Please go and jump of the nearest bridge, or, get on a fair ground ride and fall out.
Please learn to debate or go back to kindergarten.
If you make a claim at least make some vague attempt to back it up.
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
Please learn to debate or go back to kindergarten.
If you make a claim at least make some vague attempt to back it up.
I didn't make a 'claim', I just told you to piss off as you are boring everyone, and going way to far off topic, as I say, if you want to debate intellectually dishonesty, create your own thread.
That's libel
Just to note FS, the Chief did say here...
https://www.redcafe.net/f6/hargreaves-187879/index58.html#post4297291
...that Hargreaves could defend in midfield 'virtually on his on'. Whilst a lot of people might know what he's getting at and allow the exaggeration, or maybe wonder a little what 'on his on' really means and whether it might refer in some sly unconscious way to masturbation, or might start questioning the point of their existence, or why they choose to spend any of that existence reading things like this on redcafe, it's not a big leap from that to a jokey remark about a giant robotic Roy Keane, which I'm pretty sure is to date the only evidence you've come up with for misrepresentation of his argument - this apparently heinous crime committed against someone whose main argumentative technique, not dissimilar to yours, is to bleat on incessantly until noone can be bothered to read any more and most people are repeatedly punching themselves in the face or pondering whether or not Owen Hargreaves devours marine life in an attempt to boost his Omega-3 quotient and maybe learn to pass something at least in a direction other than sideways - and admittedly I haven't actually checked which order the posts came in, though it scarcely matters since rubberman is on some kind of worldwide personal crusade to establish that Hargreaves is unfairly picked on - and it seems like very, very flimsy evidence - and certainly not worth the waste of words and time or the tone of indignant rage you've adopted since.
Owen Hargreaves.
https://www.redcafe.net/f6/hargreaves-187879/index58.html#post4297291
...that Hargreaves could defend in midfield 'virtually on his on'. Whilst a lot of people might know what he's getting at and allow the exaggeration, or maybe wonder a little what 'on his on' really means and whether it might refer in some sly unconscious way to masturbation, or might start questioning the point of their existence, or why they choose to spend any of that existence reading things like this on redcafe, it's not a big leap from that to a jokey remark about a giant robotic Roy Keane, which I'm pretty sure is to date the only evidence you've come up with for misrepresentation of his argument - this apparently heinous crime committed against someone whose main argumentative technique, not dissimilar to yours, is to bleat on incessantly until noone can be bothered to read any more and most people are repeatedly punching themselves in the face or pondering whether or not Owen Hargreaves devours marine life in an attempt to boost his Omega-3 quotient and maybe learn to pass something at least in a direction other than sideways - and admittedly I haven't actually checked which order the posts came in, though it scarcely matters since rubberman is on some kind of worldwide personal crusade to establish that Hargreaves is unfairly picked on - and it seems like very, very flimsy evidence - and certainly not worth the waste of words and time or the tone of indignant rage you've adopted since.
Owen Hargreaves.
Actually you said 'your both' - which allowing for the spelling mistake presumably means that 'I' am 'both' the things I mentioned in the quoted post.
If you actually meant something else then please explain.
You really striggle to understand these concepts don't you? (or at least you behave as if you do.)
It was a joke, FS. For an intelligent person, you're very thick.
heh heh 'striggle'
It's half way between a stride and a giggle.
He's soccerbest's dad
associationfootballbest
Ok - let's take this in slow stages:
1. quoted chief remark is after the complaint (and therefore post) about Keane remark - so unless Noods can read the future he couldn't draw on that.
2. In the same post Noods refers to the 'thinnest argument ever', as if it was something his opponent actually advanced: 'Apparently Bayern Munich losing 2-0 at home to AC Milan proves that we need Hargreaves, so that we can beat AC Milan'. That's a massive caricature and misrepresentation of what the chief had been saying.
As I pointed out: 'Noods - if you are going to comment on an argument and call it 'thin' then you should really state the argument your opponent actually advanced rather than the 'straw man' version you and others habitually peddle.'
3. Other people (like Sam) had been doing the same:
chief said:
4. When challenged, Noods' 'explanation' amounted to: 'The point...[is] that he's going so over the top, he may as well just claim Hargreaves is even better [than Keane].' - which is also a massive misrepresentation.#
So actually the misrepresentation is pretty firmly established - complaining about it justified - getting pursued by lamebrains who object to having their faults pointed out isn't justified - defending myself is.
Complain to the intellectually dishonest posters here - not myself.
Oh Jesus!
Apart from you FS, who the feck cares ?!
Apart from you FS, who the feck cares ?!
So... for you, saying someone is a hypocrite and dishonest is 'just a joke' - I seem to have heard that somewhere before!
So... for you, saying someone is a hypocrite and dishonest is 'just a joke' - I seem to have heard that somewhere before!
Don't take everything so seriously or to heart.
Given the context it's in exceptionally bad taste - and therefore deserved rebuttal.
Point 1 - in this thread, yes, but not in terms of posts across the forum.
Point 2 - Actually it's true that the Chief habitually uses the Bayern game to back up his point about Hargreaves, and noodlehair destroyed that argument in his post showing how badly everyone watching the match thought he played.
Caricatured arguments are sort of the norm on here, but I don't think the argument was terribly caricatured, and it IS one of the thinnest arguments ever if you choose to examine it, e.g. many of the things presented as facts are patently untrue.
Point 3 - Pretty much irrelevant to the kind of accusations you've been throwing to individuals.
Point 4 - Was stated as an opinion, and I think a valid one. Not dishonest.
But don't want to argue on behalf of someone else, like you are, for some reason.
It was funny. Please lighten up.
To you, perhaps, being called an 'gay immature cockbiscuit' is no different from being called a liar. I happen to think the latter is more offensive. The former says more about the author than the poster at which it is aimed - the latter is an accusation about the integrity of the other poster.
If anyone accuses another of lying, hypocrisy, dishonesty etc, they should have some evidence - neither you, nor Noods, bother to do so.
I was taught (in school back in the 70's) that civilised debate has certain rules - I learned, through various sources, how to follow and construct arguments properly. These procedures give anyone with a decent case a chance to persuade others fairly. Hardly anyone on the Cafe does this.
fsg, check pm
Right.. when an idiot repeatedly accuses me of hypocrisy and dishonesty on irrelevant evidence, despite being challenged, I should take an additional charge of libel as just a bit of fun?
For a mod/admin I reckon Noods' behaviour in this thread has been a disgrace tbh.
A lot of those accusations were to wind you up. You may have noticed this happens sometimes, possibly due to your unique style... where by unique style I mean idiocy.
Maybe because this isn't a "civilised debate" - it's an argument in a pub which has different context, rules, customs and purposes. But you seem not to appreciate this or wilfully ignore it.
Actually, I've never noticed the chief make remarks that could be realistically construed as saying OH was 'even better than' Keane. It's vaguely possible, but I reckon it's highly unlikely - just another misrepresentation I'd guess. (Neither of us, I'd reckon, have read all of his posts.)
Whilst the chief uses the Bayern game, he does so with a clear purpose (as highlighted in my summary) - he does not use the fact that they lost 2-0 (read the quote from Noods) to support his case, or constitute his 'argument' (which is what Noods characterises as 'thin(nest)). What the chief actually uses is the fact that the opposition failed to perform well against Bayern (the goals being aberrations he reckons) and he thinks that they were prevented from doing better by OH. No matter what you think of the chief's actual argument (and it possesses some merit) the fact is it is nothing like Noods' portrayal.
Actually, when you say that Noods' Keane remark was the 'only evidence you've come up with for misrepresentation of [the chief's] argument', producing other examples of him being misrepresented is entirely relevant.
Well given it looks as inaccurate as the thing it is meant to explain - which still leaves other misrepresentations unexplained - why should I interpret this as valid? It's not like he bothered to support the claim with evidence - he just made another unsupported assertion - like his previous ones.
Noods then proceeded to behave in an entirely consistent fashion by misrepresenting both what I said and myself - this doesn't tend to suggest that we should assume honesty in his other posts tbh.
I suspect you have hit upon the difference between yourself and myself.
When I'm in a pub I still debate in a civilised fashion when debate is what we are doing.
When you argue in a pub you apparently don't behave in a civilised fashion and you do the same here.
Pointing out the faults in posts written in your preferred style isn't heresy you know - it's criticism. The arguments contain flaws - pointing them out (without automatically insulting anyone) is allowed. The fact not many others do this is neither here nor there.
Except my 'idiocy' is apparently bothering to care - theirs is the inability to construct an argument.
The thing is, this is exactly what you have been doing for about the last 15 pages now, only you're too thick to realise it.
You keep harping on about all this "evidence" you have (who cares?), only, you then admit you haven't bothered to read all of the Chief's posts, so how can you know anyone's misrepresenting him? Even so, your accusations are misinformed, and frankly, stupid.
It's also been pointed out to you on a number of occasions that this is a discussion about Owen Hargreaves, not a court case, yet you persist, page after page, for no reason, boring everyone to death. I now wish I had never been born, congratulations.
Basically, you're a fecking moron
and if you took the "that's libel" remark with any seriousness, I suggest you simply save yourself a life of hassle by removing your own face
Will you stop the petty squabble or is your aim to have more posts on this thread than the Chief ?
FFS. OH is the Chief's pet subject. The argument you've quoted has been used several times before. Noodle's characature of it is just that, an exaggeration to make a point. The point being highlighted rather well by the post you quoted. (Just for the avoidance of doubt, as we appear to have turned the Caf into some minor branch of the Oxford Union Debating Society, my italics)
So OH is a world class defensive midfielder because he did such a good job on Kaka that he (Kaka - wouldn't want to get picked on by a pedant) only scored two goals. Looks like a thin argument to me.
Obviously of more concern is Owen's single handed attempt to empty the oceans as supported by Plech's posts. The man is clearly not only not very good at football, he's a ravenous porpoise digesting threat to the marine creatures of the world. I'm surprised he's not been on Blue Planet. And we paid twenty million quid for the bastard.
So OH is a world class defensive midfielder because he did such a good job on Kaka that he (Kaka - wouldn't want to get picked on by a pedant) only scored two goals. Looks like a thin argument to me.
Obviously of more concern is Owen's single handed attempt to empty the oceans as supported by Plech's posts. The man is clearly not only not very good at football, he's a ravenous porpoise digesting threat to the marine creatures of the world. I'm surprised he's not been on Blue Planet. And we paid twenty million quid for the bastard.
If you actually watched the match, you'll know that Kaka scored from a penalty.
Atleast have the honesty to watch the match before jumping on the chief and slating his views. By the way, the chief is wrong too, Kaka scored only in the first leg. But the Cheif's point all along has been that Bayern had a more patched up defence against Milan than us. Hargreaves and Van Bommel dominated Kaka/Pirlo/Gattusso in the central areas and Bayern had most of the possession but Seedorf was brilliant.
Fair enough. Didn't watch that match wouldn't have been interested really.
To be serious for a second, I really don't know whether OH was any good for Bayern or not. I suppose he must have been because it got him in the England squad although he rarely impressed me playing for England. I have seen him play this season for United and he's been average. The thing that is open to debate is why he's been average. He had a pretty serious leg injury between playing (good bad or indifferently = I don't know) for Bayern and joining United. That injury and associated knock on injuries have limited his appearances and it may well be that given a full preseason, fitness and a run of games in the team, he may turn out to be the answer to everyone's prayers that the Chief seems to think he is. On the other hand he may be just crocked and not very good which is what it looks like at the moment.
I've not been a habitual Hargreaves slater - I give United players the benefit of the doubt and Owen's no different in that respect. I did kind of object to people saying what a great game he had against Pompey when he quite clearly didn't and in my opinion shouldn't have been selected as we don't need a defensive midfield player, even a world class one, when the opposition's game plan is to stay in their own half and hope to win the lottery on the break. In those circumstances any of the other available midfielders would have a better choice than Hargreaves. Obviously the team selection isn't Owen's fault though.
OK rational argument over, back to the porpoise of the thread which appears to be winding up pompous pricks who take themselves too seriously on the internet and mistake noodle's jokes as being a serious attempt at debate.
Yup - which rather shows that you can only support a misrepresentation with another misrepresentation.
You really don't understand this stuff do you - I said I hadn't read every chief post everywhere on the cafe - I'm pretty sure I have in this thread.
In all his posts the chief's central points have been entirely consistent - which is why it was easy to produce a summary of the main points.
When I tell you you have misrepresented both the chief and myself I do so by comparing what you said to what your opponent said - with quotes - that's evidence to back up my claim. (Occasionally, when opponents actually comment on a particular post this is much easier.) So nowhere have I misrepresented your words have I?
You make frankly ludicrous claims about what the chief argues without trying to back them up and eventually appeal to the idea that he must have said something sufficiently like that somewhere, sometime.
We have ample evidence of you misrepresenting the contents of posts that you quote - so why should we think you're right with your unsupported claims which go against what the chief repeatedly and consistently posts. The evidence (that word again) suggests it's just another example of the typical cafe (see Plech) argument style where exaggeration and caricature is the norm. The evidence is that the chief consistently maintains opinions different from those you portray him as having.
So I haven't misrepresented either you or anyone else here have I?
My accusations are accurate - yours are baseless.
Nope - the chief's argument is that OH showed how good he was, and how useful against Milan, by preventing them from functioning well in that game and enabling his team to dominate the overall play.
Your [inaccurate] point is that Kaka scored 2 goals and this means OH can't have been doing a good job on him. Unfortunately goals do get scored against the run of play - you didn't watch the match so you don't know how well OH stifled Milan overall, nor how dominant Bayern were.
The chief bases his judgement on the latter 2 points having watched the game - and noting how weakened the Bayern team were. He does not claim that 'OH is a world class defensive midfielder because ... Kaka ... only scored two goals.' That argument would be thin - but it's one produced from your imagination - not the chief's posts.
hat-trick. All boring irrelevent nonsense mind.
Generally in agreement with this, except I think OH has produced good performances for both England and us - certainly better than 'average' - you're right though that one live issue is why he hasn't perhaps been better.
Let's see:
New league
New team & team-mates
Injuries preventing run of games.
- Status