Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Close Curly. Had you posted 27 seconds earlier you would be 200
comment by Curly 💩 (U1103)
posted 20 seconds ago
And two hunner ya tadgers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong again. This is not your day.
If I were you, I'd ask admin for a temporary ban.
comment by Curly 💩 (U1103)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Curly 💩 (U1103)
posted 4 minutes ago
The point being made is correct. If Rangers had taken all of their chances, and Celtic had taken none of theirs then they would have won. That is undeniable.
++++
Well kinda
The point being made is if we had scored all our chances (6) and if Celtic had still scored their goals (2), we would have won 6-2
Can you explain to Leo though as he is really struggling with this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
curly....I'm sorry to say it but you really have lost it here.
You are asserting things as FACTS that are not even close to the realm of reality.
I completely understand the point you are trying to make...your argument is logical but is based on fallacious premises (in fact it sounds like it's based on licensed premises).
If Rangers had taken the first of their missed chances, the whole of the game would have been changed thereafter. Instead of a goal kick to Celtic or the ball remaining in play, it would have been a Celtic kick-off and the rest of the game is unknown and difficult to predict.
You can't say with any certainty that Rangers would have won 6-2. That's a fact!
+++++
One last try and then I just have to assume that reading skills are not something Tims possess
Laudrup said that IF rangers took all their chances they would have won
Leo said that was wrong as the stats don't back that up and all I said was he was correct as the stats DO back up as we had more chances than Celtic scored goals
It really is not that difficult but I am clearly wasting my time trying to explain it!
Leo then agreed with POV who said the same thing so the whole debate is a total non debate
It's a classic example of reading the poster and not the post
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Curly 💩 (U1103)
posted 7 minutes ago
Laudrup says something = wrong
POV says same thing = right
Tim logic eh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest that is usually a safe bet. Siding with laudrop will only make you look a fool as you found out with thinking rangers won the game on saturday.
comment by timmy (U14278)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Curly 💩 (U1103)
posted 7 minutes ago
Laudrup says something = wrong
POV says same thing = right
Tim logic eh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest that is usually a safe bet. Siding with laudrop will only make you look a fool as you found out with thinking rangers won the game on saturday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now now Timothy , where did anyone say they think rangers won on Saturday
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
If you take your chances and put the ball in the net you become 10 years ahead of your opponents , it's that simple
comment by Laudrup (U12366)
posted 47 seconds ago
If you take your chances and put the ball in the net you become 10 years ahead of your opponents , it's that simple
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You should go into football management with radical thinking like that. You could be the next Jock Stein.
Actually, Mags point is correct. Had Rangers taken their first chance, then the whole game would have been different. The assumption made is that every action thereafter would have been the same, which in reality would not have happened. Therefore it's a silly argument.
comment by Curly 💩 (U1103)
posted 1 minute ago
To be honest that is usually a safe bet. Siding with laudrop will only make you look a fool as you found out with thinking rangers won the game on saturday.
++++
But I never thought that at all
Learn to read
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He can only read his daily record with Sutton in it or mad Phil
comment by timmy (U14278)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by Laudrup (U12366)
posted 47 seconds ago
If you take your chances and put the ball in the net you become 10 years ahead of your opponents , it's that simple
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You should go into football management with radical thinking like that. You could be the next Jock Stein.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get that train of thought from here
Rangers were the better team first half.
Celtic best team in the second half.
2 - 1 victory for Celtic at ibrox was a good result. We played like champions on Saturday
Andy Scanlon, Edinburgh, said: “Most people know Sutton is not an impartial commentator. But he has now come out with the most ridiculous comment and it shows he has no interest in Scottish football.
“It’s widely recognised that a strong Rangers and Celtic is good for the game here so his comments just expose his agenda is motivated by a hatred of Rangers.”
John Beaton, Bearsden, said: “Sutton is the most blatantly biased, anti-Rangers commentator out there.
“His incendiary language is outrageous, irresponsible and, seems to me, motivated by something other than expressing an honest opinion.”
comment by My POV-will change name for food. (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
Actually, Mags point is correct. Had Rangers taken their first chance, then the whole game would have been different. The assumption made is that every action thereafter would have been the same, which in reality would not have happened. Therefore it's a silly argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed...but I fear that the argument is too difficult for the bears.
They are actually arguing for an impossibility. It's sad to see them clutching at straws on a regular basis but this is actually depressing.
Samuel Hannah, East Kilbride, said: “Unless Sutton is Methuselah in disguise he’ll never see the day when Celtic finish Rangers for ever. Shocking statement.”
Jock Gray, Falkirk, said: “Sutton is an imbecile with his comments about Rangers.
“Let Celtic spend money on a good midfielder and do well in Europe next year - why focus on Rangers?
“Talk about pouring petrol on the fire, he’s inciting the situation to boost his own profile.”
Billy King, Harthill, said: “Sutton’s comments are beyond a joke. Fair enough Celtic played well but so did Rangers in the first half.
“He’s banking on getting up Rangers supporters’ noses and it’s all for attention.”
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
IF
IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Curly 💩 (U1103)
posted 47 seconds ago
Is 6 greater than 2?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not in golf its not.
Timmy take the day aff mate.
Sutton has a think about things, takes a view and gives his logic. He's no better or worse than the likes of Adrian Durham other than being a Champ on both sides of the border.
Sign in if you want to comment
Celtic must finish Rangers for ever.
Page 9 of 15
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
posted on 2/1/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 2/1/17
Close Curly. Had you posted 27 seconds earlier you would be 200
posted on 2/1/17
comment by Curly 💩 (U1103)
posted 20 seconds ago
And two hunner ya tadgers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong again. This is not your day.
If I were you, I'd ask admin for a temporary ban.
posted on 2/1/17
comment by Curly 💩 (U1103)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Curly 💩 (U1103)
posted 4 minutes ago
The point being made is correct. If Rangers had taken all of their chances, and Celtic had taken none of theirs then they would have won. That is undeniable.
++++
Well kinda
The point being made is if we had scored all our chances (6) and if Celtic had still scored their goals (2), we would have won 6-2
Can you explain to Leo though as he is really struggling with this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
curly....I'm sorry to say it but you really have lost it here.
You are asserting things as FACTS that are not even close to the realm of reality.
I completely understand the point you are trying to make...your argument is logical but is based on fallacious premises (in fact it sounds like it's based on licensed premises).
If Rangers had taken the first of their missed chances, the whole of the game would have been changed thereafter. Instead of a goal kick to Celtic or the ball remaining in play, it would have been a Celtic kick-off and the rest of the game is unknown and difficult to predict.
You can't say with any certainty that Rangers would have won 6-2. That's a fact!
+++++
One last try and then I just have to assume that reading skills are not something Tims possess
Laudrup said that IF rangers took all their chances they would have won
Leo said that was wrong as the stats don't back that up and all I said was he was correct as the stats DO back up as we had more chances than Celtic scored goals
It really is not that difficult but I am clearly wasting my time trying to explain it!
Leo then agreed with POV who said the same thing so the whole debate is a total non debate
It's a classic example of reading the poster and not the post
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 2/1/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 2/1/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 2/1/17
comment by Curly 💩 (U1103)
posted 7 minutes ago
Laudrup says something = wrong
POV says same thing = right
Tim logic eh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest that is usually a safe bet. Siding with laudrop will only make you look a fool as you found out with thinking rangers won the game on saturday.
posted on 2/1/17
comment by timmy (U14278)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Curly 💩 (U1103)
posted 7 minutes ago
Laudrup says something = wrong
POV says same thing = right
Tim logic eh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest that is usually a safe bet. Siding with laudrop will only make you look a fool as you found out with thinking rangers won the game on saturday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now now Timothy , where did anyone say they think rangers won on Saturday
posted on 2/1/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 2/1/17
If you take your chances and put the ball in the net you become 10 years ahead of your opponents , it's that simple
posted on 2/1/17
comment by Laudrup (U12366)
posted 47 seconds ago
If you take your chances and put the ball in the net you become 10 years ahead of your opponents , it's that simple
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You should go into football management with radical thinking like that. You could be the next Jock Stein.
posted on 2/1/17
Actually, Mags point is correct. Had Rangers taken their first chance, then the whole game would have been different. The assumption made is that every action thereafter would have been the same, which in reality would not have happened. Therefore it's a silly argument.
posted on 2/1/17
comment by Curly 💩 (U1103)
posted 1 minute ago
To be honest that is usually a safe bet. Siding with laudrop will only make you look a fool as you found out with thinking rangers won the game on saturday.
++++
But I never thought that at all
Learn to read
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He can only read his daily record with Sutton in it or mad Phil
posted on 2/1/17
comment by timmy (U14278)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by Laudrup (U12366)
posted 47 seconds ago
If you take your chances and put the ball in the net you become 10 years ahead of your opponents , it's that simple
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You should go into football management with radical thinking like that. You could be the next Jock Stein.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get that train of thought from here
posted on 2/1/17
Rangers were the better team first half.
Celtic best team in the second half.
2 - 1 victory for Celtic at ibrox was a good result. We played like champions on Saturday
posted on 2/1/17
Andy Scanlon, Edinburgh, said: “Most people know Sutton is not an impartial commentator. But he has now come out with the most ridiculous comment and it shows he has no interest in Scottish football.
“It’s widely recognised that a strong Rangers and Celtic is good for the game here so his comments just expose his agenda is motivated by a hatred of Rangers.”
John Beaton, Bearsden, said: “Sutton is the most blatantly biased, anti-Rangers commentator out there.
“His incendiary language is outrageous, irresponsible and, seems to me, motivated by something other than expressing an honest opinion.”
posted on 2/1/17
comment by My POV-will change name for food. (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
Actually, Mags point is correct. Had Rangers taken their first chance, then the whole game would have been different. The assumption made is that every action thereafter would have been the same, which in reality would not have happened. Therefore it's a silly argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed...but I fear that the argument is too difficult for the bears.
They are actually arguing for an impossibility. It's sad to see them clutching at straws on a regular basis but this is actually depressing.
posted on 2/1/17
Samuel Hannah, East Kilbride, said: “Unless Sutton is Methuselah in disguise he’ll never see the day when Celtic finish Rangers for ever. Shocking statement.”
Jock Gray, Falkirk, said: “Sutton is an imbecile with his comments about Rangers.
“Let Celtic spend money on a good midfielder and do well in Europe next year - why focus on Rangers?
“Talk about pouring petrol on the fire, he’s inciting the situation to boost his own profile.”
Billy King, Harthill, said: “Sutton’s comments are beyond a joke. Fair enough Celtic played well but so did Rangers in the first half.
“He’s banking on getting up Rangers supporters’ noses and it’s all for attention.”
posted on 2/1/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 2/1/17
IF
IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!
posted on 2/1/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 2/1/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 2/1/17
comment by Curly 💩 (U1103)
posted 47 seconds ago
Is 6 greater than 2?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not in golf its not.
posted on 2/1/17
Timmy take the day aff mate.
posted on 2/1/17
Sutton has a think about things, takes a view and gives his logic. He's no better or worse than the likes of Adrian Durham other than being a Champ on both sides of the border.
Page 9 of 15
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14