Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic

Status
Not open for further replies.

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,253
The only problem here is that the author of that remark, Noods, said his Keane point was meant to indicate that the chief had praised OH so highly it was the equivalent of saying he was better than Keano - which does rather make it relevant to the 'robotic keano' one. :angel:
Not really. I said the robotic Roy Keane comment was an example of somebody being sarcastic. I didn't say that the other remarks where. Obviously the robotic Roy Keane one was sarcasm regardless of what the underlying theme was.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
52,519
Location
Founder of IhateMakeleles.org and Gourcufffanboysa
How can anyone NOT say that Hargreaves was substantially responsible for Arsenal's equaliser this season? He tries to challenge Fabregas (one of the ball players that he is apparently meant to be stifling) but then lets him go free and instead dashes off after the ball like a headless chicken, despite the fact cover is there. Then, when he's reached Adebayor, he just stops, allowing Adebayor to run into the area free. Adebayor causes the damaged, Fabregas, completely free, passes the ball into the net.

Awful awful stuff, and this in apparently his best game for us :rolleyes:


at 1.12
:lol: this has been talked to death:lol: Brown and Vidic were at fault. END OF....:wenger:
 

Feedingseagulls

Full Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
11,825
Location
Beyond Good & Evil
How can anyone NOT say that Hargreaves was substantially responsible for Arsenal's equaliser this season? He tries to challenge Fabregas (one of the ball players that he is apparently meant to be stifling) but then lets him go free and instead dashes off after the ball like a headless chicken, despite the fact cover is there. Then, when he's reached Adebayor, he just stops, allowing Adebayor to run into the area free. Adebayor causes the damaged, Fabregas, completely free, passes the ball into the net.

Awful awful stuff, and this in apparently his best game for us :rolleyes:


at 1.12
That would be after the desperate chase-back after needing to cover the ball up the wing when Wes comes back inside him as the Arsenal move starts in their half.

That means he's a fraction late getting to Fabregas to prevent his pass (amazing that he's close at all tbh) - then he goes towards the most immediate danger to attempt to deal with it - leaving Fabregas to the people between him and the goal - if he'd stayed with Fabregas as you are perhaps suggesting and Adebayor had scored people would have been on his back for that. Poor sod 'can't win'/'won't be given a chance' - as pointed out earlier.

As has been pointed out - others were available and should have picked up other people during this move.
 

Feedingseagulls

Full Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
11,825
Location
Beyond Good & Evil
Not really. I said the robotic Roy Keane comment was an example of somebody being sarcastic. I didn't say that the other remarks where. Obviously the robotic Roy Keane one was sarcasm regardless of what the underlying theme was.
I disagree - the 'giant robotic' bit might have been sarcasm - but the asserted comparison to Keane was meant to be 'accurate' - hence Noods' own remark about his point being the chief 'might as well have' or 'effectively' (can't be bothered to check actual usage) said that OH was better than Keane.

Noods was attempting to use this remark to bolster his argument - it wasn't 'just a joke' - he was helping his argument by misrepresenting that of his opponent (using, by your analysis, elements of sarcasm).

That's misrepresenting his opponent to help advance his argument - exactly what I first complained about and consistent with numerous other remarks he made, even when the context should be 'serious' - for example, during an 'explanation'.

The 'robotic Keane' remark wasn't the only point in Noods' post to which I replied - it wasn't even the focus of my reply - which was the 'Bayern lost 2-0 [proving something]' remark - the Keane remark was just the one Plech decided to use because it helped his case more - Noods avoided the 'losing 2-0' remark like the plague as well when challenged. :lol:
 

BahamaRed

Legend
Joined
Jul 20, 1999
Messages
13,528
Location
Location: Location:
I disagree - the 'giant robotic' bit might have been sarcasm - but the asserted comparison to Keane was meant to be 'accurate' - hence Noods' own remark about his point being the chief 'might as well have' or 'effectively' (can't be bothered to check actual usage) said that OH was better than Keane.

Noods was attempting to use this remark to bolster his argument - it wasn't 'just a joke' - he was helping his argument by misrepresenting that of his opponent (using, by your analysis, elements of sarcasm).

That's misrepresenting his opponent to help advance his argument - exactly what I first complained about and consistent with numerous other remarks he made, even when the context should be 'serious' - for example, during an 'explanation'.

The 'robotic Keane' remark wasn't the only point in Noods' post to which I replied - it wasn't even the focus of my reply - which was the 'Bayern lost 2-0 [proving something]' remark - the Keane remark was just the one Plech decided to use because it helped his case more - Noods avoided the 'losing 2-0' remark like the plague as well when challenged. :lol:
Shucks....can we have the witness for the prosecution now please.
 

Wonder Pigeon

'Shelbourne FC Supporter'
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
21,619
Location
Forza Shelbourne
Supports
Shelbourne
I disagree - the 'giant robotic' bit might have been sarcasm - but the asserted comparison to Keane was meant to be 'accurate' - hence Noods' own remark about his point being the chief 'might as well have' or 'effectively' (can't be bothered to check actual usage) said that OH was better than Keane.

Noods was attempting to use this remark to bolster his argument - it wasn't 'just a joke' - he was helping his argument by misrepresenting that of his opponent (using, by your analysis, elements of sarcasm).

That's misrepresenting his opponent to help advance his argument - exactly what I first complained about and consistent with numerous other remarks he made, even when the context should be 'serious' - for example, during an 'explanation'.

The 'robotic Keane' remark wasn't the only point in Noods' post to which I replied - it wasn't even the focus of my reply - which was the 'Bayern lost 2-0 [proving something]' remark - the Keane remark was just the one Plech decided to use because it helped his case more - Noods avoided the 'losing 2-0' remark like the plague as well when challenged. :lol:
 

peterstorey

Specialist In Failure
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
37,293
Location
'It's for the Arsenal and we're going to Wembley'
A quick Google shows it's a film - probably about the last days - so why remarks comparing posters to characters in this film are substantially different to comparing them to the historical characters could perhaps do with being explained - especially since the remark may be read by those unfamiliar with the film. :angel:
Most people, if not aware of the film directly, will know of it because of the YouTube pisstakes. We can't go around pandering to people who are ignorant of popular culture and seemingly happy to trumpet their ignorance.
 

Feedingseagulls

Full Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
11,825
Location
Beyond Good & Evil
Most people, if not aware of the film directly, will know of it because of the YouTube pisstakes. We can't go around pandering to people who are ignorant of popular culture and seemingly happy to trumpet their ignorance.
I can't go around pandering to those who base their views on Youtube 'pisstakes' either. :angel:

Do you think Ralphie's original remarks referred to the film or the 'pisstakes' btw? If the former, what relevance do the latter have? If the latter, surely he should have qualified his remarks to refer to the 'pisstakes' rather than the film itself. :angel:

On what basis would anyone have searched for such Youtube vids if they did not already know of them?
 

anything about now

MUFC lad living in a matriel world
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
6,503
The discussion has been pretty good and gives everyone a chance to exercise their footballing knowledge as well as their own interpretation of the game. Usually when one tries to post an observation or opinion in, say, a match thread, it usually gets drowned out by spam and muppetry...
 

kf

Full Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2001
Messages
6,336
Really getting rather defensive here aren't you?

Look back at the words used:

'we are not going to give the poor sod a chance'.

That's 'we' -as in a group of people consisting of more than one poster.

I specifically describe the criticisms levelled by members of this group:

'Loads of people have complained OH 'runs around like a headless chicken' (inaccurate but wth.) and then along comes another guy who doesn't like his performance to slate him for not moving around enough!!'

That's other people as well as yourself - comprising a group who criticise OH (generally unfairly). Together, you (the group) do seem to be trying to criticise OH whether he runs a lot or little - which is the contradiction to which I specifically refer that's the area in which he is 'not being given a chance'.

However, the point about the worthwhile effect of running is valid - and made by myself earlier (if memory serves). The problem is that the 'anti-OH' group (generally) can't admit when he either chases, or positions himself, well - neither can they acknowledge his many good passes - another example of 'not giving him a chance'. BTW in this context 'not giving a chance' doesn't mean 'not waiting to see how he develops', it means 'generally, no matter what he does - only the negative interpretation will be used'.
So to support a point about people who collectively could be described as a group who won't give OH a chance, you use a quote from someone who quite clearly does want to give him a chance, just like the majority of people in the thread actually. And this is somehow a coherent argument? You're in danger, like the thread, of disappearing up your own arsehole. And how welcome would that be?
 

kf

Full Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2001
Messages
6,336
FS, you've managed to get in a protracted bickering session with noods, who's pretty much universally liked and before this thread has probably not had a tiff with anyone on here in four or five years... and kf, who in his entire life has only once crossed swords, and that was with an intransigent peacock.

I wonder what that tells us...
:lol:

Maybe I should do what I did with the peacock... fecker's still in the freezer :angel:

Or perhaps just use the ignore button.
 

KingEric7

Stupid Conspiracy Enthusiast Wanker
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
24,005
What a fecking player we have in Michael Carrick.
Today he once again showed that he can help to control a game against one of the world's best midfields without being limited to this "defensive midfielder" status.
 

Godfather

Full Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
29,803
Location
Austria
Usually I dont give a feck about such threads, but I just had the feeling to put my thought in here:

Carrick > (miles that is) Hargreaves
 

FortBoyard

gets teste with iPads
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
7,501
Location
Unknown
Supports
Bitter Racism
Earlier i was arguing for Hargreaves, today i'll say it. I'd rather Carrick start any match.
 

ralphie88

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
14,356
Location
Stretford
I used 'think' because it is my opinion. I don't really see the remarks quoted as racist (possibly a bit insensitive though 0 hence lacking in taste -see above).

I'm guessing 'Downfall' is a film? - since the context didn't fit the Milligan 'Adolf Hitler & my Part in His Downfall' books. I don't tend to rate film much & so watch little of it.

A quick Google shows it's a film - probably about the last days - so why remarks comparing posters to characters in this film are substantially different to comparing them to the historical characters could perhaps do with being explained - especially since the remark may be read by those unfamiliar with the film. :angel:
Yeah it was a film - a cracker and well worth a watch - about Hitler and his entourage in the bunker as the Red Army closes in, becoming increasingly paranoid and refusing to admit the reality of the situation around him. And then totally losing it when Goering betrays him. That was the reference, completely missed by Two-Teams. I suppose next time I'll try something a little more pop-culture. Tellytubbies or something.

I can't go around pandering to those who base their views on Youtube 'pisstakes' either. :angel:

Do you think Ralphie's original remarks referred to the film or the 'pisstakes' btw? If the former, what relevance do the latter have? If the latter, surely he should have qualified his remarks to refer to the 'pisstakes' rather than the film itself. :angel:

On what basis would anyone have searched for such Youtube vids if they did not already know of them?
Well the fact that the YouTube pisstake of Downfall (Sheff United finding out the West Ham result) had been on RedCafe in the summer meant that I thought it was a fairly safe reference. It was also a pretty well-known film when it came about a few years back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.