Discussion in 'World Cup 2010 South Africa' started by Dandred, Jul 7, 2010.
Yeah, in fairness, you're an Arsenal fan...
The funny thing about your mentality is that it guarantees unhappiness. Any team that wins the final is by definition not worth supporting.
Because you're a contrarian.
What a ponce.
I'd have loved a dutch win. Your post says attacking football cannot win the world cup history says different. Who is the contrarian?
There have always been m/c fanzines. WSC being king of the hill. The hectoring tone of the english teacher telling the kids they're doing it all wrong.
First part, I agree. Second part, I don't see. Third part, sometimes but not as a guiding principle.
If you don't agree with the 2nd part then your case ('it guarantees unhappiness') against me falls.
I don't know WSC. Only one I've read regularly was Brian Moore's Head...
Categorising fanzines by class is a bit pathetic, though.
The point isn't really about whether the football is attacking or not.
The point goes to whether you back a loser or a winner.
The impression I get is that you prefer to back losers.
Woohoo Holland won last night after all. Hup Holland.
SCORE to SCORE it was
They have a whole separate catalogue of them at the British Library. Not a bad way to while away a few hours.
Why? They lined themselves up that way. And i'm not catergorising them, i'm characterising one - and a certain hectoring belligerent cerebral tone.
just read that elsewhere, wtf??
Well then you might want to think about making your argument a bit clearer. You're still wrong (but what a body of evidence you've amassed).
Nope. You said 'there have always been m/c fanzines.
TBH I thought using 'middle class' as a term of abuse would be beneath you.
There have always been m/c fanzines as characterised by that hectoring belligerent cerebral tone - that doesn't mean that i primarily catergorise them all by that. If noticing something means categorising something (which apparently is bad now, no idea why) then i suppose i'm guilty.
I don't know why you'd think such a thing.
TBF - fanzines have always been mostly m/c.
That was sort of their Raison d'être.
Fanzines aren't any class. They're just fanzines.
That's just anti-intellectual bollocks. You've read a few books, that must make you middle class. What a load of spirit-sapping crap.
I totally disagree. The sort that you studied and were catalogued obliviously were. A sort of self-selecting process.
What do you man that this was always their point?
No one has said any such thing, don't you dare wag your finger at anyone on that lazy lazy basis. I thought better of you.
You said 'middle class' as a form of abuse, criticising a certain intellectuality.
The ones that I studied were a direct reaction to the Thatcherite demonisation of football fans in the wake of Heysel and, perversely, Bradford.
Consequently their principle purpose was to challenge the dominant representation of football fans. In the most part this was characterised by values and ideas that would be recognised today as being part of a m/c fandom milieu.
Well, I can only really speak for Brian Moore's Head, whose main purpose was to make jokes about how crap Gillingham are and to have a go at the incompetent board.
I would suspect it is typical, though. Fanzines and small press stuff in general are not well analysed by giving them classes.
The key is in the first line. What about the ones you didn't study?: The one-offs? The ones not colelcted in the states libraries?
I see, you can recognise values and ideas that would be recognised today as being ... m/c . When i do it's simple abuse. What are these m/c characteristics then?
It's happening even here.
I think Diamond saying it is bollocks too, fwiw.
Certainly I concentrated on only a few in the end but in the beginning I read many fanzines that were ephemeral and existed only for one or two issues.
But here's the thing, and I doubt you'll like it. The only reason that those fanzines failed was because of the market and the only reason that others succeeded was because of the market.
The market pruned them ruthlessly until the survivors were left. And those represented the majority view.
As to the m/c stuff.
I recognise what you would perceive to be those characteristics without subscribing to your point of view
Separate names with a comma.