"Whilst LVG points to the Leicester game, it can be argued that if he is going to remove any stats then other games could be used."

No, it can't be argued.

That is absurd.

No other game would represent a statistical outlier from the season so far, so how can it be argued that other games could be used?

I retract my comment about your intelligence. You are clearly not very bright.

I have admitted I was wrong earlier in this thread. When I feel I am wrong I am happy to admit it.

you don't seem to grasp what I am saying. I said there is nothing wrong with his statement. But when you look at the stats he is using you can question them. This is what has happened.

No other game would represent a statistical outlier from the season so far, so how can it be argued that other games could be used?


You assume you want to keep it to this season, or even be fair with the stats.

Well again, why would LVG use a stat from a time when there was a completely different back four and manager?

The base information is his back four.

You're talking absolute nonsense. There's simply no flaw here, and you're hoping that by keep repeating meaningless sentences, people won't notice.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 17 minutes ago
Well again, why would LVG use a stat from a time when there was a completely different back four and manager?

The base information is his back four.

You're talking absolute nonsense. There's simply no flaw here, and you're hoping that by keep repeating meaningless sentences, people won't notice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not saying he would or should, just pointing out what some will argue. He chose to lop 5 goals off, I would have done the same in his position if I wanted to paint a brighter picture.

I would have expected stick for it.

Well if some argue it, some aren't making any sense.

He didn't lop off anything. He reviewed the performance of his defence, showing that with the exception of an outlier, he felt they'd done okay.

You still have not identified any flaw in that.

I think the truth is that you now realise that there is no flaw in what he's said.

There is room for disagreement, but that does not constitute a flaw.

Unfortunately for you, your inability admit your error is leading to you new lows in an attempt to hide your mistake.

Laughable.

You still have not identified any flaw in that.

The flaw is some argue it, sense or not.

There is room for disagreement, there is a flaw, if it was flawless there could be no disagreement.

New lows? Nothing I haven't said before.

It's now quite clear that you don't understand what the word flaw means.

Of course, you'll disagree, but let me assure you, you don't.

Either that or you're purposely doing this to avoid admitting your original error.

Cool, I don't need want or need your approval or backing.

It's not about my approval or backing.

You are, quite simply, incorrect.

If you state something that is open to a difference of opinion, it doesn't make your comment flawed.

I suggest you run along an educate yourself on that one.

I thought that was what you were tying to do. I will run along but I won't be giving this another thought, I am always available though Winston.

It's sad that you cannot admit your error.

In private, look up the word flawed. Check it out in some examples and consult a teacher, perhaps.

One day you will realise the mistake you made, if you don't already, and whilst you won't admit it here, you'll know I was right.

That's good enough for me.

Already looked it up thanks, did you that courtesy some time ago. Still perfectly happy and will move on as is.

Yes, but you tried to squeeze the definition into what you needed it to mean, and got it wrong.

As I said, if I make a comment and you disagree, the fact that you can disagree doesn't make my comment flawed.

That's effectively what you were saying, and it's one of the most ridicidulous things I've read on here from someone who is serious.

You've completely lost the plot.

Not at all, it suited fine thanks.

That doesn't mean anything.

You misunderstood what the word means, and made a total mess of it.

Read my second paragraph again and just try to debate it - go on...

There is no point in trying to debate further we already know we will not agree. I have pandered to your demands enough.

It's not about agreeing.

But you're right, if you can't even understand what the word 'flawed' means, and can't accept when you're corrected, what the hell are you doing on a debate board?

Learn to be corrected. Learn when you've made a mistake.

Learn.

Never stop learning, that is what life is all about, learnt nothing useful from you here.

Oh, I learn everyday.

You?

You're closing your mind. I am telling you that your use of the word flawed is incorrect.

Will you listen? Nah.

You can't even debate the point anymore. You're lost.

I meant nothing useful of course.

Been pandering to you long enough and still happy with my view, no point going round in circles. That is stupidity.

Of course you're happy with your view.

It's incorrect and has been proven so, but you're so deluded you genuinely believe that's not the case.

One day you'll realise you were wrong - probably when you use the word 'flawed' incorrectly, again, and embarrass yourself.

That's the thing - if you took the time to educate yourself now, you wouldn't make a fool of yourself in the future. Your choice.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 hours, 41 minutes ago
Of course you're happy with your view.

It's incorrect and has been proven so, but you're so deluded you genuinely believe that's not the case.

One day you'll realise you were wrong - probably when you use the word 'flawed' incorrectly, again, and embarrass yourself.

That's the thing - if you took the time to educate yourself now, you wouldn't make a fool of yourself in the future. Your choice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Winston it is impossible to disprove someone else's view. Do you know why?

Thats right, because its their view and not yours.

Move along. You are making yourself look like a babbling buffoon.
Everyone and by that I mean everyone bar a tiny minority like yourself is laughing at LVG for making such a ridiculous statement.

"Winston it is impossible to disprove someone else's view"

Thanks for this nugget of information.

If you read my posts properly, you'll notice that this isn't what I was doing.

Perhaps next time you'll tell someone they look like 'babbling buffoon', it'd be best if you get your facts in order first - because otherwise you look rather stupid.

Cheers.

500