Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
Welcome to the Wierd
100 Pages!!
100 Pages!!
...gamblers re-evaluate along the dotted line,
you can meet a million of them on 'Heartattack & Vine'
(From memory).
And the 'losing 2-0 proves how great OH is' and the 'what he said amounts to saying OH is better than Keane' (paraphrased) statements which were also purely sarcastic?
As opposed to mostly attempting to advance Noods position by misrepresenting that of an opponent.
Did you bother to read what I posted?
I'm talking about 'not giving the poor sod a chance' when people will simultaneously complain about him running around too much - and yet also - about him not being mobile enough.
Go back and read the posts again - then comment.
100 pages is off the hook!!
I was rather making two points:
1 people complain he runs too much - yet also that he isn't mobile enough (no names no packdrill)
2 it's likely (though not certain) that the same person who criticised OH for lack of movement here also criticised him for 'headless chicken syndrome' in another post somewhere.
Of course - it is still possible for someone to sensibly reply that 'he generally runs around too much' but today seemed like he didn't move around enough.
Then I'd ask upon what elements was his analysis based - because in my view he moved around as much as was needed - leading to debate.
It's also possible that someone might be employing double standards - we'll criticise him for being clueless if he covers loads of ground - and we'll criticise him for being static if he doesn't - I thought it useful to try to find out which was happening tbh.
RIGHT...
... and when I show complete attention to context (eg. an 'explanation' is not normally meant to be as much of an exaggeration as the thing it explains) no-one pays a blind bit of attention.
When just a quick look at what people are posting makes it obvious how people are arguing past each other - this makes me incapable of detecting context?
When pointing out that direct false accusations of dishonesty against a poster are somewhat different to just 'calling people names' I'm being incapable of detecting context?
Alternatively - why don't you actually try to quote an instance where I have been guilty of what you claim?
(The 'robotic Keane' quote won't work btw - for 2 reasons: 1: my complaint was that it was inaccurate - it was inaccurate; 2: the 'explanation' given attempted to justify it by further misrepresenting the opponent's words - in all, it obviously WAS misrepresentation.)
Why would I? Unless collating examples of illogicality?
Often yes - even if not always.
I am, however, rather sensitive to how people understand (or not) 'intellectual dishonesty'.
Making fun of the notion that someone can be accused of this in an entirely valid manner allows such behaviour to continue unabated (with all the negative effects previously noted).
On a personal level, having the piss taken out of the notion that intellectual honesty is important is effectively 'taking the piss out of me' - since I'm one of the few here who care. So I reckon responding to a pisstake with a reasoned argument is 'reasonable' - but then I always have.
(There is a small joke there for those in the know btw.)I'm not sure I want to know - should I be grateful my sound is off?
wtf is that
You're a strange one, right enough.
What a beautiful thread.
Really don't see how one can blame Hargreaves for that goal.
Our defense was a shambles period on that counter and the only person making a real effort was Hargreaves. Hargreaves tracked someone into the box I forget who. If he doesn't track him (Adebayor?) Then he has an easy tap in since nobody picked up him either.
There is a real debate about religion?
I'd say this is very similar to a religious debate however.
One side supports a belief that is not supported by reality.
The other side makes observations based on what is actually happening in the real world and then draws conclusions based on the best available evidence ;p
Not really it just means Capeelo wants different things in his squad or perhaps he just doesn't rate Carrick. Either way it'll probably be Gareth Barry who starts.
I wasn't debating those points. Simply the robotic Roy Keane one. That is why I did not use those examples.
The same way neither I or anyone else said strikers get paid to stop goals.
WesBrownIsGod stop posting that sick gif animation you sick feck.
RIGHT...
... and when I show complete attention to context (eg. an 'explanation' is not normally meant to be as much of an exaggeration as the thing it explains) no-one pays a blind bit of attention.
When just a quick look at what people are posting makes it obvious how people are arguing past each other - this makes me incapable of detecting context?
When pointing out that direct false accusations of dishonesty against a poster are somewhat different to just 'calling people names' I'm being incapable of detecting context?
Alternatively - why don't you actually try to quote an instance where I have been guilty of what you claim?
(The 'robotic Keane' quote won't work btw - for 2 reasons: 1: my complaint was that it was inaccurate - it was inaccurate; 2: the 'explanation' given attempted to justify it by further misrepresenting the opponent's words - in all, it obviously WAS misrepresentation.)
So. You don't see the "dishonesty" - your choice of word - of using my quote to support a generic view of those who won't give OH a chance contradicting each other when in the quote you use to support your argument I make it very clear that I am prepared to give him a chance?
Well then. You're not just a pompous, overbearing, arrogant twat. You're a pompous, overbearing, arrogant, thick twat.
Oh and just to be clear, it's perfectly posible for someone to run about chasing the ball and not exhibit great mobility. You should see me play football. In referring to his mobility, I was talking about his abilty to turn and adjust his position. To me, he looks like he's carrying an injury and doesn't want to change direction quickly in case he makes it worse.
except that he didn't track him until tool ate.
noone is blaming hargraeves alone.
we all agree that it was cock-ups all around
but in the build up to their goal he did not do his job
and i notice chief said he was watching out for eboue so wouldn't see vidic/adebayor positioning, when a) he had just tracked adebayor briefly and b) vidic is in his line of sight then I'd be worried that hargraeves has the memory of a fish and the eyesight of a mole...
(bold = exaggeration. but i don't think the holding out for a cross argument ties in well since he clearly does not have fabregas on his mind when he's watchin eboue and running the same lines as adebayor)
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...
I wonder what that tells us...
Why thanks you, I like to think so.Ralphie 88, if you're reading this, I just want you to know that you, sir, are a legend.
'Chief Tormentor'
class.
TBH it's not difficult looking like a debating legend when you've mostly been arguing against Condom Two-Teams.
100 Pages! Well Done Everyone
Especially the Chief, who must have posted at least 50% himself.
Hot off the press I have a photo of him (centre), IK and Nucks at last night's 100 Page celebration party. Looks like it's a scream!
Especially the Chief, who must have posted at least 50% himself.
Hot off the press I have a photo of him (centre), IK and Nucks at last night's 100 Page celebration party. Looks like it's a scream!
It's important to have a great sense of humor but the picture was maybe a little misplaced It's not nice to tell that to the Chief, who is apparently from Germany...
It's not nice to tell that to the Chief, who is apparently from Germany...Havent read this thread, but Hargreaves is class and the sort of player we've been crying out for for years.
The fact that Noodle doesnt realise this says more about him than old Hargo, along with Noods persistent impotent whinging in match day threads, having a dig at Ferguson whenever he can fit one in, calling the great man 'a fecking idiot' and then slinking off when Sir Alex makes him look a cnut.
Noodles a good bloke im sure, but seems to be constantly showing himself to be clueless about Football.
The fact that Noodle doesnt realise this says more about him than old Hargo, along with Noods persistent impotent whinging in match day threads, having a dig at Ferguson whenever he can fit one in, calling the great man 'a fecking idiot' and then slinking off when Sir Alex makes him look a cnut.
Noodles a good bloke im sure, but seems to be constantly showing himself to be clueless about Football.
What robotic Roy Keane?
I assume the Chief is from Bavaria - hence the fact Bayern are his "first team".It's important to have a great sense of humor but the picture was maybe a little misplaced
Hitler was from Austria.
So no harm done.
I can't agree with that. The moment all your defenders go forward, along with the holding midfielder, leaving no one behind to defend but strikers and Anderson, you've entered the realms of kamikaze football. The stupidest form of football there is.
I wasn't a rush of blood. It was certain to happen. He isn't a defender or a defensive player in any shape or form. To have expected him and Anderson to by some miracle have pulled off staving of that counter attack is not being realistic. We paid for being too gung ho. It's that simple.
You said defending = stopping goals. Basically equating defending any where on the pitch to the direct stopping of goals. Meaning once a striker defend upfront, he is stopping goals. For to you it's nonsense that stopping goals is the exclusive preserve of a goal keeper and his back four. Thus I fail to see what you are denying.
Yes. They are short and not much of a threat aerially. I'd put men like Mascherano on them. Or even Kuyt.
Fair enough
Bullshit. Torres is simply brilliant as player. Claiming having someone alongside him would make him better is just silly. Up top, alone has always been his role. Will always be. Just because he can play off a striker doesn't make him a second striker like Rooney. It is also beyond ridiculous to claim he needs help from oetrh strierk to perform. When he has playe a lone star role for years first at Atletico now at Liverpool.
Back to showing what a feck wit you are again. I never said anything of the sort. I never ever said he could go for free in January. Or that very day Bolton wanted to pay 7 million for him. It's not even debatable.
I haven't made a single thing up in this thread. That's an indisputable fact. As for you.. Who are you to talk about "making things up"? This coming from the utter buffoon who has been making things up constantly, like the rubbish you constantly write about Hargreaves, and now your claiming I said Saha should walk on a free, in January?
You just don't know when to stop making a fool of yourself.
If you are as lenient as Mike Riley in your outlook.
Shut up you immature juvenile fool. Your just a childish, blind, ignorant racist! Your also a liar, which isn't surprising given the fact that you are totally mad, aswell as being an idiotic buffoon. Your also a foolish, Blithering Idiot!
Thus rests Sam
You don't think?
Seagulls, have you seen Downfall by the way (which is what the reference was to)? I'm guessing Chief hasn't, but you usually seem pretty rounded in terms of knowledge etc.
Ooooh excellent!
Fool
Immature
Juvenile
Childish
Racist
Ignorant
Blind
Idiot
Buffoon
Mad
Stupid
Liar
Chicken
Yellow
Yellow Man
feckwit
Thats the most disturbing thing I've ever seen on the Caf, and that should tell you something.
Are we reaching hundred and one ? :P
PS : obviously not :-(
PS : obviously not :-(
I know you love to deny things you said - like even in this thread denying that you said that it's only the goalkeeper and defenders who are responsible for stopping goals being conceded, when you clearly had said it.This coming from the utter buffoon who has been making things up constantly, like the rubbish you constantly write about Hargreaves, and now your claiming I said Saha should walk on a free, in January?
This is another of those. In this thread, you clearly suggested we let Saha go for nothing, even paying out his contract for him:
https://www.redcafe.net/f9/ferguson-back-hunt-182179/
That was on the 17th January. I think you were suggesting we let him go for nothing in the summer, but the point still stands.
So please spout all you like but don't deny things you have clearly said.
Mods close this thread before it meets its next mile stone, its degenerated into shite and is now getting a tad sick.
- Status