Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)

But not involved in the discussion that was going on when you decided to write a personal, off topic post.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Rank the following in their primes:


by Who's Kissing Cameras?! (U1703)

27 July 2014


===
Optimus in his prime for me

Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)

No, you're criticising me (incorrectly) for doing something that you do.

I responded to your next comments yesterday. Did you ignore them because you can't answer the point?

Feel free to prove me wrong, but to my knowledge I have not done what I am criticising you for.

Sure, I've used the word pathetic and sometimes I've probably been ruder than I should have been - but it will have been part of an actual response to the topic.

Not the same thing.

That's the second time I have explained that you.

Oh, and for the record, you weren't correct. Funny isn't it, that you can't actually judge people based on a few debates about Liverpool on an anonymous forum, isn't it?

Who'd have thought it.

comment by Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)



posted 10 minutes ago


comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)

But not involved in the discussion that was going on when you decided to write a personal, off topic post.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here we go again. Calls people pathetic and insinuates they're a child and can only understand things if they are spelt out to them as you would a child. Then cry's about an off topic/personal comment. A comment that I feel probably hit home a little bit. I was bang on wasn't I Winston.


==

Are you posting this on Robbing's behalf

Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)

By the way, whenever you feel ready to finish your ridiculous, misplaced moral righteousness, feel free to return to the debate.

The bit where we prove Gerrard played on the right?

You left your comment open to interpretation. You cant turn around and say I was wrong to see it the way I saw it.
I said Gerrard was better than Scholes. Some guy said he wasn't and that he was never even good enough for CM because he was 'shunted' to other positions. I countered by saying Gerrard was versatile and the top performances in different positions are a testament to what a complete player he is. You came in talking about Scholes being more complete than Gerrard. If you cant see what your post implied within that context then I cant help you.
Furthermore you did become abusive while pontificating all the while, you paragon of virtue you. Complete joke.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)

That's right, I did.

However, it makes no sense to interpret my comment as being about Gerrard not being good enough.

You still can't explain why you think it's related.

Why? Because it isn't.

You know it and I know it.

You said I agreed with a pathetic notion, and then called me stupid, as I recall.

Only from that point did the conversation deteriorate.

Paragon of virtue?

I'm the one on this thread that has admitted error and also said some criticism is fair.

You're the one trying to take the moral highground and, given your mistake, it's laughable.

<yawn> honestly lads give it a rest.

We all know Gerrard has played at RW for his whole career but last year when Brendan Rodgers invented "pass and move" he was moved to the "quarterback" position which was also created by Brendan Rodgers (and definitely not stolen from another sport).

Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)

You can make ill-informed, childish judgements, yes. We have established that.

Yet again you ignore the explanation for why your claims of hypocrisy are incorrect, as well as ignoring the topic itself.

I think we've found the issue. You are utterly incapable of admitting that you're wrong.

You might want to take a look at that.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Arouna,

When someone is condecending I'm generally more abusive than great. I'd go as far to say that I should have NVQ's in it tbh. That's a couple of times you've posted about me though. Am I your new weird fixation as I'd rather not be.

Anyways what great is getting at is Winston's writing style as I think many find it offensive. You don't always have to call someone names or whatever to offend them.

Very bright guy though.

Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)

I generally only make comments like that when someone has been insulting / personal towards me, and most often it's as part of an overall response to the actual topic.

As I've already admitted, that's nothing to be proud of. If people are insulting, I should just leave it, but hey - I quite like debates about football and am not particularly bothered by the odd insult.

I don't begin insulting people if the conversation is purely about football. I have done it a couple of times and apologised.

I don't join threads (or re-join) just to make personal comments or insult people without even discussing the topic, derailing the actual debate.

I'm not perfect - never claimed I am.

But I find it astounding that you are sitting in judgement of me, while you're the one that took this off topic with personal comments that had no relation to the debate ongoing at the time.

Perhaps your criticism of me would be better received if you acknowledged some sort of blame yourself.

At the beginning, we were discussing Gerrard playing on the right and you were bullish. I commented, you asked me what season and I got the wrong one.

I admitted it. Why can't we then go onto discuss whether he did indeed play on the right in the correct season? Is it because you were quite bullish to begin with?

Anyway - this is a quite clear explanation of why my behaviour is different to yours.

Are either okay?

Probably not.

But can you blame someone for responding with derogatory comments when they have just had a comment aimed at them with derogatory comments? I don't think so.

Robbing_Hoody - Here, have some goals. You don't have to work for them. They're a gift. That's what we do now. (U6374)

I do take on board your comments and appreciate that the written word can sometimes come across more harshly than it's supposed to.

But don't you think, as mature adults (? ), someone could just say so, rather than insulting me and allowing the whole debate to fall apart?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

If someone is saying that you're condescending, patronising, pretentious and sanctimonious that's more of an observation isn't it? Bit like saying someone is being childish and pathetic I'd say.

That kind of stuff is subjective though where as calling someone a massive fúcknuckle is not.

Personally I like to mix it up.

Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)

Except I'd been insulted, which is why I'd said that comment.

So no, it's not hypocritical. It falls exactly within the explanation I've given.

Go and check, if you must.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Robbing_Hoody - Here, have some goals. You don't have to work for them. They're a gift. That's what we do now. (U6374)

I think there's ways of putting these things. If you feel I've been a bit strong or over the top, just say so politely.

I have plenty of people thank me for being fair, open and admitting my mistakes, so whilst I take your comments on board, I think that your assessment of me is often based on a debate that has already headed south.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)

I'm not offended by it.

But it was a personal question, used as part of personal criticism, that was not helpful if you actually want a debate about football.

Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)

I'm not making up the rules. I'm using the definition of hypocrisy to tell you that I'm not a hypocrite.

I'm also giving you an explanation of how I use the forum, which you asked for.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator