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

Status
Not open for further replies.

robthered

Full Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
2,071
Location
That's Dr. robthered
Um. There were a few posts on here banging on about Carrick not getting picked for England, Cappelo's knowledge being greater than ours etc.

So how do you explain Sunday then?
 

KingEric7

Stupid Conspiracy Enthusiast Wanker
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
24,005
No, because Instant Karma is a closet gooner and a Carrick, Rooney, Scholes hater.
It's obviously because they are English.

It was probably extremely annoying when Rio, Carrick, Scholes and Rooney all had fantastic games, with Wes Brown also getting on the scoresheet.
 

Wonder Pigeon

'Shelbourne FC Supporter'
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
21,620
Location
Forza Shelbourne
Supports
Shelbourne
You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little fecked up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to feckin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?
 

mu77

New Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2002
Messages
7,004
i can't wait for the next edition of caftards. makes this thread worth it. maybe plech should go way OTT and do "cafetards the movie".
 

Feedingseagulls

Full Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
11,825
Location
Beyond Good & Evil
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?
Did you notice the different senses of 'giving somone a chance' employed?

No - thought not! So here it is again.

1 'We'll give him some time before we pass final judgement' - admirable of itself - and your own view. In this sense - 'not giving someone a chance' means not waiting.

However, whenever you make a judgement, it is very important how people weigh evidence and make those judgements.

2 Best portrayed in the negative: 'We'll always interpret his play in the worst possible light' and use that portrayal when making our judgements whenever they are made. (Eg. he mustn't run around so much - but he mustn't be more static either.)

This sense is the important one - and the one I addressed - since if this type of prejudice is occurring it doesn't really matter if time is given or not.

Hence the second type was the one on which I concentrated. You are right to mention your intention to adopt the first - but your contribution helped constitute an example of the first, more important, one which I clearly indicated in those posts.

Please do not confuse the two senses in your next post.
 

RedNome

Cnut Rating: 9 (Conservative)
Joined
Apr 27, 2006
Messages
17,448
Did you notice the different senses of 'giving somone a chance' employed?

No - thought not! So here it is again.

1 'We'll give him some time before we pass final judgement' - admirable of itself - and your own view. In this sense - 'not giving someone a chance' means not waiting.

However, whenever you make a judgement, it is very important how people weigh eviddence and make those judgements.

2 Best portrayed in the negative: 'We'll always interpret his play in the worst possible light' and use that portrayal when making our judgements whenever they are made. (Eg. he mustn't run around so much - but he mustn't be more static either.)

This sense is the important one - and the one I addressed - since if this type of prejudice is occurring it doesn't really matter if time is given or not.

Hence the second type was the one on which I concentrated. You are right to mention your intention to adopt the first - but your contribution helped constitute an example of the first. more important, one which I clearly indicated in those posts.

Please do not confuse the two senses in your next post.
You really are THE most boring poster on these boards.

Just give it a rest ffs.
 

Feedingseagulls

Full Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
11,825
Location
Beyond Good & Evil
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.
In that case, whilst I can see the 'paranoid' refs - I can also completely understand someone's annoyance that you choose to use the genocidal Nazis top describe them as opposed to some other paranoid delusional characters.

Employing those Nazis seems wrong on 2 levels:

1 far too many negative connotations against your 'victim'.

2 trivialising the actions of the Nazis.

Whilst I still maintain these aren't 'racist' - there are very much in poor taste.
 

Feedingseagulls

Full Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
11,825
Location
Beyond Good & Evil
If OH had done his job properly, Vidic and Brown could have nipped off for a quick cup of tea. End of.
Ok - let's take a quick look at this 'joke'...


It seems to relate to OH leaving a midfield player to be dealt with by other members of his team whilst he covers space closer to the ball.

Against Liverpool on Sun (poss about 26 mins in?) Carrick abandons Gerrard to help occupy space close to our right-back and leaves his many team-mates to deal with the midfielder. The ball ends up at Gerrard's feet with Carrick nowhere and luckily his shot, when deflected, goes safe - so no major repercussions.

Yet the perceived fault is very similar - one left Fabregas to his team-mates - the other left Gerrard - one is vilified - the other lauded.

For the record - Carrick was decent today (despite a flurry of poor passes during that bad patch in the 2nd half) - and very good in patches.

Also, for the record, a number of regular match-going-reds in my area were continually asserting that Carrick was (and pretty much always has been) shit - which rather goes against the idea that those seeing games live all rate him highly.
 

Feedingseagulls

Full Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
11,825
Location
Beyond Good & Evil
You really are THE most boring poster on these boards.

Just give it a rest ffs.
Let's see - kf wants to say because he is 'giving a chance' in one sense, I should not use the other part of his post to point out that a group of posters are not 'giving a chance' in another sense. Why?

Have you even bothered to read the original posts concerned?

Let's use different phrases to solve the problem:

The anti-Hargreaves posters 'will not let him win' : as a group they will consistently portray everything he does in the worst possible light - they will interpret his actions so that he is 'damned if he does & damned if he doesn't'.

Getting it yet? :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.