Nateevs, 2 avoidable losses and 2 draws, consecutively, is a problem. Still standing by that.
Today proved your defense and your goalie need a lot of work.

If you like, go back as far as 1998, it will still be a problem.
Ibime said it immediately after the game.  .  .Chelsea have had trouble defending set-pieces all season. You call that a ''blip''?

That said, just admit you thought I meant Chelsea cannot sustain an unbeaten run, end of. You were so blinded by your love for a bunch of dudes that don't even know you exist that you forgot to take my clause into consideration.

I'm asking you again, if you saw and understood that I confirmed your erstwhile statement, why didn't you just say ''Hey, we're saying the same thing''? But no.  .  .you decided to go on an unnecessary unbeaten run of pointless mumbo jumbo.

Pele. You'll get used to English comprehension with time, don't worry.

Very painful!

You had a chance to draw level on points but you flunk.

Nateevs, 2 avoidable losses and 2 draws, consecutively, is a problem. Still standing by that.
Today proved your defense and your goalie need a lot of work.

Oh yes . . . and I rightly said so.

If you like, go back as far as 1998, it will still be a problem.
Ibime said it immediately after the game.  .  .Chelsea have had trouble defending set-pieces all season. You call that a ''blip''?

Ibime's opinion remains an opinion. . . It's not a fact.
Where was this problem when we were steam-rolling teams before the temporary blip. ?
Hence it can't be considered a problem. .
Plus last year it was the same until Hiddink came in . . and it disappeared . . We even reached the CL semi-final . .
Hiddink's first match was aginst Aston-Villa - The best team at set-pieces at that time in the PL. .
We beat them . . without any signs of the supposed "problem". .

So how can it be a problem when it never an issue for the last four months of last season and the first 3 months of this season. . . How . . ?
because Ibime said so?

That said, just admit you thought I meant Chelsea cannot sustain an unbeaten run, end of. You were so blinded by your love for a bunch of dudes that don't even know you exist that you forgot to take my clause into consideration.

Really ? . . Does that explain why you said this. . .

Sustain that run.  .  .not with this defense and this Cech, you won't.

What does that mean? . .
How about this?

I didn't say you can't climb Everest with these same players.  .  .I said not with this defense and this Cech.
By that, I mean with them being in this current shambolic form.

And then this?

With your defense this poor and with Cech this shaky, you cannot sustain an unbeaten run. Ya dig?

What is wrong with this lady. . . ? Some help me here. . .

I'm asking you again, if you saw and understood that I confirmed your erstwhile statement, why didn't you just say ''Hey, we're saying the same thing''? But no.  .  .you decided to go on an unnecessary unbeaten run of pointless mumbo jumbo.

I continued the argument because you said

I didn't say you can't climb Everest with these same players.  .  .I said [size=12pt][b]not with this defense and this Cech

Then you turned around later to say . .

If your defense doesn't shape up, you will not have an unbeaten run.

When you obviously know what I said from the start . . . So when I said you embarked on meaningless arguments. . you should yes I did. . because what you are getting to at the end of the day makes no sense. . all because I have said it from the start . . .

Going on about comprehension doesn't make your point stronger lady! . .
You are continuously making less and less sense with every post. .


Stop now . . go back and read. . . and stop embarrassing yourself . .

You do have a problem.  .  .when you see a full statement like that, you don't just pick out a word and run with it.
That's why it's called a statement. They go together.

''Sustain an unbeaten run.  .  .not with this defense and this Cech, you won't.''
'You won't' is dependent on 'this defense' and 'this Cech'.

''With your defense this shambolic and Cech this shaky, you cannot sustain an unbeaten run''.
'You cannot sustain an unbeaten run' is dependent on 'with your defense this shambolic and Cech this shaky'.

Picking out 'won't' and 'cannot' and feeling cool with yourself defending just those two words is plain dull.
I mean, I really am surprised at you now.

Really Nateevs, you are the one seriously embarrassing yourself.
Every post of mine you've quoted is saying the exact same thing.

Do you really not understand clauses in statements?? Jeez.
Someone please help this guy out.

With your defense this shambolic and Cech this shaky, you cannot, you won't, you will not sustain an unbeaten run. Do I have to put it in your native language before you get it?
What's with putting ''you won't'' and ''you cannot'' in bold and asking me what it means? Can you not read a full statement and understand everything in it, clause and all? Wow.

In this case I'll have to side with the Crizzlenator.

The mere use of 'cannot' is not sufficient to confer fact status on a comment, especially when the conditional statements are included in the same sentence.

The other issue is what constitutes a 'blip' and what can be termed a 'problem' - that is still under debate. However, that is clearly a case of difference of opinion - it's not a 'problem' if it can be solved and can be called a 'blip' according to Nateevs, but if it costs you points, then it IS a problem according to Crizzle.

Matter of perspective really, but again I tend to agree with Criz - Chelski are still scoring yet they are dropping points, which indicates that the defensive frailty has started costing them something and can't be cast away so casually.

debosky:

In this case I'll have to side with the Crizzlenator. 

The mere use of 'cannot' is not sufficient to confer fact status on a comment, especially when the conditional statements are included in the same sentence.

Thank you!
He simply doesn't seem to have an idea of what a conditional statement means, what a clause is.
He just picked out 'won't' and 'cannot' from the entire statement and ran with it. I mean, wow!

debosky:

The other issue is what constitutes a 'blip' and what can be termed a 'problem' - that is still under debate. However, that is clearly a case of difference of opinion - it's not a 'problem' if it can be solved and can be called a 'blip' according to Nateevs, but if it costs you points, then it IS a problem according to Crizzle.

Don't mind Nateevs. 2 losses, 2 draws, consecutively.  .  .what blip? Chelsea's defense has got a problem requiring urgent fixing.
Okay, let's say he wants to call the problem a blip. But it is first and foremost a defensive problem.
How long the problem lasts for will then determine if to label the phase a blip or a long-term characteristic.

It's even his inability to comprehend a statement involving a clause that totally beats me.

Firstly go back and check . . . you never used the word "Statement" . . . You've blundered. (I still expect your spin)
You only asked if I thought you said "Chelsea can't sustain an unbeaten run" . .

Secondly, I didn't just pick a word. . I picked out a phrase at least in every post. . Which could also be statements if you didn't know. .

I have proven you did. . . whether it is dependent on a clause or not. . . You did.
It is not whether it depends on a clause or not that matters. .

Example . . Arsenal will go trophyless this season. .

We all know it is dependent on the strength of their team . . . So regardless of the clause supporting the statement, the fact remains that you said so. . . It very simple.

'Sustain an unbeaten run.  .  .not with this defense and this Cech, you won't.''
'You won't' is dependent on 'this defense' and 'this Cech'.

''With your defense this shambolic and Cech this shaky, you cannot sustain an unbeaten run''.
'You cannot sustain an unbeaten run' is dependent ob 'with your defense this shambolic and Cech this shaky'.

Picking out 'won't' and 'cannot' and feeling cool with yourself defending just those two words is plain dull.
I mean, I really am surprised at you now.

Like I said above, they all mean the same. . .
The clause is irrelevant. . . bcso it is impossible for the event to occur without a cause in any case. .
Hence the clause is not an active statement, it is a supporting statement.

If that clause can be replaced with a word, it will be termed descriptive . . Therefore, an Adjective which "QUALIFIES". .or perhaps "QUANTIFIES". . which also means it adds,

It is not the actual . . It is supportive. . .


You said Chelsea will not go on a run . . whether you put the clause or not is irrelevant.




Are you still getting this feeling that you are twisting, evading and deflection . . Still on the course on your meaningless arguments. . ?

nateevs:

I have proven you did. . . whether it is dependent on a clause or not. . . You did.
It is not whether it depends on a clause or not that matters. .

Example . . Arsenal will go trophyless this season. .

We all know it is dependent on the strength of their team . . . So regardless of the clause supporting the statement, the fact remains that you said so. . . It very simple.

Tsk. . .Nateevs have the grace to admit when you are wrong. There is no comparison between what Crizzle has said and the statement above.

One can say Arsenal will go trophyless this season as a matter of the individual's firm belief that the club is INCAPABLE of doing so - that is very different from saying these two particular frailties, if not fixed will lead to Chelski's failure.

Are-you-kiddin'-me??

Nateevs, who was your English teacher?? I'm absolutely horrified! Man, you are downright POOR in this lingo!

-I never used the word ''statement''?? Do I have to say ''Nateevs, I am typing statements'' before you realize a combination of words followed by a full stop is a statement??

-You picked a word, dearie.  .  .''wont''' and ''cannot''. Then you asked me to explain them.
The main point is, picking out words and phrases from a full conditional statement is plain wrong, and horribly dull.
You have to consider the entire statement, 'cos that's where the meaning lies. Picking out words takes the meaning out of the statement entirely. Creates something else.
Probably why you misunderstood me and went rambling away.

-Whether it is dependent on a clause matters, 'cos that is the essence of the statement.
Unless you are creating new rules for the English language and saying a clause is no longer a part of a statement.

Nateevs, a clause in a statement is NOT irrelevant. It is part of the statement, and in actuality the backbone of the statement.
Basically, the event in the statement will not occur without the clause. So the clause is the key thing.

Where is Ibime when you need him?
Nateevs, you've universally shown how poor your comprehension of English is. Just shut it and quit embarrassing yourself any further. Wow!
And I'm not saying that to be mean or something.  .  .you really are wrong here.

In this case I'll have to side with the Crizzlenator.  

The mere use of 'cannot' is not sufficient to confer fact status on a comment, especially when the conditional statements are included in the same sentence.

Refer to my posts above . . I explained why I am allowed to do so. . .

The other issue is what constitutes a 'blip' and what can be termed a 'problem' - that is still under debate. However, that is clearly a case of difference of opinion - it's not a 'problem' if it can be solved and can be called a 'blip' according to Nateevs, but if it costs you points, then it IS a problem according to Crizzle.

I disagree. . . Take it as an isolated event, and you might might be right.
However, we are working with numbers. . . In this case, number of matches. . . If a situation occurs 4 times in 38 events, you can't call that situation a problem.
If the same situation occurs 4 times in 4 events and 4 is the maximum allowable sampling size. . . then you are right to call it a problem.

In this sampling size we are talking about less than 10% probability. . . with 90% success at anything, the 10% failure can never . . I repeat never be seen as a problem.

In 38 matches, a situation occurring 4 times is hardly repetitive enough to be deemed a "problem" hence a "blip".

Who won the match?

nateevs:

I disagree. . . Take it as an isolated event, and you might might be right.
However, we are working with numbers. . . In this case, number of matches. . . If a situation occurs 4 times in 38 events, you can't call that situation a problem.
If the same situation occurs 4 times in 4 events and 4 is the maximum allowable sampling size. . . then you are right to call it a problem.

In this sampling size we are talking about less than 10% probability. . . with 90% success at anything, the 10% failure can never . . I repeat never be seen as a problem.

In 38 matches, a situation occurring 4 times is hardly repetitive enough to be deemed a "problem" hence a "blip".

The issue here is conceding from set pieces right? - surely you're not saying Chelski have only conceded in 4 games in the past 38?

Nateevs and Crizzle going back and forth like a married couple, you guys should just get a room and make love to cool off the tension

@Nateevs
''Why you are allowed''??

Even Shakespeare never had such temerity.

You are not ''allowed'' to uproot a word or words from a full, conditional statement and give them a meaning of your own.
It's kind of similar to plagiarism, only worse 'cos you're changing the meaning of the statement entirely(of which the clause is a major part).

Na wa.  .  .I have seen something tonight.

That match is going to very good.

@Criz. . .


I must apologize on something. . . I thought you said, " I said statement" . . . That's why I said you did not say so.
So pardon me there. . . I goofed. .



Back to body.

I really need to be careful here. . Suddenly Debo has jumped to your support without full knowledge of the history and thatis giving a false sense of being right here. .

Your question was did I say Chelsea cannot go an unbeaten run ?

And the answer is yes you did. . .
Now you are telling me there is a clause after that . . and I don't argue. . .

Where we disagree and with Debo too is you are telling me the clause is the reason you said so. . .
The clause is descriptive. . . The clause does not prove you did not say so. . .


If you asked a question like "Did I say Chelsea cannot go on an unbeaten run with Carllotti"

Then that turns out differently. . . . because Carllotti is a very important part of that statement. . .



In this case you asked if you Chelsea can go on an unbeaten run. . . and I tell you you said so. . . regardless of the clause (Which in this this case is the reason - not whether you said so or not) . . .

Alright Nateevs, I will butt out now, since I do not know the origin of the matter.

debosky:

The issue here is conceding from set pieces right?  - surely you're not saying Chelski have only conceded in 4 games in the past 38?  

Naaah. . . My description started when you start to use "costing us points". .Which means drawing or losing matches. . . Criz also says 2 consecutive draws and 1 loss.

Hence we have to look at the situation from the point of view of matches. . . If we go on to win 36 matches . . conceding 20 goals from set-pieces in those four isolated events will hardly be seen as a problem. . .


It would have been a "blip". . . .



So far we played 16 matches and set-pieces have cost us points in four of them . . . To m, that's hardly a problem in 16matches . . Let alone in 38.

Nateevs, that's where you are shamefully wrong.

You don't extract a clause from a statement ooo. You have to consider the clause, the condition.

If we take this to a court of law, you cannot argue successfully to a jury that I came out and stated that ''Chelsea cannot go on an unbeaten run.''
That statement on its own means that I simply don't believe Chelsea can go on an unbeaten run.

But, ''Chelsea cannot go on an unbeaten run with their defense this shambolic, and Cech this shaky'' has an entirely different meaning.
It means I believe Chelsea can go on an unbeaten run, but they cannot do it with a shambolic defense and a shaky Cech.
In other words, if Chelsea have a shambolic defense and a shaky Cech, they cannot go unbeaten. If they don't have a shambolic defense and a shaky Cech, they can go unbeaten.

Do you get it now?
The event in a conditional statement is dependent on the clause. When you take out the clause, you've created a statement with an entirely different meaning.
And I never said Chelsea cannot go unbeaten without including my clause.

The clause is a part of the statement. Quit separating them. That's wrong.
And, the event is dependent on the clause. The clause is not because of the event. Quit mixing it up.

Gosh, I never knew I'm this patient!

And make that 2 losses and 2 draws consecutively.

Blackburn - Man City - Apoel Nicosia - Everton.

Nateevs, I'm off to bed. Next time I'll be careful how I use conditional statements around you since you're obviously not very clear on how to correctly interpret them.
You shoulda paid more attention in school.

G'nite.

@Debo
Thanks for your input, dearie. You were spot on about the conditional statement issue.
Not being present from the beginning doesn't have anything to do with this. . .one either understands a statement or one doesn't.
G'nite.

Emperoh:


Nateevs and Criz its all Rigmaroles!!!

Una just want argue cos i don't see any difference in all Cristalz post that Nateevs quoted
This is a pure case of very busy doing nothing!!

Ikwu ofuna.


I think this lot are just flirting with each other. Im jaloos.  

Cristalz:

Nateevs, I'm off to bed. Next time I'll be careful how I use conditional statements around you since you're obviously not very clear on how to correctly interpret them.
You shoulda paid more attention in school.

G'nite.

Have a good nite while you sleep.

Next time however always remember to read, take a deep breath and think before you reply.

When I say this

Shambolic defending? . . . It's a blip and you know it . . when we sort it out; which we will, we will be flying. .

Don't reply with things like this.

As for your defending, you lost to Blackburn. Lost to City. Conceded 3 goals against wobbly Everton that could easily have been avoided.
You think that's a ''blip''? I don't. I think it's a problem

I didn't say you can't climb Everest with these same players.  .  .I said not with this defense and this Cech.
By that, I mean with them being in this current shambolic form.

With your defense this poor and with Cech this shaky, you cannot sustain an unbeaten run.

Only to come back and say if Chelsea sort themselves out they will be fine . . . When it's all I said from the start. . .It's meaningless to me.

How can I waste about 3 hours of my life on you ? I have sinned . . .  

The aston defense was superb. 5-star,top notch

I'm getting the feeling that Man U will not win the league this season!

Obinoscopy:

I'm getting the feeling that Man U will not win the league this season!

Its not a feeling . . . its a fact.

This ManUtd has been shown to be ordinary . . . it was Ronaldo carrying them throughout the most of the past few seasons . . .

Is this an English language thread or a match thread

dreeldee:

Is this an English language thread or a match thread

Man I think at a time the post became more of an English Thread with Nateevs and Cristalz as our English Teachers. . . . . Anyway it was interesting, I just hope someone learnt something from it

What the hell is this?
Arguing about grammar?

If it helps Criz and nateevs ease the pain, why not?

Dearie, blame Nateevs.
He understands a statement in one form only. If you say the same thing in a different manner, the guy gets totally lost.
Also, he has no idea how to interpret a conditional statement. Can you believe it??
Taking out one part and claiming that's the only thing that should be considered. That's the dullest thing I've heard all year wrt the English language!
Coming from a grown man?? My gawd!

First it was ''Common Chelsea'' instead of ''Come on, Chelsea''. And he had no idea how wrong he was, was so confident typing ''Common Chelsea'' till I showed him how wrong he was.
Now he has no idea what a conditional statement means.
Do I have to mod and teach Nateevs English as well? I should get paid.

If he was bright enough to understand what my statement meant, he wouldn't have gone over-defending and over-analyzing. That's the plain truth.

I said the same thing twice in different forms. How is that a crime?
Unfortunately for him, he had no idea how to interpret a conditional statement, so he took the first part of the statement and flew with it, running to defend non-existent accusations, going back to past seasons.
I mean, come on! Dude's obviously deficient in English. I just realized how bad, and honestly I am both amused and appalled.

Warning to everyone: when you argue with Nateevs, please avoid conditional statements or anything complex. Break it down like you would to a simpleton.

@Nateevs
I'm gonna view the hours I spent educating you as my charity work for the week. God bless my soul.
Glad to know I taught you some rudiments of the English Language.

And, a blip is a problem. Check this out:

blip [blip]
noun (plural blips)
1.  spot on display screen: a spot of light, often accompanied by a high-pitched sound, indicating the position of something on a screen
The submarine shows up as a series of faint blips on the screen.

2.  electronics Same as bleep
3.  sudden deviation: a sudden temporary problem in the normal progress of something

Microsoft® Encarta® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Note definition 3 in bold.  .  .a blip is a problem. Just like I called it - a problem. How long it lasts for then determines if it's temporary or long-term.
Ya dig?
If it's a temporary problem, it's a blip. If it's long-term, it's not. But first and foremost, it is a PROBLEM.
It's amazing the way people use words without really understanding what they mean.
Honestly, your case is really bad. Damn.

One more thing, Nateevs. For the 15th or so time: All of my statements meant the exact same thing.

You now saying ''for you to come back and say. . .'' is plain ridiculous.

I did not ''come back to say'' anything. It's the exact same thing I'd been saying all along.
Sometimes I put the condition before the event, other times I put the condition after the event. But the meaning never changed.

Is it my fault you were, and obviously still are too dull to comprehend correctly? You simply don't know how to interpret a conditional statement, and for that you should be ashamed of yourself. Even your 10-year old cousin woulda gotten my point the second I said it.

I mean, you said something. I said the exact same thing, just used different words.
If you understood me, you wouldn't have gone off arguing and digging up history like an excavator.

You didn't, which is why you felt the urgent need to ''educate me''. But the joke was on you, my friend. You just ended up exposing your English language deficiency: you have no idea what a conditional statement is.

I mean, how could you extract the event in the statement and go with just that, when that part was completely dependent on the clause, which is an equal constituent of the entire statement??
Then you were so confident in your dullness to say ''the clause is insignificant, doesn't count''. If it was, why did I include it then?
I coulda simply said ''Chelsea cannot sustain an unbeaten run'' and left it at that. But I didn't, I added a clause, 'cos that's what the event coming to pass depends on.
Are you too thick-headed to get it, or you just enjoy my company? Actually I think it's the former. I'm embarrassed for you.