comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
The only reason this has gone this way is because the pair of you jumped in to have a go at me when the exchange I had, had nothing to do with you.
Read back… it’s very clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It went this way because, as per, you started being a d!ck in what was a reasonable discussion. You started insulting people's intelligence, did your usual trick of confusing what people were actually discussing, then played the victim card. It is your MO. And if you genuinely aren't aware that you do that time after time after time, then you probably need to seek some help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.
That’s just a lie.
All I did was respond to someone who’d written chapter and verse to prove that it’s overly simplistic to say the scouts need to get off their backside… with a ‘well obviously’ comment.
That was it. It was nothing.
And then you piled in, threw a massive tantrum and wondered why you got some back.
You also decided to try and pick holes in my point and then, when you realised I can easily reject those points with logic, you made it personal.
Embarrassing and I expect better from you, tbh.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
Langley was sacked as head of youth player recruitment in July 2016 after 16 years scouting at Manchester United, because he wouldn’t “toe the line” with the United hierarchy.
Langley says United had scouted Matthijs de Ligt on numerous occasions but Ed Woodward and Co opted not to make a move on the centre-back, while his Ajax team-mate Frenkie de Jong was also on United’s radar.
“Players that they turned down? Matthijs de Ligt. We had God knows how many reports on Matthijs de Ligt,” Langley told the Manchester Evening News.
“Frenkie de Jong and all these players now are sort of around Europe. Dayot Upamecano, who is now at Red Bull Leipzig, was another.
“This was one of the reasons why I had a meeting with Ed Woodward and I told him that I wasn’t convinced with the competency of certain people at the club.
“I told Ed Woodward quite straight: ‘If you think I’m going to sit here and just tell you what you want to hear, I’m not that man because I’m going to tell you exactly how I see it.’
“I think it was possibly part of my downfall as to why seven months down the line I was removed because I wouldn’t tow the line in relation to telling them exactly what I thought.
“It’s one of them things in football – you come to accept it. Manchester United thanked me for the time I spent there and the players I’d taken in, but ultimately we could have been so much better if people had listened.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, in the context of a discussion about our scouts finding us a striker next year, this is evidence they’ve been doing a good job?
Come on… I know you have had a sizeable pop at me on here, but you can’t really believe that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I have said already, I wasn't talking about signing a striker. I think you need to go back a re-read the thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You were replying to me, and I was talking about signing a striker.
Why don’t you re-read the thread and look at what you were replying to?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know exactly what I was replying to. Your suggestion that the list of players was far fetched and lacking credibility.
Nope.
That was when the conversation was already underway.
Try again.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
The only reason this has gone this way is because the pair of you jumped in to have a go at me when the exchange I had, had nothing to do with you.
Read back… it’s very clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It went this way because, as per, you started being a d!ck in what was a reasonable discussion. You started insulting people's intelligence, did your usual trick of confusing what people were actually discussing, then played the victim card. It is your MO. And if you genuinely aren't aware that you do that time after time after time, then you probably need to seek some help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s cute when people have to stick in packs on this forum.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
Elvis, take a little read back at my contribution and yours.
You are the one that caused the problem here, even after some time out and after I’d replied to you in a civil fashion.
You’re frustrated because you have set your position out and now you can’t back it up.
But sure, blame me and have a good cry. Much easier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've backed it up. You said that the list of players was far fetched and lacking credibility. I have added credibility by showing that our youth scout at the time identified and recommended 2 of the very players on that list, but was ignored. You are just too proud to back down. It's ok, we've all come to expect it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You haven’t backed it up.
You’ve named four players from over 6 years ago that we have no idea what the club did or if the players had any interest in coming to the PL.
What the fack has that got to do with me asking whether there’s any evidence of the scouts doing a good job, clearly in the context of the here and now - not 6/7 years ago?
You made a mistake and now you can’t admit it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether the players have an interest in moving to the PL is kind of irrelevant. The scouts job is to identify top targets. The club then has to make the transfer happen. What we do know from Langley is that there is a history of the club ignoring recommendations for good players - which may carry through to present time. Does this really need explaining to you for a third time?
You said that the list was far fetched and lacking credibility. I have shown you that is not the case.
If you aren't big enough to admit it then fine.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
The only reason this has gone this way is because the pair of you jumped in to have a go at me when the exchange I had, had nothing to do with you.
Read back… it’s very clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It went this way because, as per, you started being a d!ck in what was a reasonable discussion. You started insulting people's intelligence, did your usual trick of confusing what people were actually discussing, then played the victim card. It is your MO. And if you genuinely aren't aware that you do that time after time after time, then you probably need to seek some help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.
That’s just a lie.
All I did was respond to someone who’d written chapter and verse to prove that it’s overly simplistic to say the scouts need to get off their backside… with a ‘well obviously’ comment.
That was it. It was nothing.
And then you piled in, threw a massive tantrum and wondered why you got some back.
You also decided to try and pick holes in my point and then, when you realised I can easily reject those points with logic, you made it personal.
Embarrassing and I expect better from you, tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Make it personal? Dear lord, you have no lack of self-awareness. You insulted another poster's intelligence, then started playing the victim card when you get some stick back. Same old Winston. Never your fault. You made a tw@t of yourself over some perceived slight that wasn't even intended.
It’s not irrelevant, Elvis, because it speaks to whether the scouts were being ignored or not.
All those quotes do is give very, very limited evidence that management weren’t always listening to scouts about 7 years ago.
That has absolutely nothing to do with my point and question about whether there’s any evidence of the scouts doing a good job in the context of recent years.
You’re hanging onto the semantics of ‘far fetched and lacking credibility’ because you can’t debate my actual point.
I stand by those comments and could easily explain why, but frankly they’re largely irrelevant to the point I was making.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
It’s cute when people have to stick in packs on this forum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even cuter when you can't admit your got it wrong. Again.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
The only reason this has gone this way is because the pair of you jumped in to have a go at me when the exchange I had, had nothing to do with you.
Read back… it’s very clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It went this way because, as per, you started being a d!ck in what was a reasonable discussion. You started insulting people's intelligence, did your usual trick of confusing what people were actually discussing, then played the victim card. It is your MO. And if you genuinely aren't aware that you do that time after time after time, then you probably need to seek some help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.
That’s just a lie.
All I did was respond to someone who’d written chapter and verse to prove that it’s overly simplistic to say the scouts need to get off their backside… with a ‘well obviously’ comment.
That was it. It was nothing.
And then you piled in, threw a massive tantrum and wondered why you got some back.
You also decided to try and pick holes in my point and then, when you realised I can easily reject those points with logic, you made it personal.
Embarrassing and I expect better from you, tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Make it personal? Dear lord, you have no lack of self-awareness. You insulted another poster's intelligence, then started playing the victim card when you get some stick back. Same old Winston. Never your fault. You made a tw@t of yourself over some perceived slight that wasn't even intended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What post did I write that meant you felt the need to jump in and insult me?
Please do explain what justification you have for your behaviour and why I’m the reason you can’t control yourself.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
It’s cute when people have to stick in packs on this forum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even cuter when you can't admit your got it wrong. Again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I often admit I’m wrong on here. More than anyone else I’ve seen.
I’m not wrong here.
You are.
There’s no packs. There’s you, and everyone else on the sight that can see how you behave.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 39 seconds ago
It’s not irrelevant, Elvis, because it speaks to whether the scouts were being ignored or not.
All those quotes do is give very, very limited evidence that management weren’t always listening to scouts about 7 years ago.
That has absolutely nothing to do with my point and question about whether there’s any evidence of the scouts doing a good job in the context of recent years.
You’re hanging onto the semantics of ‘far fetched and lacking credibility’ because you can’t debate my actual point.
I stand by those comments and could easily explain why, but frankly they’re largely irrelevant to the point I was making.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, I've explained it to you at least 3 times now. Pointless trying again. You're in full denial mode at this point.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 39 seconds ago
It’s not irrelevant, Elvis, because it speaks to whether the scouts were being ignored or not.
All those quotes do is give very, very limited evidence that management weren’t always listening to scouts about 7 years ago.
That has absolutely nothing to do with my point and question about whether there’s any evidence of the scouts doing a good job in the context of recent years.
You’re hanging onto the semantics of ‘far fetched and lacking credibility’ because you can’t debate my actual point.
I stand by those comments and could easily explain why, but frankly they’re largely irrelevant to the point I was making.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, I've explained it to you at least 3 times now. Pointless trying again. You're in full denial mode at this point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve made a point and I’ve rebuffed it.
I can only assume you’re throwing a huge tantrum because you don’t like the fact that I’ve ruined your point.
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
There’s no packs. There’s you, and everyone else on the sight that can see how you behave.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh there’s packs alright.
100%.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
The only reason this has gone this way is because the pair of you jumped in to have a go at me when the exchange I had, had nothing to do with you.
Read back… it’s very clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It went this way because, as per, you started being a d!ck in what was a reasonable discussion. You started insulting people's intelligence, did your usual trick of confusing what people were actually discussing, then played the victim card. It is your MO. And if you genuinely aren't aware that you do that time after time after time, then you probably need to seek some help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.
That’s just a lie.
All I did was respond to someone who’d written chapter and verse to prove that it’s overly simplistic to say the scouts need to get off their backside… with a ‘well obviously’ comment.
That was it. It was nothing.
And then you piled in, threw a massive tantrum and wondered why you got some back.
You also decided to try and pick holes in my point and then, when you realised I can easily reject those points with logic, you made it personal.
Embarrassing and I expect better from you, tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Make it personal? Dear lord, you have no lack of self-awareness. You insulted another poster's intelligence, then started playing the victim card when you get some stick back. Same old Winston. Never your fault. You made a tw@t of yourself over some perceived slight that wasn't even intended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What post did I write that meant you felt the need to jump in and insult me?
Please do explain what justification you have for your behaviour and why I’m the reason you can’t control yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When you started throwing a hissy fit at a perceived slight and I could see another good thread getting ruined by you. We can all see it coming a mile off.
Anyway, time for some FIFA for me. Goodnight.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
The only reason this has gone this way is because the pair of you jumped in to have a go at me when the exchange I had, had nothing to do with you.
Read back… it’s very clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It went this way because, as per, you started being a d!ck in what was a reasonable discussion. You started insulting people's intelligence, did your usual trick of confusing what people were actually discussing, then played the victim card. It is your MO. And if you genuinely aren't aware that you do that time after time after time, then you probably need to seek some help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.
That’s just a lie.
All I did was respond to someone who’d written chapter and verse to prove that it’s overly simplistic to say the scouts need to get off their backside… with a ‘well obviously’ comment.
That was it. It was nothing.
And then you piled in, threw a massive tantrum and wondered why you got some back.
You also decided to try and pick holes in my point and then, when you realised I can easily reject those points with logic, you made it personal.
Embarrassing and I expect better from you, tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Make it personal? Dear lord, you have no lack of self-awareness. You insulted another poster's intelligence, then started playing the victim card when you get some stick back. Same old Winston. Never your fault. You made a tw@t of yourself over some perceived slight that wasn't even intended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What post did I write that meant you felt the need to jump in and insult me?
Please do explain what justification you have for your behaviour and why I’m the reason you can’t control yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When you started throwing a hissy fit at a perceived slight and I could see another good thread getting ruined by you. We can all see it coming a mile off.
Anyway, time for some FIFA for me. Goodnight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hissy fit?
That never happened.
You threw a massive tantrum and have been insulting me all night for absolutely no good reason, but you can’t apologise and so you’re doubling down, and blaming me.
Really pathetic stuff from you.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 hours, 13 minutes ago
“It's probably overly simplistic to suggest our scouts need to 'get off their backside' “
You think?
Jesus wept.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apparent hissy fit.
Sign in if you want to comment
Martial
Page 6 of 6
6
posted on 1/11/22
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
The only reason this has gone this way is because the pair of you jumped in to have a go at me when the exchange I had, had nothing to do with you.
Read back… it’s very clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It went this way because, as per, you started being a d!ck in what was a reasonable discussion. You started insulting people's intelligence, did your usual trick of confusing what people were actually discussing, then played the victim card. It is your MO. And if you genuinely aren't aware that you do that time after time after time, then you probably need to seek some help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.
That’s just a lie.
All I did was respond to someone who’d written chapter and verse to prove that it’s overly simplistic to say the scouts need to get off their backside… with a ‘well obviously’ comment.
That was it. It was nothing.
And then you piled in, threw a massive tantrum and wondered why you got some back.
You also decided to try and pick holes in my point and then, when you realised I can easily reject those points with logic, you made it personal.
Embarrassing and I expect better from you, tbh.
posted on 1/11/22
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
Langley was sacked as head of youth player recruitment in July 2016 after 16 years scouting at Manchester United, because he wouldn’t “toe the line” with the United hierarchy.
Langley says United had scouted Matthijs de Ligt on numerous occasions but Ed Woodward and Co opted not to make a move on the centre-back, while his Ajax team-mate Frenkie de Jong was also on United’s radar.
“Players that they turned down? Matthijs de Ligt. We had God knows how many reports on Matthijs de Ligt,” Langley told the Manchester Evening News.
“Frenkie de Jong and all these players now are sort of around Europe. Dayot Upamecano, who is now at Red Bull Leipzig, was another.
“This was one of the reasons why I had a meeting with Ed Woodward and I told him that I wasn’t convinced with the competency of certain people at the club.
“I told Ed Woodward quite straight: ‘If you think I’m going to sit here and just tell you what you want to hear, I’m not that man because I’m going to tell you exactly how I see it.’
“I think it was possibly part of my downfall as to why seven months down the line I was removed because I wouldn’t tow the line in relation to telling them exactly what I thought.
“It’s one of them things in football – you come to accept it. Manchester United thanked me for the time I spent there and the players I’d taken in, but ultimately we could have been so much better if people had listened.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, in the context of a discussion about our scouts finding us a striker next year, this is evidence they’ve been doing a good job?
Come on… I know you have had a sizeable pop at me on here, but you can’t really believe that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I have said already, I wasn't talking about signing a striker. I think you need to go back a re-read the thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You were replying to me, and I was talking about signing a striker.
Why don’t you re-read the thread and look at what you were replying to?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know exactly what I was replying to. Your suggestion that the list of players was far fetched and lacking credibility.
posted on 1/11/22
Nope.
That was when the conversation was already underway.
Try again.
posted on 1/11/22
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
The only reason this has gone this way is because the pair of you jumped in to have a go at me when the exchange I had, had nothing to do with you.
Read back… it’s very clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It went this way because, as per, you started being a d!ck in what was a reasonable discussion. You started insulting people's intelligence, did your usual trick of confusing what people were actually discussing, then played the victim card. It is your MO. And if you genuinely aren't aware that you do that time after time after time, then you probably need to seek some help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 1/11/22
It’s cute when people have to stick in packs on this forum.
posted on 1/11/22
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
Elvis, take a little read back at my contribution and yours.
You are the one that caused the problem here, even after some time out and after I’d replied to you in a civil fashion.
You’re frustrated because you have set your position out and now you can’t back it up.
But sure, blame me and have a good cry. Much easier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've backed it up. You said that the list of players was far fetched and lacking credibility. I have added credibility by showing that our youth scout at the time identified and recommended 2 of the very players on that list, but was ignored. You are just too proud to back down. It's ok, we've all come to expect it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You haven’t backed it up.
You’ve named four players from over 6 years ago that we have no idea what the club did or if the players had any interest in coming to the PL.
What the fack has that got to do with me asking whether there’s any evidence of the scouts doing a good job, clearly in the context of the here and now - not 6/7 years ago?
You made a mistake and now you can’t admit it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether the players have an interest in moving to the PL is kind of irrelevant. The scouts job is to identify top targets. The club then has to make the transfer happen. What we do know from Langley is that there is a history of the club ignoring recommendations for good players - which may carry through to present time. Does this really need explaining to you for a third time?
You said that the list was far fetched and lacking credibility. I have shown you that is not the case.
If you aren't big enough to admit it then fine.
posted on 1/11/22
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
The only reason this has gone this way is because the pair of you jumped in to have a go at me when the exchange I had, had nothing to do with you.
Read back… it’s very clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It went this way because, as per, you started being a d!ck in what was a reasonable discussion. You started insulting people's intelligence, did your usual trick of confusing what people were actually discussing, then played the victim card. It is your MO. And if you genuinely aren't aware that you do that time after time after time, then you probably need to seek some help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.
That’s just a lie.
All I did was respond to someone who’d written chapter and verse to prove that it’s overly simplistic to say the scouts need to get off their backside… with a ‘well obviously’ comment.
That was it. It was nothing.
And then you piled in, threw a massive tantrum and wondered why you got some back.
You also decided to try and pick holes in my point and then, when you realised I can easily reject those points with logic, you made it personal.
Embarrassing and I expect better from you, tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Make it personal? Dear lord, you have no lack of self-awareness. You insulted another poster's intelligence, then started playing the victim card when you get some stick back. Same old Winston. Never your fault. You made a tw@t of yourself over some perceived slight that wasn't even intended.
posted on 1/11/22
It’s not irrelevant, Elvis, because it speaks to whether the scouts were being ignored or not.
All those quotes do is give very, very limited evidence that management weren’t always listening to scouts about 7 years ago.
That has absolutely nothing to do with my point and question about whether there’s any evidence of the scouts doing a good job in the context of recent years.
You’re hanging onto the semantics of ‘far fetched and lacking credibility’ because you can’t debate my actual point.
I stand by those comments and could easily explain why, but frankly they’re largely irrelevant to the point I was making.
posted on 1/11/22
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
It’s cute when people have to stick in packs on this forum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even cuter when you can't admit your got it wrong. Again.
posted on 1/11/22
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
The only reason this has gone this way is because the pair of you jumped in to have a go at me when the exchange I had, had nothing to do with you.
Read back… it’s very clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It went this way because, as per, you started being a d!ck in what was a reasonable discussion. You started insulting people's intelligence, did your usual trick of confusing what people were actually discussing, then played the victim card. It is your MO. And if you genuinely aren't aware that you do that time after time after time, then you probably need to seek some help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.
That’s just a lie.
All I did was respond to someone who’d written chapter and verse to prove that it’s overly simplistic to say the scouts need to get off their backside… with a ‘well obviously’ comment.
That was it. It was nothing.
And then you piled in, threw a massive tantrum and wondered why you got some back.
You also decided to try and pick holes in my point and then, when you realised I can easily reject those points with logic, you made it personal.
Embarrassing and I expect better from you, tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Make it personal? Dear lord, you have no lack of self-awareness. You insulted another poster's intelligence, then started playing the victim card when you get some stick back. Same old Winston. Never your fault. You made a tw@t of yourself over some perceived slight that wasn't even intended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What post did I write that meant you felt the need to jump in and insult me?
Please do explain what justification you have for your behaviour and why I’m the reason you can’t control yourself.
posted on 1/11/22
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
It’s cute when people have to stick in packs on this forum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even cuter when you can't admit your got it wrong. Again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I often admit I’m wrong on here. More than anyone else I’ve seen.
I’m not wrong here.
You are.
posted on 1/11/22
There’s no packs. There’s you, and everyone else on the sight that can see how you behave.
posted on 1/11/22
*site
posted on 1/11/22
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 39 seconds ago
It’s not irrelevant, Elvis, because it speaks to whether the scouts were being ignored or not.
All those quotes do is give very, very limited evidence that management weren’t always listening to scouts about 7 years ago.
That has absolutely nothing to do with my point and question about whether there’s any evidence of the scouts doing a good job in the context of recent years.
You’re hanging onto the semantics of ‘far fetched and lacking credibility’ because you can’t debate my actual point.
I stand by those comments and could easily explain why, but frankly they’re largely irrelevant to the point I was making.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, I've explained it to you at least 3 times now. Pointless trying again. You're in full denial mode at this point.
posted on 1/11/22
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 39 seconds ago
It’s not irrelevant, Elvis, because it speaks to whether the scouts were being ignored or not.
All those quotes do is give very, very limited evidence that management weren’t always listening to scouts about 7 years ago.
That has absolutely nothing to do with my point and question about whether there’s any evidence of the scouts doing a good job in the context of recent years.
You’re hanging onto the semantics of ‘far fetched and lacking credibility’ because you can’t debate my actual point.
I stand by those comments and could easily explain why, but frankly they’re largely irrelevant to the point I was making.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, I've explained it to you at least 3 times now. Pointless trying again. You're in full denial mode at this point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve made a point and I’ve rebuffed it.
I can only assume you’re throwing a huge tantrum because you don’t like the fact that I’ve ruined your point.
posted on 1/11/22
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
There’s no packs. There’s you, and everyone else on the sight that can see how you behave.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh there’s packs alright.
100%.
posted on 1/11/22
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
The only reason this has gone this way is because the pair of you jumped in to have a go at me when the exchange I had, had nothing to do with you.
Read back… it’s very clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It went this way because, as per, you started being a d!ck in what was a reasonable discussion. You started insulting people's intelligence, did your usual trick of confusing what people were actually discussing, then played the victim card. It is your MO. And if you genuinely aren't aware that you do that time after time after time, then you probably need to seek some help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.
That’s just a lie.
All I did was respond to someone who’d written chapter and verse to prove that it’s overly simplistic to say the scouts need to get off their backside… with a ‘well obviously’ comment.
That was it. It was nothing.
And then you piled in, threw a massive tantrum and wondered why you got some back.
You also decided to try and pick holes in my point and then, when you realised I can easily reject those points with logic, you made it personal.
Embarrassing and I expect better from you, tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Make it personal? Dear lord, you have no lack of self-awareness. You insulted another poster's intelligence, then started playing the victim card when you get some stick back. Same old Winston. Never your fault. You made a tw@t of yourself over some perceived slight that wasn't even intended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What post did I write that meant you felt the need to jump in and insult me?
Please do explain what justification you have for your behaviour and why I’m the reason you can’t control yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When you started throwing a hissy fit at a perceived slight and I could see another good thread getting ruined by you. We can all see it coming a mile off.
Anyway, time for some FIFA for me. Goodnight.
posted on 1/11/22
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
The only reason this has gone this way is because the pair of you jumped in to have a go at me when the exchange I had, had nothing to do with you.
Read back… it’s very clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It went this way because, as per, you started being a d!ck in what was a reasonable discussion. You started insulting people's intelligence, did your usual trick of confusing what people were actually discussing, then played the victim card. It is your MO. And if you genuinely aren't aware that you do that time after time after time, then you probably need to seek some help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.
That’s just a lie.
All I did was respond to someone who’d written chapter and verse to prove that it’s overly simplistic to say the scouts need to get off their backside… with a ‘well obviously’ comment.
That was it. It was nothing.
And then you piled in, threw a massive tantrum and wondered why you got some back.
You also decided to try and pick holes in my point and then, when you realised I can easily reject those points with logic, you made it personal.
Embarrassing and I expect better from you, tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Make it personal? Dear lord, you have no lack of self-awareness. You insulted another poster's intelligence, then started playing the victim card when you get some stick back. Same old Winston. Never your fault. You made a tw@t of yourself over some perceived slight that wasn't even intended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What post did I write that meant you felt the need to jump in and insult me?
Please do explain what justification you have for your behaviour and why I’m the reason you can’t control yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When you started throwing a hissy fit at a perceived slight and I could see another good thread getting ruined by you. We can all see it coming a mile off.
Anyway, time for some FIFA for me. Goodnight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hissy fit?
That never happened.
You threw a massive tantrum and have been insulting me all night for absolutely no good reason, but you can’t apologise and so you’re doubling down, and blaming me.
Really pathetic stuff from you.
posted on 1/11/22
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 hours, 13 minutes ago
“It's probably overly simplistic to suggest our scouts need to 'get off their backside' “
You think?
Jesus wept.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apparent hissy fit.
Page 6 of 6
6