Bosingwa owns Harry

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
CFC: Champs £launderx17

CFC: Champs £launderx17

Captain Ahab
Jan 2, 2012
19,548
3,331
113
Hammersmith
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-criticism-by-his-former-manager-8872725.html

Harry owned by Bosi; embarrassing to be owned by jose.

Particularly cutting is this bit, Bosingwa accused Redknapp of concentrating too much on matters off the field at Qpr, saying: "How can you do technical analysis of players spending all of the time in the changing room doing deals with business people and rarely on the pitch?"
 
Ever since the day QPR went down and Bosingwa after the game was caught on camara strolling down the tunnel having a good old laugh to himself Bosi has been a Chelsea Legend to me.
 
'I'm not a Facking wheeler dealer, I'm a Facking football manger'

<laugh>
 
Cech-Headguard said:
Ever since the day QPR went down and Bosingwa after the game was caught on camara strolling down the tunnel having a good old laugh to himself Bosi has been a Chelsea Legend to me.
Click to expand...

Tbf all the mercenaries £PR signed mugged that plastic club off.

That team had no soul and simply tried to buy success.

Even if you have money you need a spine and identity
 
London's Only EC Winners said:
Tbf all the mercenaries £PR signed mugged that plastic club off.

That team had no soul and simply tried to buy success.

Even if you have money you need a spine and identity
Click to expand...
all QPR is and ever was to a lot of the older players especially was a nice easy paycheck for them to pick up before calling it a day on there careers.
 
I love the awesome deflect that people on Not606 seem to have cooked up.
You know the one where they say something ******ed, then get owned and then make out that it was some kind of bait they wanted people to bite on.

No F UCK Nuts! You still got owned, if you are interested in nibbling, I have something you can nibble on <ok>

I think HIAG invented it, or atleast popularised it. So many people do it.
 
Bodanki said:
I love the awesome deflect that people on Not606 seem to have cooked up.
You know the one where they say something ******ed, then get owned and then make out that it was some kind of bait they wanted people to bite on.

No F UCK Nuts! You still got owned, if you are interested in nibbling, I have something you can nibble on <ok>

I think HIAG invented it, or atleast popularised it. So many people do it.
Click to expand...

Going to break my rule about not posting on here. You make a good point, it is a pathetic response (although the main perpetrators are a little closer to home I think you'll find). But I also want to challenge this concept of being "owned", it is just as bad in my opinion. By all means claim a debating point if you catch someone out spouting BS, but to claim they are owned because some smart alec thinks they have a response is ludicrous. I think this is a concept that a person can't claim for themselves, but others could for them. Anyone who says I owned you on an argument (when most times it is just a different opinion) is a fool. Rant over, I'll now slink back into the shadows.
 
Bodanki said:
I love the awesome deflect that people on Not606 seem to have cooked up.
You know the one where they say something ******ed, then get owned and then make out that it was some kind of bait they wanted people to bite on.

No **** Nuts! You still got owned, if you are interested in nibbling, I have something you can nibble on <ok>

I think HIAG invented it, or atleast popularised it. So many people do it.
Click to expand...

Going to break my rule about not posting on here. You make a good point, it is a pathetic response (although the main perpetrators are a little closer to home I think you'll find). Couldn't agree more.

But I also want to challenge this concept of being "owned", it is just as bad in my opinion. By all means claim a debating point if you catch someone out spouting BS, but to claim they are owned because some smart alec thinks they have a response is ludicrous. I think this is a concept that a person can't claim for themselves, but others can for them. Anyone who says I owned you on an argument (when most times it is just a different opinion) is a fool. Rant over, I'll now slink back into the shadows.
 
SpursDisciple said:
Going to break my rule about not posting on here. You make a good point, it is a pathetic response (although the main perpetrators are a little closer to home I think you'll find). Couldn't agree more.

But I also want to challenge this concept of being "owned", it is just as bad in my opinion. By all means claim a debating point if you catch someone out spouting BS, but to claim they are owned because some smart alec thinks they have a response is ludicrous. I think this is a concept that a person can't claim for themselves, but others can for them. Anyone who says I owned you on an argument (when most times it is just a different opinion) is a fool. Rant over, I'll now slink back into the shadows.
Click to expand...

I agree that alot of the time whether someone was "owned" is subjective. But sometimes it is downright unmistakeable.
 
Purley said:
You replied to a classic wum thread and you're telling people they bit? ha, okay <doh>
Click to expand...

Let him live in his fantasy land. Fact is he came a wumming and got made to look a complete tool and then tried to backtrack. He knows it, we know it and everyone can see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back