Why is FS calling Plech Gerrard?
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
Damnit those are actual quotes from Wenger saying he rates Carrick. I very much doubt that he was forced to say those things.
Because it's so funny
Gerrard is supposedly an arch hypocrite - I guess cos he came out against diving despite having dived himself or something? And so am I, according to Mr Seagulls, because I accuse him of things like belittling people while doing the same myself.
Speaking of which, have I ever told you you're a risible little cockbiscuit, Meh?
Actually Wenger was going to get Carrick to replace Vieira when he was in negotiations with Real. In the end he didn't go due to low wage thing and hence Wenger didn't bring Carrick in.Arsenal fans ?
Wenger normally buys good talent if its at a bargain price but didn't think Carrick was even worth the 1 million or something that he cost Spurs.
Wenger has recently also tipped Bentley to hit great heights. He said something similar about SWP when he missed out signing him.
He says something good about English players at other clubs from time to time.
He says something good about English players at other clubs from time to time.
Yes well, how about you just not worry about it?
This is turning into the Tevez thread
except the porn pictures are being replaced by tediously repetitive discussions
except the porn pictures are being replaced by tediously repetitive discussions
So it's entirely acceptable to misrepresent what someone else says, it's fine to issue insults - but trying to show when someone is being unfair in their arguments is apparently forbidden? So is demonstrating that by examining the posts it appears...Plech-Gerrard said:
Get over yourself!
Why is arguing as we are all meant to do in civilised society something so hideous? It's no more difficult than actually bothering to read and correctly interpret what someone is posting, which, if you did it automatically, would mean you wouldn't need to go back and check the main facts of someone's argument. You'd also stop yourself committing the sort of errors you've made in talking about my arguments.
Once again though, we have almost an entire post about the styles of which you approve, and those you dislike - plus your usual quotient of insults - and the attempted 'belittling'.
You don't actually seem to like the notion of proper debate do you, you hypocrite?
Because he's been hypocritical 2 or 3 times in this thread.
Plech-Gerrard said:
Don't forget that flaunting now will you fella!
Arsenal fans ?
Wenger normally buys good talent if its at a bargain price but didn't think Carrick was even worth the 1 million or something that he cost Spurs.
So you were wrong
And you were wrong again.
Problem is that it's intellectual dishonesty - something I particularly dislike - probably at least partly because it's the sort of thing politicians and media use to manipulate people I reckon.
Yes, noodle's robotic Keano remark was more or less a straight re-run of the WMD debate
So it's entirely acceptable to misrepresent what someone else says, it's fine to issue insults - but trying to show when someone is being unfair in their arguments is apparently forbidden? So is demonstrating that by examining the posts it appears...
Get over yourself!
Why is arguing as we are all meant to do in civilised society something so hideous? It's no more difficult than actually bothering to read and correctly interpret what someone is posting, which, if you did it automatically, would mean you wouldn't need to go back and check the main facts of someone's argument. You'd also stop yourself committing the sort of errors you've made in talking about my arguments.
Once again though, we have an entire post about the styles of which you approve, and those you dislike - plus your usual quotient of insults - and the attempted 'belittling'.
You don't actually seem to like the notion of proper debate do you, you hypocrite?
I can't be arsed to read that, or any more of this. It's too silly.
I never claimed that I didn't belittle people... what I object to is not insults, which are part of the fun of the forum, but your habit of belittling people less educated than yourself by your exceptionally condescending posts. And yes, I'm afraid that is in part a matter of style, as well as content, as you understand well.
Right, I've got to go... feel free to dazzle us all with more rapier thrusts below...
So have you, from the very moment you came wading into this thread, for no actual reason.
oh, it'll get to fifty pages yet, so it will Norma.
His quote clearly says that Carrick wouldn't have got a game ahead of Edu, Gilberto or Fabregas.
'we had Edu, Gilberto already and then Fabregas. I felt it was unfair to him to make him come and not play'
Really? what possible evidence do you have for that?
I've been doing a bit of Hargreaves supporting here, a lot of clarifying what the chief actually did say and complaining about misrepresentation there, and a brief recent exchange about style.
He also says,
'When Vieira wanted to leave for Madrid, it was him I planned as a replacement.'
He also said that he was thinking of getting Carrick to replace Vieira. He's sold Edu and Gilberto is behind Flamini in the peking order at the moment. A central midfield with Fabregas/Carrick is better then Fabregas/Flamini in my opinion. I'm glad he didn't get him though.
Fairly typical retreat there!
Noods Keano remark wasn't the only bit of his post though was it? We had the obligatory insult (hail) to the chief plus the 'thinnest argument' line which was my lead item in my reply. It happened to be the most obvious one of a sequence of misrepresentations that I noticed at a time when I turned to this thread. As I said above, I don't have any issues with Noods.
All these lies about what the chief was saying stopped most people from being able to work out whether he had a decent point unless they were willing to go back and check his originals.
I don't really think that examining the argument that someone advances for their position and criticising it where it is faulty is really that condescending (especially when people are being intellectully dishonest) - you obviously do - sorry.
feck sake
Look, I'm not getting into a debate about "intellectual dishonesty", and whether my arguments are intelligable or not, on a fecking football forum.
You clearly think you're on some higher level of thought than me, which I struggle to even comprehend. Frankly, you're probably right...but who cares? We're discussing Owen Hargreaves.
I bet you even wear one of those silly looking wigs whilst posting on here
Go away
you also keft out the key bit of his statement which was 'but he didn't go'
having a midfield 5 for 2 or 3 central positions wasn't going to gel
a little like what's happening at united with scholes, carrick, fletch, anderson and hargraeves.
If you call me a hypocrite you really should have a reason shouldn't you?
The quotes mean one of the squad players - Edu or Fabregas would have been promoted as starter and the replacement would have been an addition to the squad. The fact that he later says Carrick wouldnt have got a game ahead of Edu, Gilberto, Fabregas indicates that.
Its nothing unusual, talented young players can be promoted as starters and the actual player replacing the established player then becomes a squad player - happens all the time at clubs.
And sending me weird PMs isn't going to change anything
I'm not worried about how clever anyone is - I'm happy to discuss OH - I'm not happy with you lying about what the chief is saying.
CLEAR?
At the time you hadn't posted - once again though, I repeat:
Where was I hypocritical?
(P.S. - the title is a quote - meaning is just a google of the 2nd word away - it was meant as a joke.)
The next one to post in this thread, is the confirmation that they admit to being gay.
No, it means he was going to sign Carrick, and planned for him to be Viera's long term replacement. FFS, he even says it, 'When Vieira wanted to leave for Madrid, it was him I planned as a replacement.' I'd imagine he envisaged a Fabregas/Carrick midfield in the future.
Anyway, the point is, Wenger wanted to sign Carrick, which means your original statement of 'Wenger normally buys good talent if its at a bargain price but didn't think Carrick was even worth the 1 million or something that he cost Spurs.', was wrong.
And your next statement, 'Wenger considered him as a squad replacement for Edu but didnt think he was worth the 1 million or something.', was also wrong.
feck Sake, I posted before I saw that!
That didn't quite work out for you did it?
Sam is a poof, I didnt know that before
If you call me a hypocrite you really should have a reason shouldn't you?
You're a hypocrite because in a thread that's nearly fifty pages long, you decide to come charging in, and pick out one particular post, which you then accuse of being "intellectually dishonest", repeatedly. Completely ignoring the hundreds of other posts which fall victim to the exact same accusation, because they don't suit your argument, or whatever issue it is you may have.
You are, in actual fact, being intellectually dishonest.
There, I've said it.
Please stop posting things now
You could just view it as like a matchday thread prediction - effectively meaningless.
f@p
If he envisaged a Fabregas/Carrick midfield, how is Carrick a Vieira replacement? He is the Gilberto replacement then.
By 'replacement' he just meant the midfield player being added to the squad instead of Vieira. He didnt mean as a starting replacement which is indicated by his next statement about Carrick being behind Edu, Gilberto and Fabregas. He later bought in Diaby (the new next Vieira
) as a squad replacement and promoted Fabregas as a starter.new page! get in there
- Status