What game will we be out of reach against Woolwich?

[wearetheparklane]

Does anyone in here have a job?

 

[StartingPrice]

Does anyone in here have a job?

Yes.
I work at home.
As my own boss.
On the Internet.

So I really can spend as much time on here as I choose without being unemployed :wink:

 

[jimmy-jojo]

I don't get the title of this thread.

Why is it in the future tense :shrug:

.

 

[dav3j]

For the love of God will the mods please lock this thread? I fear if SP goes off on too many more 10,000 word diatribes, the SC servers may completely self-destruct.

 

[StartingPrice]

.

1) That was clearly a joke, and not the post we are discussing.

2) Even if it were, it doesn't in any ay, alter my argument: I will only be proven wrong at the end of the season. If someone wanted to pick me up either this post or the one we are discussing, at the time and say that it was still mathematically possible for the Goons to finish above us, I could have understood it.
But, if they had, I would merely have laughed, and the explained exactly what the inherent nature of my post meant: that our points advantage plus easier run-in meant that they wouldn't finish above us.

Instead of (trying) to be clever, why don't you answer the questions I have asked TSH about 20 times, and he has each time refused to answer becausse he knows it will show he was wrong?

For the love of God will the mods please lock this thread? I fear if SP goes off on too many more 10,000 word diatribes, the SC servers may completely self-destruct.

Yes.
Because it is perfectly acceptable for one poster to say something that is wrong, and then ignore repeated explanations as to why it is wrong (which is, actually vvery insulting), and insist that his original WRONG interpretation be accepted as correct, even though it can (and has) been shown to be wrong. But it is not acceptable to not accept something that is wrong but explain, through a lot of ignorance (like consistently refusing to read posts/answer questions) and a lot of petties jumping in with their pathetic, snidy little remarks - pathetic hit lone victim in puny side-of-fist attacks bully gang mentality :roll:

 

[Mullers]

When you evolve, and what a proper debate rather than somewhat pathetically latching on to someone else's argument to pursue a grudge (based on being out-argued on several occasions), and engage with me rather than playing to the audience - please get back to me.

I asked you a few questions which I just wanted a straight answer to and I did this as politely as possibly in order to avoid any insults which may further sour this thread. I assure you I have neither the time or inclination to pursue a internet grudge with someone I don't know on a football forum.

I really do have bigger fish to fry.

 

[StartingPrice]

I asked you a few questions which I just wanted a straight answer to and I did this as politely as possibly in order to avoid any insults which may further sour this thread. I assure you I have neither the time or inclination to pursue a internet grudge with someone I don't know on a football forum.

I really do have bigger fish to fry.

1) No, you really didn't. I asked questions that were designed to try and impose the most simplistic answer, to match the interpretation you wanted to impose. I tried to engage with you, but you didn't want it. I have shown how this is the case. Yet again, you childish little gaem didn't work. Well done you :roll:

2) No, you really don't - don't flatter yourself :roll:

 

[StartingPrice]

Yep.
1) You had the opinion we have done enough to get 3rd place 2) and you still have that opinion today because you have not been disproven.

1) See, if you just wanted clarification, Mullers, you had it HERE.

2) But, by the end of the sentence you were trying to impose something I had not said, and made it clear I was not saying - why?

The fact is that I made a statement of opinion, which could be wrong, at a given moment in time, and the only way that opinion can be proven wrong is at the end of this season. You imposing on me, here, a statement that I would reach exactly the same conclusion with a totally different set of evidence, at a totally different moment in time.

I can see no reason for you doing that other than that you are trying to be clever.

 

[Mullers]

1) No, you really didn't. I asked questions that were designed to try and impose the most simplistic answer, to match the interpretation you wanted to impose. I tried to engage with you, but you didn't want it. I have shown how this is the case. Yet again, you childish little gaem didn't work. Well done you :roll:

You didn't try and engage me at all, you were just interesting in putting up a wall of defense, rather than reading and understanding a simple question.

2) No, you really don't - don't flatter yourself :roll:

:?

 

[Mullers]

1) See, if you just wanted clarification, Mullers, you had it HERE.

2) But, by the end of the sentence you were trying to impose something I had not said, and made it clear I was not saying - why?

So you don't have that opinion today then? Because that is what I understood from your post.

The fact is that I made a statement of opinion, which could be wrong, at a given moment in time, and the only way that opinion can be proven wrong is at the end of this season. You imposing on me, here, a statement that I would reach exactly the same conclusion with a totally different set of evidence, at a totally different moment in time.

I can see no reason for you doing that other than that you are trying to be clever.

I haven't really imposed anything and once again no need to repeat that it is an opinion that could be wrong etc etc.

 

[StartingPrice]

You didn't try and engage me at all, you were just interesting in putting up a wall of defense, rather than reading and understanding a simple question.

:?

Look, I've just reviewed all the posts in this thread that you made, and my responses, and I most certainly did try to engage you.
I don't need to put up a wall of defence, and I don't see that I have.
TSH host suggested one possible reading of what I said. I pointed out why it was wrong.
I stated it in several ways, including as a series of questions.
He has shown no signs of ever reading my posts, and has not, anywhere attempted to answer my questions.
He cintinues to restate his original interpretation, flatly, with no serious attempt to deconstruct the objections I have made to that interpretation.
Aside from being quite offensive - like, you must read my posts but I won't read your, you must answer my questions even though I won't answer yours, you must accept my original interpretation (even though I have shown several times why it was wrong), it also makes it seem to me that it would be more apt to accuse him of putting a wall of defence up. But I notice you haven't done that. You haven't anywhere continued to chip away at me, but asked him why he won't answer my questions. And you haven't made any attempt to answer those questions yourself.
I have to think there's a reason for that.

So you don't have that opinion today then? Because that is what I understood from your post.

I haven't really imposed anything and once again no need to repeat that it is an opinion that could be wrong etc etc.

It doesn't matter whether I have that opinion today or not. It is totally irrelevant. I stated an opinion, at a given moment in time, based upon ours points advantage and the comparative run-ins. I didn't state, anywhere, any given game when we would be out of reach of teh Woolwich - which is, after all the title of the thread. Doesn't that make you ask why, at the time, why nobody took me to task there and then, and state that, technically, they could win every game and us lose every one? The obvious answer is that no-one, at the time, thought that I meant it was mathematically impossible for them to finish above us (the title of the thread). I made frequent mention of our easier run-in - so the obvious interpretation is that I was talking in terms of having done enough to finish above them at the end of the season. That means the statement can be neither right nor wrong until the season. It doesn't matter whether I would make the same decisions now - all that matters is that I can say, quite categorically, that the season isn't over and so the statement I made then is neither right nor wrong.

I haven't anywhere said I was right - obviously, if the Goons finish above us I was wrong - I have stated that several times, and pointed to it as evidence that I have no problem in admitting I am wrong. Why does it matter if I wuold make the same call today, or not?

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

I thought this had been locked

 

[StartingPrice]

I thought this had been locked

No - it hasn't.

And I don't think it should until Moderator, TSH, gives me the plain common decency of reading my posts and answering the questions I have asked seeveral times, as I answered his posts and questions, initially in total good humour. I don't think this sets a good example.

 

[chrissivad]

No - it hasn't.

And I don't think it should...

i got to there and thought it should.

Nothing is getting discussed from either side and it will just end up with people getting angry at each other and more insults flying about.