha im the man for one liners efc

dawson99 wrote:

ben oseman wrote:hahahahhha im the man for one liners efc

no, you're just a bit of a tw@t mate, but bless ya for trying

sorry I ever suspected you Dawson 

Greavesie wrote:

dawson99 wrote:

ben oseman wrote:hahahahhha im the man for one liners efc

no, you're just a bit of a tw@t mate, but bless ya for trying

sorry I ever suspected you Dawson 

bigmick wrote:Some interesting points made in the aftermath of a minor spat.

I DO think some posters deserve credit for slightly revising their opinion. For a while it looked like Roy wasn't even going to be given a chance, and some of the aforementioned fans willingness to get behind him a bit more says a lot for their sense of reason. It's too easy on forums to say "he's sh!t and he'll never make it, FACT" and be in a trench from which it's difficult to crawl out of when the bloke wins the golden boot. The forum would be better if all of us were a bit more willing to revise our opinions from time to time. Yes I do include me in that.

The other thing I would say is I'm getting tired of being accused of labelling people and putting them into little groups, pigeon holing them effectively. Most of those accusations seem to be coming from people who actually do belong in a number of different clubs. We've got some posters who are founder members of the "Rafapologists", the "speck you late ers", the "wrist slashers", the "machine gunners" and the new one, the "end is nighers". There are probably other groups which they are card carrying members of, and it gets pretty confusing. I agree with them that there's far too many groups, and it's the same people over and over who keep on joining them. As such from now on I'm going to try my best not to mention the various groups some of them belong to.

Infact just to prove how sincere I am on this, I'm going to create a new group, "the groupies". This new subsection is exclusively for people who are members of multiple organisations and are frankly taking it too far. The chairman of it is Benny the Noon (he's the secretary as well at the moment as it's a fledgling organisation with a low membership), but as people get lumped into it as the season progresses he may be able to pass on some responsibility, delegate it if you will.

Mick... my final point on the matter: your style of posting shows a  tendency to favor information that confirms your  preconceptions, independently of whether they are true. As a result, people gather new evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations). Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Hence they can lead to disastrous decisions, especially in group organizational contexts.