The thread was about Owen Hargreaves. How does saying you think Hargreaves isn't very good, in a thread discussing whether Owen Hargreaves is any good, constitute defending Michael Carrick by slagging Hargreaves off?
Weirdo
The thread was initially about OH - the comparison with Carrick intruded again since many who overly-criticised one overly-praised the other. It was in that context that my initial points were made.
Now let's look at my recent post you labelled 'hypocritical':
'However, what makes you think I don't like Carrick as a player? - I just think he too has poor games and weaknesses in his play. It's the pillocks defending him by unjustly attacking OH to whom I object.'
What would actually make that 'hypocritical' then?
Unjustly attacking Carrick to defend OH certainly - but my criticisms of Carrick were both mild and justified. Stretching a point it might include both saying I disliked Carrick as a player and that I liked him - though that would be contradictory rather than hypocritical.
So my remark wasn't hypocritical - surprise!
Let's look at the rest of the context:
'It's the pillocks defending [Carrick] by unjustly attacking OH to whom I object'. Good general description of my problem with much that went on in that thread - the Carrick-supporters generally unjustly criticised OH.
Admittedly, YOUR main focus seemed to be to undermine the OH-supporting position by deliberately misrepresenting it - I reckon that was very poor as well - I didn't like it - I complained - you didn't like your errors being pointed out, attempted a wind-up and had to cheat to get anywhere - I just hadn't mentioned that again here recently - until now.
(Was that an attempt by you to boost Carrick by blasting Hargreaves, or just blasting Hargreaves pure and simple? Interesting question - and unfortunately you haven't really established a pattern of honesty to bolster your current story have you now?
- all that lying about what other people have been saying - all those unfounded accusations. )