yeah he did...................................................
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
yeah he did...................................................
The forum will tell you if you know where to click.
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber - 447 posts - 
Good.
Has it got a button which tells me whether Hargreaves really does eat porpoises? It's been bugging me.
Doesn't provide this functionality unfortunately. Ask Rubber Chief.
No, I am presenting it as concrete fact.
I have evidence, too.
Looks like you might have been fooled by some photoshopping - after all surely at that angle the rest of the porpoise would be poking out of the back of OH's neck - he'd need to point his head upwards 'sword-swallowing' style to consume one like that. It's also rather undersized.
Entirely innocent on your part I'm sure.
I'm up to 66? Fantastic! Although partly down with my inability to muilti-quote
Interesting that two of the top three have posted passionately on this thread despite never having seen Hargreaves play in real life.
Just love that insightful, in-depth critique!
The level of argumentation is unbelievable (literally).
No, I am presenting it as concrete fact.
I have evidence, too.
Hes got a bit of a belly in that picture. Too many porpoises I reckon
OMFG LMAO etcInteresting that two of the top three have posted passionately on this thread despite never having seen Hargreaves play in real life.
he doesn't have a porpoise, thats the problem. Waste of 18million, could've got the YAAKk for half that
Feedingseagulls - the grammar nazi.
No, I am presenting it as concrete fact.
I have evidence, too.
OK sinch I take back my unwarranted suggestion of intellectual dishonesty mate. You're quite clearly right. feck know's what the Chief's gonna say when confronted with this evidence, it's a damning inditement. Fergie's obviously gone mad letting a man with OH's proclivities play for the club. Owen's clearly intent on clearing the sea of intelligent marine mammals, the bastard. Mind what can you expect from a Canadian Kraut with Bolton connections.
Hope you accept my apology. Wouldn't want to fall out like noods and FS.
Just love that insightful, in-depth critique!
The level of argumentation is unbelievable (literally).
i do try
So you now want to say that you were only 'tongue in cheek' when you called me a hypocrite and intellectually dishonest?
Your misrepresentations of the chief's posts formed part (or probably all) of your 'argument' against his points.
When you caricature one of his arguments and then comment 'thinnest argument ever' that's not really a 'tongue in cheek' remark - it's an attempt to rubbish your opponent by dishonest means.
When you 'explain' a remark about the chief comparing OH to Keane by saying his praise amounts to something that means he might as well have done, you are misrepresenting what he actually has done even when indulging in 'explanation' - not really 'tongue in cheek' is it?
Even then - the fact you have consistently misrepresented both the chief and myself is undeniable - whatever your reasons.
Neither is it 'tongue in cheek' to accuse someone of either dishonesty or hypocrisy when the evidence you advance doesn't establish anything of the sort. The fact that you do this sort of thing consistently rather counts against your idea that you are not intentionally misrepresenting your opponents just in order to gain an advantage in the 'debate' through dishonest means - when evidence countering your argument is provided you just ignore it.
Please stop
Please shut up.
Your ruining the Hargreaves thread!!!
Your ruining the Hargreaves thread!!!
Right... so who have I been criticising for their grammar recently?
Logic, on the other hand...
Once you admit I'm neither a hypocrite nor intellectually dishonest, I'll think about it.
I'll give you money
Your both.
Now shut up and stop ruining the Hargreaves thread. No one likes you or thinks you're clever.
And no, I'm not being intellectually dishonest, I'm telling the God-Damn truth!
Have we figured out if he's good or not. I need to know so I can have an opinion.
He's not that good, there you go lazy japs
To be honest, you could do with backing up those claims yourself - any evidence?
No - thought not.
As I've said somewhere, I don't care who is and is not clever. I do care about whether people are being fair and honest - complaining about people who are not makes me their target. Defending myself against persistent misrepresentation by serial offenders takes time and posts.
There are a few people who do like to read posts that aren't written in standard 'banter' style - they tend to be the people whose views I respect - some of them do like my posts (and sometimes myself) - the opinion of the others doesn't really matter to me tbh. If people are happy with those unable to conduct a decent debate that's fine for them - I'm not obligated to agree.
Have you actually contributed anything on topic in this thread ?
No - thought not.
Not interested in financial gain - just your retraction.
In what he does he is pretty good.
Yup - go and look - both directly & in pointing out that the chief was misrepresented.
... and this is relevant to your implication of hypocrisy and dishonesty how exactly?
Yup - go and look.
... and this is relevant to your implication of hypocrisy and dishonesty how exactly?
What page ?
It you want to talk about 'intellectually dishonesty' then start a thread.
I've told you, I'll retract my nasty accusations once you've analyzed the integrity of every post in this thread
He will you know, all 2476 of them.
I can see you've really not been following this - I started posting frequently when it was obvious a bunch of people were misrepresenting the chief's arguments (a central theme of the thread) - that meant that the arguments tended to be a complete load of balls and the pro-Hargreaves case was being unjustly (as opposed to justly) dismissed. Some people objected to having this pointed out and started some sort of flaming variant involving unsubstantiated accusations against myself.
So the sub-topic is actually the intellectual dishonesty in this thread.
None of this backs up your claim of dishonesty or hyocrisy though does it? Would I therefore be out of order in suggesting that YOU are misrepresenting someone?
Otherwise - use the search function.
Please go and jump of the nearest bridge, or, get on a fair ground ride and fall out.
Completely irrelevant Noods - as proven above.
Your false accusations of hypocrisy and dishonesty have no connection at all with anyone commenting upon every post in any thread. Your continuing demand just indicates the dishonesty I have come to expect from you (no that's not libel since it's proven).
- Status