Lampard Comments
in [World Football]
|
From: Alkamista on 23 Jun 2010 17:35 On Jun 23, 5:15 pm, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> wrote: > Alkamista wrote: > > On Jun 23, 4:30 pm, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> wrote: > > >> The right foot should be expected to be airborne before the left one > >> hits the ground since grabbing someone's foot while they run is > >> going to prevent it from hitting the ground as early as it should. I > >> have looked at the high def sequence frame by frame and I can > >> guarantee that Anelka starts falling when Given grabs his foot. > > > You cant "guarantee" anything because you are not the authority on > > anything, except maybe in your mind. > > LOL Do you want to be a blowhard? Let's see how much of a blowhard you want > to be: $1000 that Anelka starts falling only after Given grabs his foot. > Come on ... don't be like the punks who never took my offer about Malouda.. > > If the left foot is impeded then > > > the natural relflex inclination of the right would be to come down on > > the ground to break the fall. > > well, nobody knows how Anelka "should" have reacted at having his run > stopped by Given grabbing his ankle. Moreover, Given does a scissor motion > with his legs and traps Anelka's other foot. It's clear we see this differently, and that's fine with me. I hold my opinion without prejudice as I have no agenda here, I'm as indifferent to the Irish as I am to peas and carrots, and if anything I have always liked the French national team. If you paid more attention without getting emotional and childish (bet? what are we, 15?) then you would notice that my participation in this particular debate has been minimal to none, up until today, and I got sucked into it today despite my better reservations to not do so. > > Anelka clearly anticipated the > > > possibility of contact and went on to make a meal out of the > > situation. > > Dude, it's now obvious you're in bad faith. My opinion of you went down by a > considerable amount. I hate to shatter your ego, but my opinion of you had already gone down a while back, when you started displaying an obsessive and partonizing persona and started tap-dancing in and around the Domenech issue. So sorry buddy, but I'll just have to take this loss in my stride :-)
From: Alkamista on 23 Jun 2010 17:53 On Jun 23, 3:39 pm, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> wrote: > > I am one of the fairest minded poster here. You obviously dont realize that statements like this make you seem naive. Most EVERYONE suffers from bias, it is a human condition and it's almost impossible to be socialized in this world and be immune to it. > > >>>> To > >>>> remain on topic, just consider the blitzkrieg of disinformation > >>>> about the France-Ireland match and how many people bought it. > > >>> I dont want to get into this argument > > >> of course you don't. Like everybody else around here who would rather > >> regurgitate anglo media propaganda. Go figure. > > > You're starting to sound like the guy who was "abducted by aliens" > > with your obsession with the "anglo media propoganda." I have not > > brought this up even once since it first happened. So get a grip and > > get your facts straight. > > We clearly don't have the same sensibilities. I happen to strongly believe > that corporate anglo media denigrates any other cultural perspective to > enforce a global neoliberal model. If you want to discuss the details of > what it means we can do that too. I do understand what it means, but thanks for checking exalted profressor Bob. My problem is not that it is not true, it may well be, but your simplicity in reducing this to be the cause of any opinion that is not to your liking. It's almost like clockwork, and an obsession can never be a balanced attitude. > > > And I didnt want to talk about because I am sick of hearing it. The > > same reason you profess, but rarely adhere to. > > I never brought it up, *ever*. *eyes rolling* http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.soccer/msg/8393875c45f03da4
From: Bob on 23 Jun 2010 17:57 Alkamista wrote: > On Jun 23, 5:15 pm, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> wrote: >> Alkamista wrote: >>> On Jun 23, 4:30 pm, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> wrote: >> >>>> The right foot should be expected to be airborne before the left >>>> one hits the ground since grabbing someone's foot while they run is >>>> going to prevent it from hitting the ground as early as it should. >>>> I have looked at the high def sequence frame by frame and I can >>>> guarantee that Anelka starts falling when Given grabs his foot. >> >>> You cant "guarantee" anything because you are not the authority on >>> anything, except maybe in your mind. >> >> LOL Do you want to be a blowhard? Let's see how much of a blowhard >> you want to be: $1000 that Anelka starts falling only after Given >> grabs his foot. Come on ... don't be like the punks who never took >> my offer about Malouda. >> >> If the left foot is impeded then >> >>> the natural relflex inclination of the right would be to come down >>> on the ground to break the fall. >> >> well, nobody knows how Anelka "should" have reacted at having his run >> stopped by Given grabbing his ankle. Moreover, Given does a scissor >> motion with his legs and traps Anelka's other foot. > > It's clear we see this differently, and that's fine with me. I hold my > opinion without prejudice it's all a matter of opinion, right? we'll get all the relativistic silly cliches from you today. as I have no agenda here, I'm as indifferent > to the Irish as I am to peas and carrots, and if anything I have > always liked the French national team. If you paid more attention > without getting emotional and childish (bet? what are we, 15?) It's a sure way to know how confident you are about your claims. And, it appears that you won't stand behind your assertions. Completely reasonable people of all standings, age and intelligence make public bets about matters ranging from global warming to whatever. Come on, put some muscle behind those words if you are as confident as you claim to be. then > you would notice that my participation in this particular debate has > been minimal to none, up until today, and I got sucked into it today > despite my better reservations to not do so. The only thing that sucked you in was your wanting to deny the obvious by making the oft-noted trollish comment about some player diving before contact (talk about 15yo drivel) >> Anelka clearly anticipated the >> >>> possibility of contact and went on to make a meal out of the >>> situation. >> >> Dude, it's now obvious you're in bad faith. My opinion of you went >> down by a considerable amount. > > I hate to shatter your ego, but my opinion of you had already gone > down a while back, when you started displaying an obsessive and > partonizing persona and started tap-dancing in and around the Domenech > issue. So sorry buddy, but I'll just have to take this loss in my > stride :-) So, it turns out that despite your claims you were the judgemental intolerant one all along.
From: Bob on 23 Jun 2010 18:10
Alkamista wrote: > On Jun 23, 3:39 pm, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> wrote: >> >> I am one of the fairest minded poster here. > > You obviously dont realize that statements like this make you seem > naive. Most EVERYONE suffers from bias, it is a human condition and > it's almost impossible to be socialized in this world and be immune to > it. Your logic sucks. Everyone suffering from bias not only doesn't mean that everyone isn't fair, but it surely doesn't prevent some people being fairer than others. > >> >>>>>> To >>>>>> remain on topic, just consider the blitzkrieg of disinformation >>>>>> about the France-Ireland match and how many people bought it. >> >>>>> I dont want to get into this argument >> >>>> of course you don't. Like everybody else around here who would >>>> rather regurgitate anglo media propaganda. Go figure. >> >>> You're starting to sound like the guy who was "abducted by aliens" >>> with your obsession with the "anglo media propoganda." I have not >>> brought this up even once since it first happened. So get a grip and >>> get your facts straight. >> >> We clearly don't have the same sensibilities. I happen to strongly >> believe that corporate anglo media denigrates any other cultural >> perspective to enforce a global neoliberal model. If you want to >> discuss the details of what it means we can do that too. > > I do understand what it means, but thanks for checking exalted > profressor Bob. My problem is not that it is not true, it may well be, > but your simplicity in reducing this to be the cause of any opinion > that is not to your liking. more ad-hominem bullshit > It's almost like clockwork, and an > obsession can never be a balanced attitude. > >> >>> And I didnt want to talk about because I am sick of hearing it. The >>> same reason you profess, but rarely adhere to. >> >> I never brought it up, *ever*. > > *eyes rolling* > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.soccer/msg/8393875c45f03da4 ha! you got me there as I was correctly using this event as an example of anglo propaganda that deceived so many people. |