Nobody mocking Arsenal tonight?
in [Manchester United]
|
From: Baldoni on 13 Feb 2010 15:29 on 13/02/2010, Pakistan Meteorological Department supposed : > REDDEVIL6(a)nospam.net wrote: >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:13:57 GMT, Baldoni <BaldoniXXV(a)googlemail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>>on 13/02/2010, Lescor supposed : >>> >>>>"Red Rackham" <ONeil37(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:hmhdn.84156$_p.16584(a)newsfe04.ams2... >>>> >>>>>"Google Beta User" <wanyikuli(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:fd7ab893-dd64-4083-bf70-3c01fbf914e9(a)k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >>>>>On Feb 12, 8:33 am, "Red Rackham" <ONei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>I get it. >>>>>> >>>>>>>Football fans should be "neutral" like Lescor. >>>>>> >>>>>>Pope's more neutral than Les. >>>>>> >>>>>>HTH >>>>> >>>>>I know, hence the quotes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Ah, sorry, missed that. >>>> >>>> >>>>Strange how difficult it is for you to imagine such a thing. >>>>Stranger still, how much you seem to hate the concept. >>>> >>>>Life is easier when you can attribute club bias to a comment., >>>>leap into a defensive pose and another tiresome " my dad can >>>>beat your dad" thread is born, and you feel at home. >>>> >>>>More difficult if you have to consider the opinion as impartial >>>> -just a football opinion- and you are left with no, "my team are >>>>better than yours" to fall back on. Without that, what else is there? >>>>Nothing, so let's ignore the opinion and dream up some "anti my >>>>club" hidden motives. God forbid that you would ever reply in the >>>>same objective terms as the original opinion. I suspect that your >>>>deeply rooted bias now makes this impossible, which is a pity. >>>> >>>>So, I am regularly accused by somebody of being both pro and anti >>>>all the teams I comment about.................or hadn't you noticed? >>>> >>>>LC >>> >>>You will not educate this simpleton Les. He can not grasp the concept of >>> objectivity and I put this down to poor education. >> >> >> Your one to talk about education! Look where yours got you, in the >> back of a greasy burger van! > > > It's "You are" or "You're" you thick stupid dumbass! That man Drivel has also had no decent education. -- Count Baldoni In hoc signo vinces
From: REDDEVIL6 on 13 Feb 2010 16:12 On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 20:29:55 GMT, Baldoni <BaldoniXXV(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >on 13/02/2010, Pakistan Meteorological Department supposed : >> REDDEVIL6(a)nospam.net wrote: >>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:13:57 GMT, Baldoni <BaldoniXXV(a)googlemail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>on 13/02/2010, Lescor supposed : >>>> >>>>>"Red Rackham" <ONeil37(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:hmhdn.84156$_p.16584(a)newsfe04.ams2... >>>>> >>>>>>"Google Beta User" <wanyikuli(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fd7ab893-dd64-4083-bf70-3c01fbf914e9(a)k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>On Feb 12, 8:33 am, "Red Rackham" <ONei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>I get it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Football fans should be "neutral" like Lescor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Pope's more neutral than Les. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>HTH >>>>>> >>>>>>I know, hence the quotes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Ah, sorry, missed that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Strange how difficult it is for you to imagine such a thing. >>>>>Stranger still, how much you seem to hate the concept. >>>>> >>>>>Life is easier when you can attribute club bias to a comment., >>>>>leap into a defensive pose and another tiresome " my dad can >>>>>beat your dad" thread is born, and you feel at home. >>>>> >>>>>More difficult if you have to consider the opinion as impartial >>>>> -just a football opinion- and you are left with no, "my team are >>>>>better than yours" to fall back on. Without that, what else is there? >>>>>Nothing, so let's ignore the opinion and dream up some "anti my >>>>>club" hidden motives. God forbid that you would ever reply in the >>>>>same objective terms as the original opinion. I suspect that your >>>>>deeply rooted bias now makes this impossible, which is a pity. >>>>> >>>>>So, I am regularly accused by somebody of being both pro and anti >>>>>all the teams I comment about.................or hadn't you noticed? >>>>> >>>>>LC >>>> >>>>You will not educate this simpleton Les. He can not grasp the concept of >>>> objectivity and I put this down to poor education. >>> >>> >>> Your one to talk about education! Look where yours got you, in the >>> back of a greasy burger van! >> >> >> It's "You are" or "You're" you thick stupid dumbass! > >That man Drivel has also had no decent education. I never had to work in a burger van like you!
From: Manx Gunner on 13 Feb 2010 16:23 On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:12:03 -0500, Rude Drivel wrote... > I never had to work in a burger van like you! If you can prove that, do so. If you can't, you should stop writing it.
From: Lescor on 14 Feb 2010 09:31 "Red Rackham" <ONeil37(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Y9ydn.55296$xg1.26744(a)newsfe28.ams2... > > "Lescor" <lescor(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:iJSdnT1pdOty--vWnZ2dnUVZ7sGdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> >> "Red Rackham" <ONeil37(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:hmhdn.84156$_p.16584(a)newsfe04.ams2... >>> >>> "Google Beta User" <wanyikuli(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:fd7ab893-dd64-4083-bf70-3c01fbf914e9(a)k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >>> On Feb 12, 8:33 am, "Red Rackham" <ONei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >I get it. >>>> >>>> > Football fans should be "neutral" like Lescor. >>>> >>>> Pope's more neutral than Les. >>>> >>>> HTH >>> >>> I know, hence the quotes. >>> >>> >>> Ah, sorry, missed that. >> >> >> Strange how difficult it is for you to imagine such a thing. >> Stranger still, how much you seem to hate the concept. >> >> Life is easier when you can attribute club bias to a comment., >> leap into a defensive pose and another tiresome " my dad can >> beat your dad" thread is born, and you feel at home. >> >> More difficult if you have to consider the opinion as impartial >> -just a football opinion- and you are left with no, "my team are >> better than yours" to fall back on. Without that, what else is there? >> Nothing, so let's ignore the opinion and dream up some "anti my >> club" hidden motives. God forbid that you would ever reply in the >> same objective terms as the original opinion. I suspect that your >> deeply rooted bias now makes this impossible, which is a pity. >> >> So, I am regularly accused by somebody of being both pro and anti >> all the teams I comment about.................or hadn't you noticed? >> >> LC > Les, old fruit, you do like to rewrite history, don't you mate. > > I love impartiality, disinterest and objectivity, what I'm not so keen on > is charlatans claiming they posess the above to try and add weight to > their opinions when they quite clearly do not. > > Here's some highlights from your posts, Les: > > > - The Busby Babes weren't as good as people like to think, they had > potential, nothing more. > > (This despite them already having won the league) And Chelsea won it the year before with what must have been the worst side ever to do so. (52pts) Not just my opinion. The English top division when through a very poor patch at that time. I know, because I was there watching it. Question. Did you ever see the Busby babes as i did so many times, or is your opinion based on football folklore? Is it opinion based on newspapers or actual experience? You understand the question? Flattered though I am that you record my past posts, you seem to leave out my replies. Your garbage......god forgive me......was covered more than once but ignored. So, just one more time. If being placed in a very high population area is not an essential advantage for a football clubs continued success then explain why such clubs seem to win the league titles year after year after year. With one exception, the Prem has been won by a Manchester or London side every year since it started. The mayjor Euro leagues show the same big city trend. Obviously just a coincidence? Just an unusual statistical quirk that we don't find Shrewsbury or Tiverton or Crewe competing for the title. No doubt that, in time, teams like these with a potential fan base of a couple of thousand, will start to win title after title just to set the stats straight. Why not? All that they need is a genius manager. SAF would have done the job if he had gone there, regardless of poor potential support. No, it won't happen, and there is a reason why. From the early 60's, it became more difficult for smaller clubs to succeed where they had done. occasionally, before. You have probably never heard of this. You have to know a bit about the game, but they bought in the end of the maximum wage. Clubs were allowed to pay whatever wages they liked rather than all being the same. It was then that the gate money from highly populated areas started to play a greater part. You see the point "old fruit".... it is pretty bloody difficult to get 50.000 into a ground on a wet Saturday afternoon when that number makes up for such a high proportion of the total population. Far easier for clubs from big cities. Not so difficult if you give it some thought is it? No, it is not the sole reason for Man U's success, or Arsenals', or Chelsea's or any other club......but it is a VITAL requirement without which there won't be any success. Which is exactly the point I made in the first place. > - United wouldn't have had their success if they'd come from Exeter. > > - Chelsea's money is just as deserved as United's. > > - United were lucky to win the league last season due to Chelsea's > injuries. > > (When I point out the United's injuries were more extensive than Chelsea's > you evade the point like the plague again) > > And your denial that the overwhelming majority of fans in a stadium will > be partial is an amusing indication of how far you will try and go before > admitting you're wrong. That was due to your strange reading. I said the opposite. >> But you didn't old mate. You produced three, who.you said had major >> success, obviously comparable with the type of MU Arsenal type sustained >> succes we were talking about, and you.....wait for it, named >> Huddersfield??? Ipswich? and Blackpool all of which had success although >> with less populations than my example, which could have been chosen from >> scores but happened to be Exeter. So, according to you, this proves that >> as Exeter has a bigger population than all your named 3 it proves that >> my >> argument is wrong. lol........Do you have any idea of what a non >> sequitur >> is? You obviously don't. > You said a big population base was a 'requirement' of success. I clearly > pointed out, with examples, that this isn't necessarily the case. So....the floor is yours, (and I said "continued success") Name a successful Prem side from a small town with low population. How many of this type have won the top div title since the late 60's compared to "big city" clubs. > You really are going to have to get better at dealing with adversity. > > And let's not forget that this all stemmed from your pathological > inability > to acknowledge United's success without some bizarre rider such as they > wouldn't have had it if they'd come from Exeter. > > > >> >> It would prove no such thing, but put your mind to this. Exeter.in fact, >> has a lower population to the three you named......lol.....unfortunate >> but >> true old chump. > > > > Sadly for you Les, not true at all. > > Latest official figures has Exeter's population as being over 3000 larger > than Ipswich's. > > But I know how hard you find it to ever admit you're wrong so let's gloss > over this. > > Let's just recognise just what kind of 'impartial' mind would gain comfort > from the idea that United would never have been successful if they'd come > from Exeter. A sensible mind old chum. One that realises that some clubs could afford to buy Dennis Law from Italy , and to pay his wages, and some couldn't. Why? Because of the population/gate money equation. Easy isn't it ...-)) ? lC > > Till the next time, Les. > > Adieu. > >
From: Red Rackham on 14 Feb 2010 13:02
"Lescor" <lescor(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:buSdnasELLq2lOXWnZ2dnUVZ8mudnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > > > > > > >> Les, old fruit, you do like to rewrite history, don't you mate. >> >> I love impartiality, disinterest and objectivity, what I'm not so keen on >> is charlatans claiming they posess the above to try and add weight to >> their opinions when they quite clearly do not. >> >> Here's some highlights from your posts, Les: >> >> >> - The Busby Babes weren't as good as people like to think, they had >> potential, nothing more. >> >> (This despite them already having won the league) > > And Chelsea won it the year before with what must have been the > worst side ever to do so. (52pts) Not just my opinion. The English top > division when through a very poor patch at that time. I know, because > I was there watching it. > > Question. Did you ever see the Busby babes as i did so many times, > or is your opinion based on football folklore? Is it opinion based on > newspapers or actual experience? You understand the question? See Steve H's reply to you in this thread. If you're feeling up to it, you could even venture a little reply . > > Flattered though I am that you record my past posts, you seem to leave > out my replies. Au contraire Les mate, they 'are' your replies. Your garbage......god forgive me......was covered more than > once but ignored. So, just one more time. If being placed in a very > high > population area is not an essential advantage for a football clubs > continued > success then explain why such clubs seem to win the league titles year > after year after year. With one exception, the Prem has been won by a > Manchester or London side every year since it started. The mayjor Euro > leagues show the same big city trend. > > Obviously just a coincidence? Just an unusual statistical quirk that we > don't find Shrewsbury or Tiverton or Crewe competing for the title. No > doubt > that, in time, teams like these with a potential fan base of a couple of > thousand, will start to win title after title just to set the stats > straight. > Why not? All that they need is a genius manager. SAF would have > done the job if he had gone there, regardless of poor potential support. > > No, it won't happen, and there is a reason why. From the early 60's, it > became more difficult for smaller clubs to succeed where they had done. > occasionally, before. You have probably never heard of this. You have to > know a bit about the game, but they bought in the end of the maximum > wage. Clubs were allowed to pay whatever wages they liked rather than > all being the same. It was then that the gate money from highly populated > areas started to play a greater part. > > You see the point "old fruit".... it is pretty bloody difficult to get > 50.000 > into a ground on a wet Saturday afternoon when that number makes up > for such a high proportion of the total population. Far easier for clubs > from big cities. Not so difficult if you give it some thought is it? > No, it is not the sole reason for Man U's success, or Arsenals', or > Chelsea's > or any other club......but it is a VITAL requirement without which there > won't > be any success. But Les, you keep saying this, and I have already given you several examples of teams who have enjoyed success without the VITAL large local population to call on. I even pointed out to you that United had a lot more competition for its support from other local clubs than Chelsea enjoys but you didn't get round to responding to that. Which is exactly the point I made in the first place. > > > > > > >> - United wouldn't have had their success if they'd come from Exeter. >> >> - Chelsea's money is just as deserved as United's. >> >> - United were lucky to win the league last season due to Chelsea's >> injuries. >> >> (When I point out the United's injuries were more extensive than >> Chelsea's >> you evade the point like the plague again) >> >> And your denial that the overwhelming majority of fans in a stadium will >> be partial is an amusing indication of how far you will try and go before >> admitting you're wrong. > > That was due to your strange reading. I said the opposite. > >>> But you didn't old mate. You produced three, who.you said had major >>> success, obviously comparable with the type of MU Arsenal type sustained >>> succes we were talking about, and you.....wait for it, named >>> Huddersfield??? Ipswich? and Blackpool all of which had success although >>> with less populations than my example, which could have been chosen from >>> scores but happened to be Exeter. So, according to you, this proves >>> that >>> as Exeter has a bigger population than all your named 3 it proves that >>> my >>> argument is wrong. lol........Do you have any idea of what a non >>> sequitur >>> is? > > You obviously don't. > > >> You said a big population base was a 'requirement' of success. I clearly >> pointed out, with examples, that this isn't necessarily the case. > > So....the floor is yours, (and I said "continued success") Name a > successful > Prem side from a small town with low population. How many of this type > have > won the top div title since the late 60's compared to "big city" clubs. > > > > > > > >> You really are going to have to get better at dealing with adversity. >> >> And let's not forget that this all stemmed from your pathological >> inability >> to acknowledge United's success without some bizarre rider such as they >> wouldn't have had it if they'd come from Exeter. >> >> >> >>> >>> It would prove no such thing, but put your mind to this. Exeter.in fact, >>> has a lower population to the three you named......lol.....unfortunate >>> but >>> true old chump. >> >> >> >> Sadly for you Les, not true at all. >> >> Latest official figures has Exeter's population as being over 3000 larger >> than Ipswich's. >> >> But I know how hard you find it to ever admit you're wrong so let's gloss >> over this. >> >> Let's just recognise just what kind of 'impartial' mind would gain >> comfort >> from the idea that United would never have been successful if they'd come >> from Exeter. > > A sensible mind old chum. One that realises that some clubs could afford > to > buy Dennis Law from Italy , and to pay his wages, and some couldn't. Why? > Because of the population/gate money equation. Easy isn't it ...-)) ? Not really Les, by your reckoning Birmingham should have won the European cup countless times. Les mate, you seemed to have missed my points about your arguing that United didn't deserve to win the league over Chelsea because of Chelsea's injury problems. United's were worse in the season in question. You dodged the point. And your bizarre claim that Chelsea deserve their Abramovich money as much as United deserve the money they've gained from continued success on the pitch. That strikes me as not a very rational stance, mate. But the funniest thing about your whole ABU perspective is that you go to such lengths to qualify United's success, undermining the Busby Babes, desperately clinging on to the fact that United come from Manchester and not Exeter, and try to pretend that it's a rational, neutral view. It's not mate. It's a desperate and transparently bitter view from a Chelsea fan who probably wouldn't even be on these ngs if a Russian billionaire hadn't bankrolled his history-free zone of a club. HTH |