Printable View
I know what you are saying Danny, I think. You feel some on here belabour the point over and over.... As Sammy Hagar said, "What is already understood need not be discussed." When he was talking about Van Halen.
POSH thanks for the comment as usual but seriously...i keep getting Q's on St. Pats. Can you elaborate?
The One Who Knows,
I think you are a great asset to this board but you are behaving like a little b*tch. It is a F-Ng sports message board. Do you really need the constant reinforcement that you are so smart? Just keep giving your opinion. That the board board heavy weights (who i do respect actaully as good people) are even replying should be enough for you. Take your bra off! Judging by some of your spots today i think ye may be a little needy.....
I think this is the first comment of yours I've ever seen that's actually being remotely on topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
Here's a thanks.
I still prefer The Worm.
You're playing the victim again. Nobody's being abused and we're all grown adults who can exchange a few words. People will disagree with and challenge you if your arguments and (mis)representations don't stand up to scrutiny. Nobody's going to just disagree with you for the sake of it, or simply because you're TOWK, who, of course, everyone has it in for, bar Paul. :rolleyes: Debate here generally follows a more logical and nuanced pattern, thankfully. There's no official consensus or orthodoxy. Sure plenty have even pointed out to you that they happen to agree with a lot of what you say whilst disagreeing with some other points of yours. It really isn't a case of you (and Paul) versus the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
To be honest, I was responding more to (well, OK... baiting :p ) Paul though, as I was surprised he saw such value and merit in your (now-past?) conduct. However, I believe Stutts is right in his suspicion that Paul was really just taking the basest of pleasures from seeing a few peacocks' feathers ruffled. Paul thinks we're all pea-brained peacocks suffering myopic but grandiose delusions. Your debating style was disingenuous and intransigent, but your opinions are certainly still more than welcome, as I've already insisted. You don't strike me as malicious. Just eager.
As for you, Crosby, I have no idea what you're talking about, as usual... :)
It might be an idea if someone set up a 'the one who knows- nothing' thread! Would agree with many of you, he is young, naïve, Stutts' b#st#rd son, a possible solicitor (see his comments about exams), has too much time on his hands and if we are not careful he may soon be influenced by Crosby. Perish the thought! ;)
Yeah anyone that even remotely agrees with me must be doing it to ruffle some feathers. :rolleyes: That must be it.
Just conveniently ignore the fact that Paul said he doesn't agree with all of my posts several times.
Anyone that agrees with me on any points must be taken down a notch. How dare they..
Eh? Is that in response to me? You're erecting strawmen now or I think you've misinterpreted. C'mon, man, don't take everything so seriously. You'll do damage to your health being so defensive and hostile. Give your head a rest. I'm off to sleep here anyway. G'night! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
Danny, give a little and get a little.
If you could admit that you brought up the same points against me ad nauseum then maybe I could admit that I can be repetitive.
You act like I am the only one guilty of repeating myself.
Now you're having a go at anyone that even defends me and making cynical assumptions about their reasons for doing so.
Danny does bring up the same point over and over. So do I. Here it is again: the point is that it's not your opinions that are the issue. When is the penny going to drop?
the worm is chicago and crosby is new york.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
I'll never say the same thing more than once. In fact, at no time will you find me reiterating an identical message over again. Repeating myself is just something I will not do.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
In seriousness though, why would an admission from yourself be dependent on one from me? Don't let my conduct dictate your own. It's not a battle of wits. I have repeated my point, but it's because you've remained in denial and have been disingenuously (at least, it surely can't be naïvety at this point) appealing for us to let you air your opinion, as if it is being condemned and suppressed. No-one's stopped you from airing your opinion. It's been roundly welcomed and I think the forum is a better place for your presence. The more the merrier.
The issue some, including myself, have had is with your stubborn unwillingness to admit that your arguments may have logical or evidential holes in them from time to time. When people - it may just happen to be collective - spot these holes and point them out to you, it's not the baying mob you sense it to be; it's just fellow users of a discussion forum entering into civil debate with you. Don't interpret everything you read so literally. A challenge doesn't necessarily equate to a threat and it's OK to be wrong. Sure even I was wrong this one time!
Ack, I'm only ribbing Paul because he enjoys to see you upset the apple-cart so much. He was generally lauding your firebrand abrasiveness rather than particularly defending specific opinions you'd expressed. This whole episode has absolutely nothing to do with your opinions, nor Paul's opinions, nor whether or not the two of you share the same opinions. I've never said you do. It's been about your manner.Quote:
Now you're having a go at anyone that even defends me and making cynical assumptions about their reasons for doing so.
You can say that again.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Without doubt the last 6 pages of this thread were comedy gold. I mean top notch stuff. Some of the best foot.ie has ever come up with.
The comparisons to Eirebhoy (RIP), the ongoing defence of TOWK by POSH, geysir's irreverence, Kingdom calling it, Danny's verbosity, EG being crude in an academic way, CTP getting a Stutts reference, Crosby being on topic, Termonbarry, SvD having an 'I love foot.ie moment', Mr A looking and passing by... We all know you did Mr!)
Seriously I should disappear more often because this week's worth of comment in here has been glorious.
No mypost, umbrella or manbag references but still. Almost perfect.
Kudos all.
Lonely in Ottawa then?
Loving the nonsense about anyone agreeing with my opinion getting called out. The saying "doesn't play well with others" comes to mind. And I was sincere in my drawing comparisons with Eire Bhoy. I didn't mean to get myself drawn into a schoolyard debate of "his posts are better than yours. Na na na na na". I simply meant I shared his obvious enthusiasm for the Irish football scene. I really don't understand the cynicism over that?
So in short.
Robbie Keane backtracks on his quotes so they never happened and Scotland's ambivalence towards Aiden McGeady (and Ray Houghton) at underage level played no part in their declaring for Ireland. A scenario that is most recently repeating itself with Tony Watt.
What else am I being harangued about?
Oh yeah. The deity that is Robbie Keane shouldn't be dropped because he's..... Robbie Keane.
And my supposed manipulation of statistics to support my argument, like those goalscoring statistics against teams like Macedonia, Faroe Islands and Georgia that I manipulated. :rolleyes:
Yet it's okay to manipulate Shane Long's statistics.
http://www.wsc.co.uk/forum-index/27-...t=20&start=100
Interesting discussion about International affairs here.
Have to say that I largely agree with The Awesome Berbaslug!!!.
Have you had any thoughts yet on my observation that McGeady was in no way whatsoever being clear in what he said in the quoted passage when you said McGeady was being clear? I'll point you to both the quote and my objection to your post if you want a reminder.
I couldn't give a hoot about Long's statistics. I've seen him pass up so many presentable chances at club and international level to conclude, wholly subjectively, that he's not the most reliable finisher (whatever his other strengths may be). More sophistry on your part, phrasing the question in a way that bears no relevance to the argument. Nobody has accused you of manipulating statistics or quotes. Statistics are statistics. Interpreting them is another matter.
And more wordsmithery too. One man's backtracking is another man's clarification. I still don't recall any reasonable answer to either my challenge to agree how Keane's remark could be interpreted given various scenarios that may pan out, or given Danny's perfectly fair assertion that Keane's proven loyalty and commitment to date suggests that the balance of probability is more sympathetic to Keane's position than you'd like to admit.
You persist in your delusion that your opinions are somehow grating with people. They're not. We love all kinds of opinion here. It's evasion, wordsmithery, disingenuous tactics and pure sophistry that bugs people. I'll give you credit though, you're one of the more complex WUMs we've seen on these pages for some time. Even Paul has fallen for it.
Seriously, if there was proper moderation of this forum TOWK's post number 135 above would be deleted.
It is so full of lies, sophistry and exaggerations that it completely insults those of us who spend time on this forum.
For example, I can't think of one person who thinks Keane us undroppable. No player since this forum started has divided opinion more, other than Roy. It's just that your argument as it was presented didn't stack up. I fear for your Business Law assignment marker if he says you need to present your critical thinking better. Instead of following his advice and fine tuning your reasoning you'll simply wait 3 weeks and re-present the same paper thinking he must be a demented idiot with no recollection of your first submission.
Nobody accused you of manipulating quotes or statistics. (Maybe Geysir?)
People have rightly accused you of avoiding tough questions
Nobody has any issues with unpopular opinions, in themselves.
Nobody has manipulated Shane Long's statistics, though many have criticised his finishing. Perish the thought.
Nobody denies Keane said what he said. Most accept they were at worst ambiguous and most agree they were out of character with his proven commitment. Some like me believe sub-editors at IMN relished the opportunity to spin them negatively.
Only you persist with the notion that McGeady was "clear" that Ireland's likely success (compared to Scotland) was a factor in his "declaration" when the only thing clear in the quoted passage was that he was glad to have played in the Euros.
I live in Nepean. No one can prepare you for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Also, I nominate you as a moderator.
I think he was reasonably forthcoming in saying that Scotland's lack of interest contributed to his decision to play for Ireland and in fairness to him, he made that decision at a delicate age and he is a player that Scotland would love to have so I have no qualms with McGeady whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
I agree with you. What I interpret from Keane's statistics is that he has a fantastic record against smaller teams but when you take everything - age, relevant stats, level of domestic football, form - into consideration, I don't think he is integral to our chances against Germany, Poland and even Scotland. What I interpret from Long's statistics taking the same things into consideration is that there is room for improvement but in terms of goals per minutes, people are unduly negative and overlook his broader contributions. I have also seen enough in the Serbia game to conclude that Hoolahan and/or Reid and Long is the way to go if everyone is fit. Just my opinion but it really seems to rile people.
Keane has been a guaranteed starter all through his Ireland career. He has never been put into a position where his place in the team is questioned - until recently. I commend him for his loyalty but the relevant quotes pertain to a scenario where he is no longer guaranteed starts.
I don't know how I am evading anything? I am addressing all of your opinions here. Wordsmithery? Aren't we all guilty of that? IDK how I am being deceitful. I truly believe everything I say and try my best to back it up. A lot of the points of contention relate to quotes. I cannot manipulate them in any way, only offer an interpretation of what they mean.
Paul is entitled to his opinion as are you and I. We are all our own men.
The WUM thing is unfair imo but you are entitled to it, Stutts.