Bitter Keane supports Ronaldo
-
Originally posted by walesa:
Self-entertainment is the new order of the day, isn't it?
You must be getting fairly bored and helpless seeing one argument being rebutted after another...And what's your purpose of you quoting the part you underlined? Trying to shoot yourself in the foot further to ensure a total whitewash in this argument? Is your linguistic incompetence so drastic you can't actually comprehend the essence of what you've underlined is identical to what I stated in the post taken from the original thread?
Why don't you quote the entire post from the thread you've gone to great lengths to dig up so as to spare me the effort of embarrassing you further on that count?
As if your confusion between reality and fantasy wasn't acute enough, from where would you derive the notion that I wasn't aware of your claims? Rather, the more pertinent point is : are you aware of what I was disputing? Apparently, from your valiantly desperate, albeit futile, attempt to engage in self-contradictory quoting, you don't. Either that or you must be having another bout of Schizophrenia...
For the record, the "link" you provided that you claim had not been updated had in no way suggested the G14 had disbanded. Why don't you go over that again before embarrassing yourself further?
Or lest you get too carried away in a lost cause, why don't you try explaining the countless faux pas you've unerringly and consistently produced? For starters, how's explaining your embarrassment of your insistence that Keane was bitter about Fergie and the club because of the manner of his departure, despite evidence to the contrary? Perhaps, you could start by defending the following lost cause of yours : "I have already said its not just about Ronaldo, loyalty, or anything else, its more about the character's general feeling of bitterness towards Fergie and the club."
Are you deranged or deluded? Would you like to quote me in the appropriate context? If you're going to quote me on that one, the least you could do would be to quote the post in its entirety instead of just two liners from a post which was effectively dealing with the interpretation of what constitutes the G14, rather than whether the G14 is in existence. It was in that context that I said "whether they're functioning or not is another matter" as the geist of my point was to ensure you understood the term G14 referred to.
Apparently, your imbecilic intellect has actually permitted your stupidity to scale new heights such that you actually associated that quote of mine with my "I stand corrected" on what was effectively another issue. Or is that simply another faux pas arising from you being retarded?
Perhaps, to illustrate the sequential logic (or lack thereof) that typically exemplifies your idiocy as demonstrated above, why not try concocting a case to justify another faux pas of yours : namely, making sense of how your first post in this thread actually justifies the ludicrous notion that "this post is purely about Keane the person" ?
Am I twisting and turning or are you quoting me out of context and ramming words down my throat? Refer above to what I've explained in my defence of the G14 issue. Do consult someone who is linguistically more competent than yourself to interpret my words in its originally intended context. Apparently, your inability to view and comprehend statements made in the appropriate context is uniquely dire and exclusive to a dimwit. It surely can be no coincidence that your frequent knack of misquoting others (from the tabloids to yours truly) can be so unbelievably abhorrent. For starters, you may wish to consider attending basic grammar school to facilitate your comprehension.
Perhaps, addressing the parts in red quoted above in the meantime might save you the ignominy of having need to twist and turn. If you wish to discuss anything more about the G14, first do yourself a favour and explain the ignominy and self-contradiction of what you've typed in red above...
That's just the tip of the iceberg as far as your colourful and exhaustive list of faux pas goes...Was he misquoted or did you misquote him? If your misinterpretation has arisen from your stupidity, there is hardly anyone capable of helping you.
As far as I'm concerned (and yes, this is a prime example of an opinion lest you get confused between opinions and facts), Keane's comments in its relevant and appropriate context smacks of nothing but objectivity and hardly anything that resembles your brand of bitterness.
If anything, your desperate attempt to mount a character assassination by painting colourful pictures of his previous misdemeanour to distort the essence of the article you were quoting is the sharpest illustration of bitterness seen here thus far.
Your loose canon must be getting the better of you. Either that or your linguistic inaptitude has got to be so overwhelming that would even put a toddler to shame.
As mentioned above, go over my words in its appropriate context instead of selectively plucking my words from its original context and re-applying them elsewhere.
Although labelling you a "liar" would hardly look out of place in view of the hidden vendetta you've been carrying with you in your earnest attempts to forcefully paint the world the way you see them. Perhaps, a foolish liar like yourself would like to back up the statements you made in red for a start instead of beating around the bush? Oops, and did I advise you to at least master the art of lying convincingly if you're gonna con your way around? No wonder they say empty vessels make the most noise.
As for your point on Keane having "such thoughts" (whatever they may be, but I'm not commenting further until you've addressed your points in red above lest I get quoted out of context - yet again!), how does the possibility of him having "such thoughts" serve to convey his "bitterness" purely from the article you quoted? Trying to force your way through a lost cause when you obviously can't justify the rationale behind his "bitterness", aren't you?
At least, there's a wee bit of saving grace from you here, although the logic still leaves much to be desired. Read what I mentioned above - who's misquoting and misinterpreting him?
On the basis of his interview in full, how anyone could conjure up the sort of distorted and warp logic as yours is beyond me. Was he misquoted or did you simply choose to believe what you want on the basis of your own perceptions and biases which are not necessarily founded?
You really need to enlist the help of a decent grammar school, don't you? For the record, what you're stating is still effectively an opinion.
To illustrate your dire lack of common sense and pathetic comprehension of facts and opinions, are you for a moment telling me you'd be hanged just by walking into a police station confessing to having committed a murder without any other forms of validation to ascertain that a case of murder has indeed taken place? Or for that matter, would my telling you your mum having had an extramarital affair (which may or may not be true) necessarily translate to be true?
Perhaps, coming back for another dose of logic would do you some good if you could digest the above.
Oh no, not at all… I see an end to this whole thing very soon as I think I have more or less done enough to show the character that you are from this whole discussion… I belief by now we can establish the systematic ways you would go about to hide your blunders in this forum. But I am not expecting any sudden changes to your ways or replies anyway as that would be too unbearable for you to make...
Actually I would have liked to quote the entire statement but found the other words there were irrelevant to the points being made here... They were just another load of mindless bashing like those we all can see here...
The real reason they were quoted is to show the systematic actions by you to twist and turned whenever you find yourself in a situation... I won't want to call you a liar cos that would be even too low for me to use in here on anyone so lets just say I would rather call it a dishonest move/person...
Ok, did I quote you out of context? And ramming something presumingly down your throat? If I did, please show me where did I miss out?
You were not aware that the G14 disbanded did you? I saw the link you provided before they updated it… It didn’t mention anything about disbanding… Then you base your another mindless reply on it and said this…
You must be fairly deluded to even believe the G14 is no longer in existence when directors/executives from those clubs still meet regularly (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-14 just in case you haven't got a clue what G14 stands for). Or are you so bored you've decided to challenge facts when you can't withstand your opinions being challenged?
This was the very first statement you made dated 28 April 2008 to my passing comment on… Anyway, the G14 is no longer in existence... Period.
Again, here you are trying real hard to distort things as usual…
For the record, the "link" you provided that you claim had not been updated had in no way suggested the G14 had disbanded. Why don't you go over that again before embarrassing yourself further?
I think you are dearly confused now… The link that wasn’t updated came from you… Did I not inform you that then? Or you can go and check that post for yourself. You provide it to prove your point that the G14 was not disbanded. The links I gave you were the updated ones remember?… Don’t go twisting and turning words here now… And If you care to see the date when was it published, perhaps you can save yourself more embarrassment again…
On the link I provided, it stated
Tue, 15 Jan 22:18:00 2008.
With the title: G-14 disbanded
First paragraph :
The G-14 club pressure group has been disbanded after reaching agreement with FIFA and UEFA on a number of points, including financial compensation for players competing in European Championships and World Cups.
Ok now… with your so called superb English, which part of the sentence dated 15 Jan 2008 did you not understand the meaning?
Do you know whats the meaning of “has been disbanded” in the first place? Coming up with all that excuses in your later post is such a disgrace which I will also address later.
I will quote you again in full paragraph… 28 Apr 2008
For the lack of clarity, I will cede this point to you in view of my ambiguity and your hapless and mindless arguments elsewhere which have made completely no sense. All said and done, you may wish to note that despite the fact the G14 had disbanded in February, the factual statement of directors and executives of the G14 clubs still held plans to meet after the G14 umbrella being disbanded to iron out the existing issues and the eventual integration of these clubs into the ECA (G14's successor) still stand.
Then there is another one…
Firstly, with regards to the G14, I was challenging you on the notion of the idea that it had ceased existence at the time of my post. While announcements had been made in principle for the disbandment of the G14, you had not - as then - proven that it had been disbanded.
So… What lack of clarity are you referring to? Lack of clarity to us all here or to you only? Or is it just another one of your facts distorting methods? Thanks to your own words, I now can say you should know that the G14 was over by Feb 15 weren’t you?
The above paragraph from you is just like what I have been saying… twisting and turning your words… your defence on your knowledge of the G14 issue is pathetic… It’s a load of bull you made up to cover your earlier error on the disbandment… You were not aware of it before but when exposed, changed track… This is the characteristic of you that I have come to know. Unfortunately.
Maybe just for compassion sake, I will let you cast some doubt on it for a moment… Perhaps the clubs may have planned to meet after it was announced, But wait a min, that announcement was made on Jan 15 2008… By Feb 15 2008, everything was over! And your post was dated Feb 28 2008… Hmmm… Does it ring any bell?
So now it lead us to your this question again only yesterday… You still can't separate opinions from facts two months on, can you?
Now what’s this all about? What’s your opinions and what’s your facts now? Are they interchangeable?
2 months back, it was first your "facts"... Then it became only an opinion after I have provided you with the latest report on it? So who still can't separate opinions from facts today?
Now, clearly like I said… This thread is about Keane the person isn’t it… I guess it has evolved into something else hasn’t it… I would have liked to keep it at that but you just seem on bring in all sorts of other things didn’t you? You seem to make a big deal out of the title when I have already mentioned to you that it was from a Press report… Do you understand what is a Press report? I also said you can find it on the Straits Times too didn’t I... Did you go and see the Straits Times or not? Why you don’t want to tell us till now? For your info, I didn’t quote him, I didn’t mis-quote him, I just quoted the Press report… Happy?
What I did say was it could more or less be a general feeling of Keane towards Fergie by some... didn’t I? If you do not feel that way, it does not mean others don’t or can’t isn’t it?
Again, Just providing one positive report means its prove? Someone said something nice and its not possible to harbour ill-intent? Have you not seen politician doing this all the time? Anyway, does it take away the negative ones he has said? Again, I put to you my question which you have conveniently avoid or ignore answering...
Why is it always Keane being "mis-quoted" and not Schmeichel, Irwin, Sheringham, Strachan, Pallister, Bruce, Ince, Hughes, Beckham or Cantona?
Maybe you can come up with something? But did it cross your mind that maybe he wasn’t mis-quoted at all in the first place? So could Keane still have a hidden bitterness towards Fergie for his sacking? Its not impossible is it, and why not right? Can you or anyone prove otherwise either way? I know I can’t but neither can you right? But the many press reports are there this is true. And if you could be so kind to give us your opinion on the individual questions I put to you, maybe we can establish the possibilities of the man's nature and come to understand why some belief he could still be bitter over his sacking...
- Do you think it was revenge motivated? - YES / NO ?
- For someone who could wait 4 years, whats your opinion of this?
- For the way he went about to planned and carried out his attack (waited till last 5 mins of the match) - whats your opinion to this?
- And thanks to you, I have read in-depth what Haaland supposingly had said to Keane... (criticised Keane for the nature of the tackle and suggested that he was feigning injury to avoid punishment) So in your opinion, does it render such a vicious attack on a fellow player? - YES / NO ?
- And is it still your opinion that it was "one of those foolish things he did as has been done by so many other players" ? - YES / NO
- Do you think Keane was bitter over Haaland's comments? - YES / NO
- In your honest opinion, Do you think Keane show signs of a retaliatory character? - YES / NO
-
double post
-
Originally posted by zocoss:
Oh no, not at all… I see an end to this whole thing very soon as I think I have more or less done enough to show the character that you are from this whole discussion… I belief by now we can establish the systematic ways you would go about to hide your blunders in this forum. But I am not expecting any sudden changes to your ways or replies anyway as that would be too unbearable for you to make...
Actually I would have liked to quote the entire statement but found the other words there were irrelevant to the points being made here... They were just another load of mindless bashing like those we all can see here...
The real reason they were quoted is to show the systematic actions by you to twist and turned whenever you find yourself in a situation... I won't want to call you a liar cos that would be even too low for me to use in here on anyone so lets just say I would rather call it a dishonest move/person...
Ok, did I quote you out of context? And ramming something presumingly down your throat? If I did, please show me where did I miss out?
You were not aware that the G14 disbanded did you? I saw the link you provided before they updated it… It didn’t mention anything about disbanding… Then you base your another mindless reply on it and said this…
You must be fairly deluded to even believe the G14 is no longer in existence when directors/executives from those clubs still meet regularly (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-14 just in case you haven't got a clue what G14 stands for). Or are you so bored you've decided to challenge facts when you can't withstand your opinions being challenged?
This was the very first statement you made dated 28 April 2008 to my passing comment on… Anyway, the G14 is no longer in existence... Period.
Again, here you are trying real hard to distort things as usual…
For the record, the "link" you provided that you claim had not been updated had in no way suggested the G14 had disbanded. Why don't you go over that again before embarrassing yourself further?
I think you are dearly confused now… The link that wasn’t updated came from you… Did I not inform you that then? Or you can go and check that post for yourself. You provide it to prove your point that the G14 was not disbanded. The links I gave you were the updated ones remember?… Don’t go twisting and turning words here now… And If you care to see the date when was it published, perhaps you can save yourself more embarrassment again…
On the link I provided, it stated
Tue, 15 Jan 22:18:00 2008.
With the title: G-14 disbanded
First paragraph :
The G-14 club pressure group has been disbanded after reaching agreement with FIFA and UEFA on a number of points, including financial compensation for players competing in European Championships and World Cups.
Ok now… with your so called superb English, which part of the sentence dated 15 Jan 2008 did you not understand the meaning?
Do you know whats the meaning of “has been disbanded” in the first place? Coming up with all that excuses in your later post is such a disgrace which I will also address later.
I will quote you again in full paragraph… 28 Apr 2008
For the lack of clarity, I will cede this point to you in view of my ambiguity and your hapless and mindless arguments elsewhere which have made completely no sense. All said and done, you may wish to note that despite the fact the G14 had disbanded in February, the factual statement of directors and executives of the G14 clubs still held plans to meet after the G14 umbrella being disbanded to iron out the existing issues and the eventual integration of these clubs into the ECA (G14's successor) still stand.
Then there is another one…
Firstly, with regards to the G14, I was challenging you on the notion of the idea that it had ceased existence at the time of my post. While announcements had been made in principle for the disbandment of the G14, you had not - as then - proven that it had been disbanded.
So… What lack of clarity are you referring to? Lack of clarity to us all here or to you only? Or is it just another one of your facts distorting methods? Thanks to your own words, I now can say you should know that the G14 was over by Feb 15 weren’t you?
The above paragraph from you is just like what I have been saying… twisting and turning your words… your defence on your knowledge of the G14 issue is pathetic… It’s a load of bull you made up to cover your earlier error on the disbandment… You were not aware of it before but when exposed, changed track… This is the characteristic of you that I have come to know. Unfortunately.
Maybe just for compassion sake, I will let you cast some doubt on it for a moment… Perhaps the clubs may have planned to meet after it was announced, But wait a min, that announcement was made on Jan 15 2008… By Feb 15 2008, everything was over! And your post was dated Feb 28 2008… Hmmm… Does it ring any bell?
So now it lead us to your this question again only yesterday… You still can't separate opinions from facts two months on, can you?
Now what’s this all about? What’s your opinions and what’s your facts now? Are they interchangeable?
2 months back, it was first your "facts"... Then it became only an opinion after I have provided you with the latest report on it? So who still can't separate opinions from facts today?
I sense waving the white flag isn't too far away for you - no wonder you "see an end to the whole thing very soon". You're getting more desperate and comical by the minute, aren't you?
Let's assess your logic bit by bit. Firstly, you went round citing the fact that I disputed with you the G14 was in existence at the time I stuck my post, which I did. Apparently, you tried rebutting me by quoting chunk after chunk of articles to drive home a moot point that the G14 leaders had met and agreed to disband without actually showing any concrete evidence that it had disbanded. So, if you signed separation papers which would lead to an eventual divorce, are you for a moment suggesting you're officially divorced right after you signed the separation papers? Your logic is rather dire, isn't it? Not found a suitable grammar school willing to nurture your abysmal intellect, yet?
Thereafter, in your desperation and a deliberate oversight of not quoting the point where I said "I stood corrected" in the original post, you then went on to accuse me of twisting and turning. So when I pointed out the part where I said "I stood corrected", you then went round saying I backtracked on my comments by saying "I stood corrected", yet persisted on disputing your point. Are you really retarded?
Despite having explained what my "I stood corrected" was meant to address (and like I said earlier, to save you the woeful embarrassment of disputing a moot point and giving you some brownie points since that didn't really matter in the context of the conversation) - which was effectively to ensure you understood what the G14 meant since you were hopelessly outwitted by me in wanting to be impressed with how strong United's record in Europe was, compared to other G14 clubs - you then conveniently quoted me out of context and took the "I stood corrected" point to mean I actually agreed with you that I was factually wrong when I had insisted all along you had yet to prove the fact I was technically wrong!
Amazing, isn't it? Then again, if you didn't bother to dig up something from months back in a desperate bid to mask your stupidity and hopelessly indefensible points in this post, you might have just spared yourself some embarrassment. I trust the above faux pas - a classic case of shooting yourself in the foot - must be very embarrassing, isn't it?
Then again, what are you capable of showing beyond the fact your intellectual inaptitude is beyond the realms of comprehension by a sane human being? From your countless faux pas in the G14 episode (which you'd justifiably claim to have arisen from to different opinions) to your illogical statements at the start of this thread (where you blatantly contradicted yourself and had no answer in your defence to the distorted picture you'd painted), I guess "I think I have more or less done enough to show the character that you are from this whole discussion" (pardon the pun!).
You would certainly need to try harder than simply shift the goalpost by diverting to a previous thread with little relevance to the issue at hand just because you can't defend your distorted lies which you seem to regard as an irrefutable truth. Apparently, you've still got a long way to go in terms of mastering the art of lying convincingly - or are you even capable of mastering that, given your dubiously questionable intellectual fortitude?
Or perhaps, you would like to embarrass youself further by trying to justify your other faux pas in this thread? Namely, justify how the article you posted here - in its entirety - could reasonably come across as Keane being bitter or for that matter, prove your point that Keane had been bitter ever since he left United despite my having shown you evidence to the contrary? I could certainly do with some senseless entertainment from a clown with little credibility of sorts. I trust bringing more issues in to convolute what is originally a simple picture, yet not being able to confuse others to buy the garb you sell or overlook your ludicrous folly must be very painful indeed.
Maybe, you could start by first re-defining if this thread is "purely about Keane the person" or still about "Bitter Keane supports Ronaldo" (alternatively, you could always edit your post and claim I misquoted you).
Now, clearly like I said… This thread is about Keane the person isn’t it… I guess it has evolved into something else hasn’t it… I would have liked to keep it at that but you just seem on bring in all sorts of other things didn’t you? You seem to make a big deal out of the title when I have already mentioned to you that it was from a Press report… Do you understand what is a Press report? I also said you can find it on the Straits Times too didn’t I... Did you go and see the Straits Times or not? Why you don’t want to tell us till now? For your info, I didn’t quote him, I didn’t mis-quote him, I just quoted the Press report… Happy?
What I did say was it could more or less be a general feeling of Keane towards Fergie by some... didn’t I? If you do not feel that way, it does not mean others don’t or can’t isn’t it?
Again, Just providing one positive report means its prove? Someone said something nice and its not possible to harbour ill-intent? Have you not seen politician doing this all the time? Anyway, does it take away the negative ones he has said? Again, I put to you my question which you have conveniently avoid or ignore answering...
Why is it always Keane being "mis-quoted" and not Schmeichel, Irwin, Sheringham, Strachan, Pallister, Bruce, Ince, Hughes, Beckham or Cantona?
Maybe you can come up with something? But did it cross your mind that maybe he wasn’t mis-quoted at all in the first place? So could Keane still have a hidden bitterness towards Fergie for his sacking? Its not impossible is it, and why not right? Can you or anyone prove otherwise either way? I know I can’t but neither can you right? But the many press reports are there this is true. And if you could be so kind to give us your opinion on the individual questions I put to you, maybe we can establish the possibilities of the man's nature and come to understand why some belief he could still be bitter over his sacking...
- Do you think it was revenge motivated? - YES / NO ?
- For someone who could wait 4 years, whats your opinion of this?
- For the way he went about to planned and carried out his attack (waited till last 5 mins of the match) - whats your opinion to this?
- And thanks to you, I have read in-depth what Haaland supposingly had said to Keane... (criticised Keane for the nature of the tackle and suggested that he was feigning injury to avoid punishment) So in your opinion, does it render such a vicious attack on a fellow player? - YES / NO ?
- And is it still your opinion that it was "one of those foolish things he did as has been done by so many other players" ? - YES / NO
- Do you think Keane was bitter over Haaland's comments? - YES / NO
- In your honest opinion, Do you think Keane show signs of a retaliatory character? - YES / NO
Look who's talking! It must indeed be a travesty for anyone to have as susceptible an intelligence level as yours. For all your valiant attempts to mimick me, you'd do well to actually start learning to separate opinions from facts, which you're obviously still incapable of distinguishing. On the basis of that, let's look at your first faux pas in this thread which you're obviously oblivious to.
Why don't you look exclusively at the first 3 posts in this thread (mind, I haven't even stuck my first post at this point in time)? First, you distorted an article's objectivity by omitting parts of the article to drive home your point that Keane was being bitter by advocating Ronaldo's departure as a result of his own departure from United. In your second post, you then proceeded to list a whole catalogue of demeanours committed by Keane to illustrate your perception that Keane was bitter and used that as a launchpad to justify your title that Keane was being bitter.
Can you separare opinions from facts - how does your second post back up your claims that Keane's comments were bitter? Instead of firing off like a loose canon defending lost causes, you would be better off trying to grasp the distinction between facts and opinions.
Now, this is getting even more hilarious. When I made my first post driving home my point that Keane was actually being objective (without wanting to embarrass you, despite knowing the article you had quoted was grossly incomplete), you took umbrage on my views and argued that he was a subject of my worship and maintained he was bitter. So, are you the one who's bitter or is Keane the bitter one?
Or can you not accept the deluded illusions you get of Keane being bitter is not shared by everyone?As if that wasn't enough to compound matters and magnify your intellectual defects to new heights, you then argued that this thread is purely about Keane the person? So, has your obssession with defending a senseless argument gone so far you had to resort to shifting goalposts to distort the picture and cite meaningless-cum-erroneous facts (oops...did I forget to mention you conveniently "recalled" Keane had a clause in his contract pegged his wages to the highest earner at the club, only to remain silent and diverted the attention to other issues when presented with evidence to the contrary)? Even then, it's fairly amazing how you did a pretty botched job at that!
Upon having your version of events challenged on the various counts of factual errors, you then proceeded to argue on the basis of opinions by insisting just because Keane had harboured ill-feelings in the Haaland episode, it wasn't impossible for him to be bitter with regard to United and Ronaldo. Really, so was it a sign of someone bitter to wish United well before the Champions League final? Or are your deluded opinions incapable of accepting objectivity - and in this instance, anything that suggests Keane isn't bitter - still clinging on to lost causes?
More importantly, I'm still waiting for you to drive home your point that the episodes you cited had, in any reasonable way, demonstrated the bitterness displayed in Keane's original interview. Failing which, you must be one very bitter loose canon mounting a futile bid at character assassination for which you've been an abject failure.
Oops, "I think I have more or less done enough to show the character that you are from this whole discussion." No wonder I see an end to this whole thing very soon!
-
Twisting and turning again I see… You are incorrigible… Now before you go on making more distorting facts… I just wish to ask you one simple question and that is when did you make this comment?
You must be fairly deluded to even believe the G14 is no longer in existence when directors/executives from those clubs still meet regularly (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-14 - (Not updated then and didn’t mentioned anything about the G14 being disbanded yet)
Was it 28 Apr 2008? I belief so agree? It was a reply to my remark of (Anyway, the G14 is no longer in existence... Period.) Agree?
Alright, no disputing on it then we move on…The date of the article that published the G14 disbanded was on 15 Jan 2008. we agree on this part also correct? Good.
Then later on came…
For the lack of clarity, I will cede this point to you in view of my ambiguity and your hapless and mindless arguments elsewhere which have made completely no sense. All said and done, you may wish to note that despite the fact the G14 had disbanded in February, the factual statement of directors and executives of the G14 clubs still held plans to meet after the G14 umbrella being disbanded to iron out the existing issues and the eventual integration of these clubs into the ECA (G14's successor) still stand. (28 Apr 2008)
Then 21 Jul 2008.
From me: (Aren't you the one that said I was in delusion to even believe the G14 is no longer in existence just roughly 2 months ago?)
You still can't separate opinions from facts two months on, (21 Jul 2008)
Later more twisting…
Firstly, with regards to the G14, I was challenging you on the notion of the idea that it had ceased existence at the time of my post. (21 Jul 2008)
Ok, now the very latest…
Let's assess your logic bit by bit. Firstly, you went round citing the fact that I disputed with you the G14 was in existence at the time I stuck my post, which I did. Apparently, you tried rebutting me by quoting chunk after chunk of articles to drive home a moot point that the G14 leaders had met and agreed to disband without actually showing any concrete evidence that it had disbanded. So, if you signed separation papers which would lead to an eventual divorce, are you for a moment suggesting you're officially divorced right after you signed the separation papers? Your logic is rather dire, isn't it? Not found a suitable grammar school willing to nurture your abysmal intellect, yet?
Let’s see… I provided you with 2 links rather than your over exaggerating “chunk after chunk of articles” on the 28 Apr 2008. In the article dated 15 Jan 2008 It already stated clearly that the G14 had disbanded did it not?
Ok, here is the point you attempt to hide your blunder by saying (the factual statement of directors and executives of the G14 clubs still held plans to meet after the G14 umbrella being disbanded to iron out the existing issues)
Just because you saw your first statement had a sentence of
(when directors/executives from those clubs still meet regularly)
You decided to use it to cover your mistake and said they (still held plans to meet) So in other words, you are implying they are not officially disbanded on 28 Apr 2008...
Now very good… I put it to you that the announcement was made on 15 Jan 2008. And whatever plans they had or not to meet to iron out any other things as you have suggested would be between this period to 15 Feb 2008 when it became officially disbanded.
Do you see the discrepancy to your statement my dear friend? FEB 15 Officially Over! Your statement was made 2 and a half months later!
Again you came out with a weird example to back up your case… Of a divorce…
So, if you signed separation papers which would lead to an eventual divorce, are you for a moment suggesting you're officially divorced right after you signed the separation papers? Your logic is rather dire, isn't it? Not found a suitable grammar school willing to nurture your abysmal intellect, yet?
From this example of yours, I will put it this way, the signing of the separation papers was (15 Jan 2008) the officially divorced date was (15 Feb 2008)… Are you clear now?
Making a statement of meetings and all other stuff is a load of bull you bring out to cover your tracks… Anyway, I think you got yourself into a bigger hole now…
And I can’t belief my eyes when I saw this statement from you…
Apparently, you tried rebutting me by quoting chunk after chunk of articles to drive home a moot point that the G14 leaders had met and agreed to disband without actually showing any concrete evidence that it had disbanded.
My dear friend… are you serious? The ounce is on you to get your facts right and not for me to provide it to you! Any comments you have made was 2 and a half months after the G14 disbanded… Surely you don’t expect me to be the one providing you the facts right? You should have known it by then but apparently you don't and when about shooting your mouth off... Its like your husband and wife story…
If the husband is unfaithful, surely it’s the wife job to prove the adultery correct? You are not expecting the husband to employ a PI to tail himself and provide evidence to the wife do you? It sounds ridiculous doesn't it, this is what you are sounding to me now...
Moreover, your statement came 2 and a half months after the G14 has been disbanded… You see the problem here?
-
Originally posted by zocoss:
Twisting and turning again I see… You are incorrigible… Now before you go on making more distorting facts… I just wish to ask you one simple question and that is when did you make this comment?
You must be fairly deluded to even believe the G14 is no longer in existence when directors/executives from those clubs still meet regularly (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-14 - (Not updated then and didn’t mentioned anything about the G14 being disbanded yet)
Was it 28 Apr 2008? I belief so agree? It was a reply to my remark of (Anyway, the G14 is no longer in existence... Period.) Agree?
Alright, no disputing on it then we move on…The date of the article that published the G14 disbanded was on 15 Jan 2008. we agree on this part also correct? Good.
Then later on came…
Then 21 Jul 2008.
From me: (Aren't you the one that said I was in delusion to even believe the G14 is no longer in existence just roughly 2 months ago?)
Ok, now the very latest…
Let’s see… I provided you with 2 links rather than your over exaggerating “chunk after chunk of articles” on the 28 Apr 2008. In the article dated 15 Jan 2008 It already stated clearly that the G14 had disbanded did it not?
Ok, here is the point you attempt to hide your blunder by saying (the factual statement of directors and executives of the G14 clubs still held plans to meet after the G14 umbrella being disbanded to iron out the existing issues)
Just because you saw your first statement had a sentence of
You decided to use it to cover your mistake and said they (still held plans to meet) So in other words, you are implying they are not officially disbanded on 28 Apr 2008...
Now very good… I put it to you that the announcement was made on 15 Jan 2008. And whatever plans they had or not to meet to iron out any other things as you have suggested would be between this period to 15 Feb 2008 when it became officially disbanded.
Do you see the discrepancy to your statement my dear friend? FEB 15 Officially Over! Your statement was made 2 and a half months later!
Again you came out with a weird example to back up your case… Of a divorce…
From this example of yours, I will put it this way, the signing of the separation papers was (15 Jan 2008) the officially divorced date was (15 Feb 2008)… Are you clear now?
Making a statement of meetings and all other stuff is a load of bull you bring out to cover your tracks… Anyway, I think you got yourself into a bigger hole now…
And I can’t belief my eyes when I saw this statement from you…
My dear friend… are you serious? The ounce is on you to get your facts right and not for me to provide it to you! Any comments you have made was 2 and a half months after the G14 disbanded… Surely you don’t expect me to be the one providing you the facts right? You should have known it by then but apparently you don't and when about shooting your mouth off... Its like your husband and wife story…
If the husband is unfaithful, surely it’s the wife job to prove the adultery correct? You are not expecting the husband to employ a PI to tail himself and provide evidence to the wife do you? It sounds ridiculous doesn't it, this is what you are sounding to me now...
Moreover, your statement came 2 and a half months after the G14 has been disbanded… You see the problem here?
Incorrigible? That aptly sums up what you're. But for a deluded imbecile who has a habit of twisting and turning, selectively misquoting, citing points/quotes out of its appropriate context, eternally displaying a propensity for being confused between reality and fantasy and ramming home personal bigoted opinions as universal truth, you're quite a comical drone.
I see, for the first time, your shifting of goalposts has taken you right back to sticking up an entire post on the G14 debacle which is, quite frankly, just about the only moot point you've got a remotely loose chance of controversially sustaining your ailing logic, eh? This loose cannon must be getting fairly desperate for a futile attempt at averting the destiny of becoming yet another cannon fodder...
Perhaps, to help you along due to your obvious linguistic incompetencies that still obviously prohibit you from comprehending my point about the G14 and help spare you the embarrassment of self-contradicting yourself further by conveniently misquoting my point (oops...and that came only after you'd selectively overlooked my what I said "I stood corrected to" and required my assistance in pointing you out), why not do yourself a kind favour by first trying to make sense of the following instead of skirting and darting around with you unsubstantiated "bitter" vendetta which struggles to convince (oh, it must indeed be very painful to be remnded your valiant attempts to mask your dementia and divert attention has been sorely unsuccessful
) :- From which part of the interview did you draw the conclusion that Keane was actually being bitter? (If you're incapable of backing up your claims, feel free to use linguistic incompetence as an excuse )
- For all that drivel about the Boro debacle and the Haaland incident, how has a thread that started with a "Bitter Keane" transcended into one that actually deals with "Keane the person"? (Amazing how a perception of the Haaland incident could actually ignite a 180-degree turnaround in your stance, and then see the stance switch back to its originally intended one at your own advantage, isn't it? )
- Instead of darting around your hideous claims - after being presented with evidence to the contrary - that Keane was being bitter for the manner in which he was shown the door at United, would you like to defend the point about his well-wishes expressed in the run-up to the Champions League final? (An innate inability arising from being retarded to separate facts and opinions is perfectly acceptable as an excuse )
- Just like the above point, would you like to make sense of your heinous incapacity to objectively accept facts? For all your wild claims about Keane ever having a contract that pegged his wages to the club's highest earner, are you standing corrected on that one or are you going to find some credible evidence to rebutt the point I raised that ostensibly proved you wrong? Or are you going to conveniently evade the issue so that you could spend more time "recalling" unsubstantiated issues to divert the attention further? (Choosing to live in self-denial is also a perfectly acceptable excuse)
For the life of me, would you like to make up your mind whether this thread is really about Keane being bitter for the manner of his departure, Keane the person or Keane simply being bitter for advocating Ronaldo's departure? No wonder you're confused when you've so much on your plate for a grotesquely-limited intellectual capacity!
To save you the ignominy lest you accuse me of being "incorrigible" in the G14 episode, your blatant linguistic incompetence in first omitting a remark I made, only to come round and insist I was "twisting and turning" after I'd made the effort to point out your glaringly ominous omission, rest assured I'd kindly carry on with the G14 issue with you after you're done with adequately addressing the 4 bullet points raised above.
That way, you could rest assured all your embarrassment-inducing concerns will be given the attention it so richly deserves - and we too could give your mental handicap the break it deserves so as to be able to focus on one task at a time instead of conveniently evading issues at hand which are still largely unresolved.
Failing which, an enrolment in a grammar school may well be your only course of redress as I see an end to this whole thing very soon!
- From which part of the interview did you draw the conclusion that Keane was actually being bitter? (If you're incapable of backing up your claims, feel free to use linguistic incompetence as an excuse
-
For all the long post, I will try to keep it as short as i can so that you can focus on the points I am making and not avoid the questions to confuse the post further…
You made a wrong fact statement, went about calling others fairly deluded but when proven with undisputed facts, You came out with "I stood corrected to" but it did not stop you from further statements like
28 Apr 2008.
For the lack of clarity, I will cede this point to you in view of my ambiguity and your hapless and mindless arguments elsewhere which have made completely no sense. All said and done, you may wish to note that despite the fact the G14 had disbanded in February, the factual statement of directors and executives of the G14 clubs still held plans to meet after the G14 umbrella being disbanded to iron out the existing issues and the eventual integration of these clubs into the ECA (G14's successor) still stand. You may wish to refer to
21 Jul 2008
Firstly, with regards to the G14, I was challenging you on the notion of the idea that it had ceased existence at the time of my post. While announcements had been made in principle for the disbandment of the G14, you had not - as then - proven that it had been disbanded. On the contrary, I actually presented you with a link which cast doubts on your argument that it had ceased to exist. Similarly, can you comprehend the fact that a couple who has made plans for a divorce is not necessarily divorced? In that regard, if I say a couple who has signed separation papers(but whose divorce has yet to materialise) is technically still married, am I making an error in factual judgement?
As a matter of fact, I still remain convinced I was technically right on the G14 issue.
2 and a half months after they disbanded, is it still my job to provide you with prove when they are all over? Shouldn’t it be your own responsibility not to fool others with your “facts”?
Anyway, I did provided you the link of prove did i not?
21 Jul 2008.
From me: (Aren't you the one that said I was in delusion to even believe the G14 is no longer in existence just roughly 2 months ago?)
your reply:
You still can't separate opinions from facts two months on, (21 Jul 2008)
and
"the notion of the idea that it had ceased existence at the time of your post "
You are correct here, I really can’t separate your opinion from your facts… 2 months ago you claim it as your fact then now it has only become your opinion? So easily…?
Since you already stood corrected, But it clear that didn’t stop you from going on to make more remarks to cast doubt on an earlier error has it? What notion of the idea are you talking about? You try to worm yourself out by playing with words… As I have already told you in my post before this… 15 Jan 2008 announced disbanded, 15 Feb 2008 Officially disbanded. Your statements were made in late Apr and even till 21 Jul 2008.
Then there is more and probably the best one…
As a matter of fact, I still remain convinced I was technically right on the G14 issue.
21 Jul `08, 5:31PM
Still Technically right?
This is like your husband and wife story you are trying to bull us here… After the official divorce, to you… The husband is still “technically” married to his wife until he re-marry a new woman? Is this what you are implying?
Announced Disbandment (15 Jan 2008) = (sign separation papers) … Any things you claim that needed to be iron out would have been settled during this period.
Officially Disbanded (15 Feb 2008) = Officially Divorced… Nothing else to do with each other legally.
So… 15 Feb to 21 Jul 2008 whats this period to you? (Self convincing Technically moments)? Lol…
I said I can see an end is near because of things like this above… You have a systematic character to twist and turn your words even when presented with clear facts like the one here…
Technically right? Whatever lah… if you rather stay in denial I have nothing else to say as people can see it for themselves how you operate…
Well I guess I have said all I needed to say and with the way you are, I have nothing new to add to this discussion anymore… Continuing in this discussion would only be so meaningless… So I will leave it for the people here to form their own opinion of things and what has been said by us.
The way you are still hounding me over the thread title is silly… I have already mentioned this point and if you care, you can look it up… And for your info, I didn’t edit any part of this Press report…
All said and done, I only have one last thing to say to you… and that is… You shouldn’t get so emotional over a minor thing like this… From the post you have made, I can only imagine the bottle up agitation inside of you while replying to each post since the first page… There is really no need to get so personal... Taunting doesn't work on me... and making a lie to cover an error... hmm...
I have a feeling that you will definitely deny this too but doing so, will only come across to me you are in denial cos the words on display from your post don’t lie… I didn't mind a word about it cause i wanted to let you continue so that we can see where you would go with it... And man, you really took it far...lol.
They seem to show a very unsettled and angry mind at times… You let it manifest and it gets more potent by the following post... Putting on more and more little laughing pictures to hide the agitation is like disguising your inner feeling thats all. You should learn to control your emotions better and not be so dramatic or let minor things like this upset you too easily… If you feel like you have won something here then good, go ahead, give yourself a pat on the back... I have serve my point and that is what i am more interested in...
Staying calm will do you more good in future…
-
Originally posted by zocoss:
For all the long post, I will try to keep it as short as i can so that you can focus on the points I am making and not avoid the questions to confuse the post further…
You made a wrong fact statement, went about calling others fairly deluded but when proven with undisputed facts, You came out with "I stood corrected to" but it did not stop you from further statements like
2 and a half months after they disbanded, is it still my job to provide you with prove when they are all over? Shouldn’t it be your own responsibility not to fool others with your “facts”?
Anyway, I did provided you the link of prove did i not?
21 Jul 2008.
From me: (Aren't you the one that said I was in delusion to even believe the G14 is no longer in existence just roughly 2 months ago?)
your reply:
You are correct here, I really can’t separate your opinion from your facts… 2 months ago you claim it as your fact then now it has only become your opinion? So easily…?
Since you already stood corrected, But it clear that didn’t stop you from going on to make more remarks to cast doubt on an earlier error has it? What notion of the idea are you talking about? You try to worm yourself out by playing with words… As I have already told you in my post before this… 15 Jan 2008 announced disbanded, 15 Feb 2008 Officially disbanded. Your statements were made in late Apr and even till 21 Jul 2008.
Then there is more and probably the best one…
Still Technically right?
This is like your husband and wife story you are trying to bull us here… After the official divorce, to you… The husband is still “technically” married to his wife until he re-marry a new woman? Is this what you are implying?
Announced Disbandment (15 Jan 2008) = (sign separation papers) … Any things you claim that needed to be iron out would have been settled during this period.
Officially Disbanded (15 Feb 2008) = Officially Divorced… Nothing else to do with each other legally.
So… 15 Feb to 21 Jul 2008 whats this period to you? (Self convincing Technically moments)? Lol…
I said I can see an end is near because of things like this above… You have a systematic character to twist and turn your words even when presented with clear facts like the one here…
Technically right? Whatever lah… if you rather stay in denial I have nothing else to say as people can see it for themselves how you operate…
Well I guess I have said all I needed to say and with the way you are, I have nothing new to add to this discussion anymore… Continuing in this discussion would only be so meaningless… So I will leave it for the people here to form their own opinion of things and what has been said by us.
The way you are still hounding me over the thread title is silly… I have already mentioned this point and if you care, you can look it up… And for your info, I didn’t edit any part of this Press report…
All said and done, I only have one last thing to say to you… and that is… You shouldn’t get so emotional over a minor thing like this… From the post you have made, I can only imagine the bottle up agitation inside of you while replying to each post since the first page… There is really no need to get so personal... Taunting doesn't work on me... and making a lie to cover an error... hmm...
I have a feeling that you will definitely deny this too but doing so, will only come across to me you are in denial cos the words on display from your post don’t lie… I didn't mind a word about it cause i wanted to let you continue so that we can see where you would go with it... And man, you really took it far...lol.
They seem to show a very unsettled and angry mind at times… You let it manifest and it gets more potent by the following post... Putting on more and more little laughing pictures to hide the agitation is like disguising your inner feeling thats all. You should learn to control your emotions better and not be so dramatic or let minor things like this upset you too easily… If you feel like you have won something here then good, go ahead, give yourself a pat on the back... I have serve my point and that is what i am more interested in...
Staying calm will do you more good in future…
Keeping your long post short will indeed do you a world of good instead of jumping on the gun and setting off like a loose cannon and making yourself come across as an inept cannon fodder...
And indeed, "staying calm will do you more good in future". It must have been very painful indeed for me to merely make a comment that suggested Keane was being objective instead of buying your deluded perception that he was bitter, eh? If you'd practised what you preached in blue, I am sure you wouldn't have made another faux pas like this :
Too much of a realist? Well, thank goodness there isn't too many out there and especially in the United team...
Keane was and still is a self centred figure... His earlier years in the United squad were great, almost every United fan love him. But unfortunately, like with most great players, he let it got to his head and it give him the impression that he was indispensable to them...
If you want to talk about his stand, we could see Keane has a very revengeful character throughout his playing career... The guy deliberately inflict a knee high injury to Alf-Inge Haland in the last 5 mins of a match between United and City... Many believed it was an act of revenge from an earlier foul and later Keane proudly acknowledged it in his autobiography in 2002 in which he stated he intended to hurt Haland on purpose... This in itself was a disgraceful act that no fan even United should support him for.
You are right that he did went back on his words and agreement with Blackburn on the eleventh hour so as to join United... But what was Blackburn then... In 1992, Blackburn were just a newly promoted side from the old division one league... Something like Stoke City today or Sunderland last year... Of course Keane being like almost every other player, jump at the chance... So what was loyally or his words even in those days... we could very well see his take on this already... And yet just last year, he criticized players of not wanting to join Sunderland cos there wasn't enough shopping centres for their girlfriends to shop in... Yeah I would say definitely from both side of the coin but from different views which suit his cause better...
Here was a Keane that only thought about himself when in 1992, sensing Forest could be relegated, negotiated a new contract which had a relegation escape clause inserted. The negotiations were lengthy and troublesome just like the one he had with United until then manager Brian Clough described Keane as a "greedy child". Anyway, i don't know where you got your info that he don't have a clause of being the highest paid player at United, cos i recalled i read it before...
And "To be fair, the offer he ultimately accepted at United was hardly the highest that had been offered to him at that point in time" ?
Like you have said, he broke United's then wage structure. Although I am not too sure but I think he was the first $100k player in United and maybe even the Premiership and that wasn't high enough? The rumour with Bayern and Real... were just plain rumour. It wasn't as tho there was an offer on the table like Lampard today...
Keane's swell headed behaviour seem to have no end... Just like in the 2002 World Cup, he demanded this and that and everything else and brought disruptive feelings into the Ireland squad until he was sent home... He had no respect for the manager and openly argue with him in front of all the other players... Coincidentally, Ireland went on to have one of their best WC showing after his expulsion from the squad. Just like United went on to do better after his sacking... Keane was a disruptive force and the younger players were afraid of him...
On Stam, its hard to say but Keane was in the midst of negotiating a contract of his own then as well so its hard to say if he wasn't in it for self interest too...
To summarize it, I would just say Keane is becoming like Jose Mourinho but unfortunately in behaviour only... In managerial skill, he still has a very long way to go... But looking at his purchased like Richardson for $5, 6 million... I feel he will never get to Jose of Fergie's level... and he may even shoot himself in the foot again with Sunderland like he has done so with most of the employer he had...
So, interested in going over your bitter post again and count the number of errors you've made in that one post alone? Or perhaps, you could always engage in another round of self-destructive debate that reveals your stupidity to new heights as you've done with the last couple of posts? It must have been very painful indeed to have so many errors pointed out to you in one pitiful post you took umbrage to just because you couldn't come to terms with the fact your original article had absolutely no indication to suggest Keane was actually bitter.
The one post that set you back on the defensive so much that selective misquoting, taking words out of its originally intended context, distorting reality, resorting to throwing up more irrelevant stuff to confuse others from coming to terms with your inaptitude. Apparently, for all your flagrant attempt to dig up a moot point, you're still having trouble trying to drive home your point due to your linguistic incompetence and inability to separate facts from opinions. How much more desperate can you get?
Anyway, as promised, I am still waiting for you to provide us with reasonable responses to the following points (after which I'd gladly address your G14 issue in its entirety) :
- From which part of the interview did you draw the conclusion that Keane was actually being bitter? (If you're incapable of backing up your claims, feel free to use linguistic incompetence as an excuse )
- For all that drivel about the Boro debacle and the Haaland incident, how has a thread that started with a "Bitter Keane" transcended into one that actually deals with "Keane the person"? (Amazing how a perception of the Haaland incident could actually ignite a 180-degree turnaround in your stance, and then see the stance switch back to its originally intended one at your own advantage, isn't it? )
- Instead of darting around your hideous claims - after being presented with evidence to the contrary - that Keane was being bitter for the manner in which he was shown the door at United, would you like to defend the point about his well-wishes expressed in the run-up to the Champions League final? (An innate inability arising from being retarded to separate facts and opinions is perfectly acceptable as an excuse )
- Just like the above point, would you like to make sense of your heinous incapacity to objectively accept facts? For all your wild claims about Keane ever having a contract that pegged his wages to the club's highest earner, are you standing corrected on that one or are you going to find some credible evidence to rebutt the point I raised that ostensibly proved you wrong? Or are you going to conveniently evade the issue so that you could spend more time "recalling" unsubstantiated issues to divert the attention further? (Choosing to live in self-denial is also a perfectly acceptable excuse)
So, for someone grossly incompetent, yet having a super-sized ego, would you like to take up the challenge of explaining the abovementioned?
Or are you going to skirt and dart around to ignite more confusion (albeit a very futile effort) to mask your grotesquely obvious faux pas?Failing which, I can only imagine this bitter-cum-angry loose cannon - whose schizophrenic tendencies include a propensity to regard an opponent one's incapable of outfoxing to be "angry"
- being saved the ignominy of having further embarrassments as I see an end to this whole thing very soon indeed...The way you are still hounding me over the thread title is silly
Well I guess I have said all I needed to say
You shouldn’t get so emotional over a minor thing like this
Wise words indeed. If you had heeded your own advice from the outset, you'd probably have been spared the embarrassment you've since exposed yourself to. To add insult to injury, some of the embarrassment has actually been self-inflicted with a blatant brand of self-contradiction (refer to your first and third posts in this thread, which later got you rambling between what your point really was - so, made up your mind if it's about "Bitter Keane supports Ronaldo" or "Keane the person"?
) without even a need for me to bring them to light - how much more desperate and pathetic can you get?Perhaps, a fitting finale for a bitten and wounded beast to bow out by diverting the attention away from the battered ego one last time? It's incredibly comical and hypocritical how someone who started a debate arising from uncontrollable emotions about having his biased brand of "bitterness" challenged conclude with an equally senseless "you're still hounding me over the thread title is silly".
So, what does that make an idiot incapable of sustaining a line of coherent argument who resorts to hounding me about an issue more than 2 months ago for which you obviously still fail to understand in its original context? An unobjective, bitter and emotionally-fragile hypocrite who practises double-standards? Indeed, I think I have more or less done enough to show the character that you are from this whole discussion.
- From which part of the interview did you draw the conclusion that Keane was actually being bitter? (If you're incapable of backing up your claims, feel free to use linguistic incompetence as an excuse