Then again, maybe the Bulgarian Press have just picked up on what the Times printed lol.
Commoli and Alexander are there representing Spurs.
Berbatov
- Thread starter GusHiddink
- Start date
- Status
Then again, maybe the Bulgarian Press have just picked up on what the Times printed lol.
Commoli and Alexander are there representing Spurs.
Especially for Fergie.
Nice photoshop
Yes, I agree, Levy doesn't need to be there. And I sure you do know more about it than us.
I wonder how many newspapers haven't declared the deal is imminent in about the last month.
Except, when you suggested another poster had produced an oxymoron, that assertion really relies on either a wider context of the terms or the contexts intended by the original poster.
So their reply that they hadn't produced an 'oxymoron in their contexts' is as valid as your assertion that they would have done so 'in your context' - but then, since it relies on context, the oxymoron would have been formed by yourself, not giggs-beckham surely.
Yes, you may be right. So what is the time line in between when these two articles are published? The Times did not quote it source though.
It's happening
Except, when you suggested another poster had produced an oxymoron, that assertion really relies on either a wider context of the terms or the contexts intended by the original poster.
So their reply that they hadn't produced an 'oxymoron in their contexts' is as valid as your assertion that they would have done so 'in your context' - but then, since it relies on context, the oxymoron would have been formed by yourself, not giggs-beckham surely.
I would have thought the context of any discussion about football, and a newspaper's coverage of football, would be firmly rooted in the context of it as a 'football paper', and not as a paper simpliciter. But if I'm wrong, so be it. I'm happy to let this one go.
I think the Zenit fans might not be too happy either!Nice, but the Spurs' fans may not like it.
Nice, but the Spurs' fans may not like it.
Spurs nation can feck off
Well, as I suggested, the context should surely either be wider or that of giggs-beckham - he's explained his, and I think he CAN make a case that certain paper-football-sections contain more crap than others and are hence 'less reputable' - which makes others 'more reputable'. You say they all print shit - true enough - his point is that some print more shit than others.
I have to take another afternoon off work tomorrow.
Football. Bloody hell.
Football. Bloody hell.
Got to have patience.....
Pardon my ignorance, but what does f*p mean/stand for?
It's a hard knock life, I will have to do the same to kick off Labor Day weekend
It was originally the sound produced by w*nking - now a synonym for that activity.
Thanks. But I can't locate the time for the Bulgarian article. Can you help me with it?
True, Spurs and Zenit fans, I am just a messenger.
Alex is fired-up.
Don't leave us, please, I promise the *** will not be long now.
Well, I have explained the context I was talking in, a couple of times if memory serves. It's obviously your prerogative to disagree with me.
I agree with the fact some post this stuff with greater frequency, but not with the idea that posting greater amounts makes you more dishonest. I think some of the guys from the Sun etc are more prolific, that's all.
I looked, but it doesn't say, so there is no way of knowing.
I think it's best to just brush it off as paper talk for the time being. There are only 4 days to go, so we'll find out soon enough if it's true or not.
Is correct.
More waiting.
Actually, looking at the Times article again, they say Pav is costing £12.5 million, whereas the Bulgarian Paper say its £15 million.
If they took their story from the Times, you'd imagine they would have went with the same figure.
The article does differ quite a bit besides that anyway.
Excuse my ignorance and this might have been asked before but why is the Spurs contingent there?
It's a CL draw and they are not in the CL. Am I missing something?
UEFA Cup draw on today.
Well, I have explained the context I was talking in, a couple of times if memory serves. It's obviously your prerogative to disagree with me.
I agree with the fact some post this stuff with greater frequency, but not with the idea that posting greater amounts makes you more dishonest. I think some of the guys from the Sun etc are more prolific, that's all.
Well I think you're conflating a number of points here to some degree.
The initial concern was 'could we place a bit more trust in this story given who printed it'. This relies on 2 separate points:
1 All papers print some transfer shit
2 Some papers may print a lower proportion of transfer shit than others - resulting in a higher proportion of transfer story accuracy.
You seem to reckon either that they all just print shit or that they print so much shit overall that we can discount the story.
g-b reckons that some papers are better than others in this regard so some papers might merit a bit more trust (always recognising the shit-potential).
The extra issue was whether the idea that certain papers were 'more reputable' was an oxymoron - since this should, IMO, be taken in either a wider context or that intended by g-b, I think he's entitled to claim that he has not produced an oxymoron.
Extrapolating your contention, that all the papers are as bad as each other regarding transfers, to insist that 'more reputable papers' is an oxymoron only demonstrates, I feel, an oxymoron in your own narrowed context with your assumptions. I do not feel that a more objectiove assessment needs to restrict itself to that judgement - in most senses, the idea that some papers are more reputable -even in the transfer arena - is cogent.
This thread is useless without pictures
Yep more was the operative word i used which put my point into its context, And brophs highlighting reputable papers after and implying that i think papers are reputable is wrong really.
Weve all seen a story and gone oh its only marca or the sun, or its only a certain writer and taken it less seriously as a result.
They are all shoddy really but i was wondering if the times was one of the less shoddy ones historically?
I get what you are both saying, and perhaps they are assumptions on my part, but are ones based on what I read every single day. I don't agree with a bit of what was said, but I've more than said my piece by now, and for my part, my interest level is waning in arguing this out. I wasn't having a go at gb, just making a throwaway point. If I took you up wrongly, mea culpa.
We should have seen the warning signs he wasn't as avaliable as we wanted.
As I said, I don't want to get dragged into this again. When I see "more reputable", I take it to mean that the paper is in some way reputable. I don't agree that is the case.
If I have taken you up wrong, then it's my mistake.
What else?
(Mother and daughter at a nearby table)
Berba ''Are you two sisters?''
(two women giggle uncontrollably)
Berba ''Can i interest you two pretties in a beerb?''
Two beerbs for those two berbs in the corner please.
You know it is thats what i and others have been trying to tell you but still.....
(So more doesnt equal worse? so you think a one time murderer is worse than someone who'se murdered 10's even 100's of people?)
Edit: Appologies for the morbid metaphor.
Actually i agree lets drop it, leave it at that (1-0 to me
)Is the Bulgarian Standard a reputable paper?
"A well informed source in England" sounds very familiar.
"A well informed source in England" sounds very familiar.
This is getting silly.
- Status