sorry
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
Welcome to page 66, there lots more to come.
feeding
I did
not
know
that
HARGO'S PLEA: "NOT IN MY NAME"
Owen Hargreaves has finally broken his silence and issued a plea for the interminable
Owen Hargreaves thread to end. Hargreaves, appalled at the way the eponymous
online bickerthon has spiraled out of control, gave an emotional press conference
at Old Trafford's Carrington training ground earlier today.
“Please make it stop now,” begged the German-haired enforcer, “Please. Stop the posts.”
Thread
The internet monstrosity, now sixty-five pages long and still growing at an alarming rate,
began when the Rubberman said something spastic - or possibly didn’t, no-one knows.
Since then, it has mushroomed into an entity of frightening size and scope, swamping
all other attempted discussion and causing electrical storms in Lesotho (at least, according
to notorious liar noodlehair).
Hargo: “It’s surfaced porpoise”.
Ointment factory
And now Hargreaves himself has been drawn into the row. Friends last night described the
bustling Canadian anchorman as “tired”, “concerned” and “fecking average”. Meanwhile,
Chelsea sharpshooter Frank Lampard has offered support to his fellow England midfielder,
saying “It’s a tough situation, definitely. Obviously you don’t want noodle telling all these
lies about you, definitely - especially when you’re already comfort-eating marine mammals
to a certain extent...” adding, “Su’agoaws.”
Brambles
But it’s not just the amazing/rubbish demi-Welsh water-carrier that’s feeling the pressure.
Serious questions are being asked of much-loved Caf personality The Rubberman -
questions like, “What?” and “Do you genuinely believe that?” Some have even suggested
that his entire life might be one enormous, elaborate internet hoax. However, last night
a close friend of the Chief's, who declined to be named, angrily denied the allegation,
commenting, “That’s a heinous lie, a blatant hypocrisy and a libelous infamy.”
He helpfully supplied dictionary definitions of these terms, before adding, “How dare you:
1) wave that self-evidently phallic, nay phallogocentric microphone in my visage?
2) Willfully, flagrantly and with callousness aforethought disagree with me on the internet?
3) Tell pseudologous falsehoods about chickens crossing roads when it is established fact
that chickens live in coops and do not traverse public thoroughfares. .” He then went
purple and threatened to call the police, before mercifully running away.
Owen Hargreaves
But evil bastard noodlehair responded fiercely to the aspersions of the Chief's mysterious ally:
"He's literally the biggest penis I've ever come across," said the mouse-attracting oddball, "And
given my love-life, that's up against some pretty stiff competition...literally".
Owen Hargreaves is twenty-seven, slightly pointless and cost seventeen million pounds.
Neither you, nor anyone else, have been able to produce any example where the chief does contradict any of his central points – because they don’t exist do they?
Firstly, you should perhaps decide what your posts about the chief’s arguments actually are. Sometimes you claim they are just ‘tongue in cheek remarks’ which presumably playfully exaggerate his points – and sometimes you want to claim that the chief really did say that, at sometime, somewhere. Something of a contradiction there I’d reckon.
Now let’s look at your remarks about me: I haven’t said they’re 'brutal' but you’ve certainly launched personal attacks – hypocrisy, dishonesty, guilty of everything of which you accuse others etc. – I reasonably suggest you should either retract those allegations give some evidence, which you signally fail to do . (Well you do make a few statements – but none are relevant to the charges laid.) Are you simply being ‘tongue in cheek’ when you post (wrongly) that there is evidence to support your point?
My initial points were clear:
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. You are just being intellectually dishonest - summaries have been made by posters other than the chief if you can't bear to accurately read what he posts.
I haven't noticed the chief really liken OH to Keano either. His criticism of Carrick is surely that he is deficient defensively (not that he's shit overall) and that his weaknesses, mistakes and poor performances are ignored or denied by people who will pick at any possible negative aspects to OH's play.
Then after your attempted 'explanation' and an additional misrepresentation of his views:
The way I read the chief's posts made his points reasonably coherent - it's only your way of presenting them here that makes them seem like an inherent contradiction.
Adding my gloss to make his case clearer, he suggested:
1 That for most of the game (say 70-75 mins) OH marked Kaka out of the game (and neutralised the impact of Gattuso if I remember).
2 After that, since Kaka had been so ineffective and was probably a bit 'down' and Bayern needed to attack more OH was able to stop marking him and free himself to aid the attack more freely.
It's only your portrayal of OH simultaneously marking Kaka out of the game and not bothering marking him (which is not anything the chief actually advanced) that makes it seem a major inconsistency. That inconsistency is something entirely manufactured by yourself rather than your opponent yet you use it as an excuse not to address what he actually says.
Actually, your judgement of the chief going so 'OTT' in his praise for Hargreaves is based on as little actual evidence as the previous remark -what you are reacting to here is what the chief's opponents are suggesting he has said, not what he actually said. You're then treating these misrepresentations as typical of his remarks and reacting accordingly - and you are contributing to those misrepresentations yourself.
That’s not really ‘having a problem with’ you is it? It’s having a problem with what you post – specifically its inaccuracy – especially since this isn’t a ‘tongue in cheek’ remark, this is being presented by you specifically as an argument relating to what the chief actually said:
It’s only once you decided to make entirely false accusations against myself that I started to have a problem with you yourself - as I stated (from memory) ‘I used to have some respect for you’ until that point.
Firstly, your quote of Sincher’s ‘poor evidence’ referred to evidence given by the chief not me.
When I comment on a particular post I certainly am ‘selecting’ that post for attention so the evidence I provide will be selected: it will be that post and those to which it refers. You either don’t provide any evidence or give ‘evidence’ that doesn’t show what you claim – that’s both ‘selective’ and ‘deficient’.
Now it so happens that I'm getting bored with your complete inability to argu a point accuaretly combined with gratuitous insults that constitute libellous allegations...
...so why don't you just stay in the personal dreamworld you inhabit and not bother those of us who are awake?
I'm not reading all that
I only searched for the match report because the rubberman asked for one, I'd already seen the match, but again we couldn't have really expected the rubberman to admit he was talking bollocks re hargreaves in that match, especially after all his previous efforts.
FS - debating gestapo
You claim [that Carrick is flawless] often. Telling us how he is glorious at defending and at passing the ball. Plus how people don't see
"how good he is because he doesn't run around like a head less chicken'
Actually chief - even that doesn't mean that Noods has claimed he's 'flawless'. Just that he probably exaggerates how good he is (do I sense a theme here?) You've been unjust here - unless you have better evidence.
Just because Noods has blatantly misrepresented your view doesn't mean you should stoop to his level (tempting though it may be.)
I'm not reading all that
In case you realise you're talking shit?
No, because I can't be arsed to read it
someone needs to create a youtube video of that hitler flick with this debate..
Anyone
who
plays
this
trick
again
is
going
to
get
kicked.
Here's the summary then (evidence in the longer version).
You're talking crap when saying the chief contradicts his main points.
You contradict yourself about your posts re. the chief - you can't both be 'tongue in cheek' and 'accurate' as you claim.
Your personal attacks on myself have no basis in fact.
My initial comments complained about your inaccuracy - and mildly.
You consistently misrepresent the chief's points even when 'explaining yourself' (ie. NOT 'tongue in cheek'.)
I'm only 'pretty sure' I've seen all the chief's posts in this thread because, being human, I may have scrolled too far once - VERY unlikely though.
Your evidence is selective and deficient - mine is relevant.
You are unable to notice the context of Sincher's remark - typical!
i got hitler as a dallas cowboy fan
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vYu68SHWh64
but this is greatness
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BgwoPG63B3Y
along with hargo he's great too.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vYu68SHWh64
but this is greatness
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BgwoPG63B3Y
along with hargo he's great too.
Actually, apart from one occasion when he was debating with acnumber when I suspected a misrepresentation, he's been pretty good this thread - I didn't comment on that because acnumber had taken the debate way beyond that point by then and I'd still have had to go back and check the dtails when it had already been dealt with.You don't know the rubberman all that well, do you?
Actually, where peterstorey is concerned, your description is probably accurate...
...Except, being such a 'hard man' and veteran of the hooligan years - he would obviously be immune from 'twatting'
- pity he still thinks in the same way though really - never developed. Here's the summary then (evidence in the longer version).
You're talking crap when saying the chief contradicts his main points.
You contradict yourself about your posts re. the chief - you can't both be 'tongue in cheek' and 'accurate' as you claim.
Your personal attacks on myself have no basis in fact.
My initial comments complained about your inaccuracy - and mildly.
You consistently misrepresent the chief's points even when 'explaining yourself' (ie. NOT 'tongue in cheek'.)
I'm only 'pretty sure' I've seen all the chief's posts in this thread because, being human, I may have scrolled too far once - VERY unlikely though.
Your evidence is selective and deficient - mine is relevant.
You are unable to notice the context of Sincher's remark - typical!
I've given you a new tagline, and will no longer be posting in this thread.
I like the Chief, he's a genuine maniac. You on the other hand, need to stop and take a look at exactly what it is you're doing
Well ?
poor FS
HARGO'S PLEA: "NOT IN MY NAME"
Owen Hargreaves has finally broken his silence and issued a plea for the interminable
Owen Hargreaves thread to end. Hargreaves, appalled at the way the eponymous
online bickerthon has spiraled out of control, gave an emotional press conference
at Old Trafford's Carrington training ground earlier today.
“Please make it stop now,” begged the German-haired enforcer, “Please. Stop the posts.”
Thread
The internet monstrosity, now sixty-five pages long and still growing at an alarming rate,
began when the Rubberman said something spastic - or possibly didn’t, no-one knows.
Since then, it has mushroomed into an entity of frightening size and scope, swamping
all other attempted discussion and causing electrical storms in Lesotho (at least, according
to notorious liar noodlehair).
Hargo: “It’s surfaced porpoise”.
Ointment factory
And now Hargreaves himself has been drawn into the row. Friends last night described the
bustling Canadian anchorman as “tired”, “concerned” and “fecking average”. Meanwhile,
Chelsea sharpshooter Frank Lampard has offered support to his fellow England midfielder,
saying “It’s a tough situation, definitely. Obviously you don’t want noodle telling all these
lies about you, definitely - especially when you’re already comfort-eating marine mammals
to a certain extent...” adding, “Su’agoaws.”
Brambles
But it’s not just the amazing/rubbish demi-Welsh water-carrier that’s feeling the pressure.
Serious questions are being asked of much-loved Caf personality The Rubberman -
questions like, “What?” and “Do you genuinely believe that?” Some have even suggested
that his entire life might be one enormous, elaborate internet hoax. However, last night
a close friend of the Chief's, who declined to be named, angrily denied the allegation,
commenting, “That’s a heinous lie, a blatant hypocrisy and a libelous infamy.”
He helpfully supplied dictionary definitions of these terms, before adding, “How dare you:
1) wave that self-evidently phallic, nay phallogocentric microphone in my visage?
2) Willfully, flagrantly and with callousness aforethought disagree with me on the internet?
3) Tell pseudologous falsehoods about chickens crossing roads when it is established fact
that chickens live in coops and do not traverse public thoroughfares. .” He then went
purple and threatened to call the police, before mercifully running away.
Owen Hargreaves
But evil bastard noodlehair responded fiercely to the aspersions of the Chief's mysterious ally:
"He's literally the biggest penis I've ever come across," said the mouse-attracting oddball, "And
given my love-life, that's up against some pretty stiff competition...literally".
Owen Hargreaves is twenty-seven, slightly pointless and cost seventeen million pounds.
I'm sure the word pompous should be somewhere in that tag Noods, otherwise good work.
Actually you arsehole - you're the one who should be looking at 'what you're doing'!
Every point I've made is backed up with evidence - you just consistently lie.
As a mod/admin you're a complete disgrace.
You have entirely failed to produce a shred of evidence for your claims about myself - you simply retreat to your position of privilege.
As an example of intellectual dishonesty you stand supreme.
what have these got to do with anyting
Right - condemn someone on no evidence just because you've had your arse kicked in the past.
- Status