As R4 of this bout draws to a close, Chaos seems to be hanging on ooking for a draw.. Nev on the other hand is going for a swift KO with a near perfect Upper Cut, followed by a vicious Left Hook. Can Chaos respond.
The previous summary ended at p2261. As we are now at p2282 it’s time for the last-20 pages “Takeover-thread” summary for the benefit of occasional visitors. P2262 opened with Jake throwing the towel in, bored with the lack of news. Sheikh assured him that there would soon be news. The page closed with Sheikh bemoaning the Swiss (who were playing France at the time) Over the next 20+ pages you can find the following; David Suchet, tomato/brown sauce, some screenshots from the inspector, an overview of club accountancy, mackems’ absence on the board, new members (welcome!!), what time people get up, alien abductions, views on Sterling, corporate season tickets, civil law procedures, green lights, curtains, Rafa to Everton, a photo of Brighton, the strength of a professional misconduct case against NDM, refusals to answer direct questions, GG throwing the towel in, the Davinci code and God’s role in a takeover, October, socks, Tescos, DPP continuing to keep his towel, P2283 closes with boxing analogies.
@Joelinton's Right Foot your 1st post today and how it began Joelinton's Right FootFFS Roy, I thought we had put this to bed. Not everything quoted on here is a dig at you. 1.Foul language - you're on an attack here 2. I had responded to a post that describes people with an alternative opinion (includes me) to yours as being flatearthers. We both know the entire dispute was based around that and you engaged or continued after I went to bed , so I simply joined in without being offensive at all yet you've implied I was responsible for continuing it. Yes, if you saw a Mars bar and then picked up the Mars bar then there was a Mars Bar. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything on this thread though. It is false logic. Give it a rest. You think one thing. Some people agree with you. I think another thing. Some people agree with me. It's a football forum with opinions. Opinions are allowed to differ!! More evidence of an attack and also this implied that I'm discrediting or shutting down other people's opinions, but it's actually more accurate that me being described as a flatearther is insulting and discrediting mine.. Correct?
The situation at my end is composed and I like him as I always have, but I've simply taken exception to his tantrum and that's what it was.
A very weak counter attack!! FFS is not being foul and abusive to you. It is an exclamation of frustration. You quoted a post I had made about people seeing what they want to that wasn't aimed at you. Give it a rest - another exclamation of frustration as we both know we have different opinions and agreed to disagree. I never referred to you as a flatearther There was nothing foul and abusive, attacking or offensive in any of that. So do I get my apology now and an admission that you were wrong?
It's a classic case of someone having a tantrum and not wanting to address it appropriately. He's come on this morning and had a little pop at me just as he did throughout last night's debate which he apologised for and I respected that. I apologised for my part in last night it, so I was surprised at his outburst this morning so I tried my best to call him out the inaccuracies in his tantrum that was all. I also tried to point out that all I'd done was engage in a conversation that was taking place and that he too was involved in. There was not one thing I said either last night or this morning that was either personal or aggressive.
I never claimed anything you said today was personal or aggressive. It was boring though that you wanted to go back to trying to convince me you were correct. I don't think you are and that's ok. There was no outburst this morning. You obviously woke up feeling overly sensitive. You threw accusations at me that were patently untrue. You were the one who lost your composure. That's ok. Just admit it and move on
Oh I see we're just going to pretend you didn't say what you said now are we? I'll try this again Did you engage in a conversation that was brought about after we drew a line under it that implied the people of that opinion were flatearthers yes or no? Did you then have a pop at me for entering the same conversation this morning? Yes or no
No. I engaged in a conversation that said some people of that opinion can adopt that way of thinking, and provided a further example of how we all can be easily misled by seeing what we want to see No. I expressed frustration that you were turning the conversation back to trying to convince me that you were right - a conversation that will never result in us agreeing on the available evidence. Next?
It's a cracking sunny day. Sitting in the garden, listening to the Stone Roses, a couple of CANS later on.
@Roy Munson This is what this ridiculous circular argument does to people. Just as last night, I am happy to agree to disagree about the whole NDM thing. What I am not happy about is you claiming I was foul and abusive to you. I am foul and abusive to Albert, Trev and Pouchy. They deserve it and wear it like a badge of honour. I have not been foul and abusive to you. I suggest you take that bit back!
