₦airaland Forum

Jokerman:
Ronaldo of course na

How?

iLegendd:
Psychology at its best.

So, you don swallow the 2k already?

I think u shld write a book on Psychology (Female and business related). At first I didn't decode, but when it later became clear, I realized that your Marketing and Female psychology no be from this world at all.
Keep it up man, you are my temporary role-model

Jokerman:
Trophies won both National and club Individual awards

So, in stats, who tops Messi or Ronaldo. "According to your measures

Blabbermouth:
What is the right measures for a player's greatness

Jokerman, where art thou?

Jokerman:
Lol the special one will bounce back soon

What is the right measures for a player's greatness

Jokerman:
To measure greatness of a coach, trophies are the relevant stats... And since Guardiola is leading Mou by 2, I concede that Guardiola just toppled him this year ... I'm not emotional like Messi fans, who refuse to concede that CR7 is greater than their goat

However Mou still my favorite

hahaaaaahaaaaaa haha Hahaha hahaaahaahaaahaaa haaaahaaaaahaaa. haaaaaa haaaa haaaaa

Jokerman:
I would choose Mourinho

Tell meh wat u would like to use to measure their greatness, anything that doesn't contain ur fallacy of "strong and weak job shits". Anything that is documented in their record.
(This was wat I asked)

Jokerman:
I just gave it to you ni o... Mourinho also has the trophies too
He has also won 100 points in a season
He has produced best players in every position from his managerial skill
He has won trophies in any country he has worked in
He takes up more difficult job

Just imagine if he wins Laliga with Valencia or the UCL

Lemme give u d benefit of doubt (that u know football).
Choose 1 tangible option, u would like to use to measure Pep and mou. greatness.
I am allowing you to decide, anything, that has been documented in record. anything at all, Trophies, Head to head , Winning ratio anything at all.

Jokerman:
Lol... Fergie has more trophies
Mou takes up more difficult jobs
Ancelotti has won the UCL 3ce
Zidane won the UCL 3ce on a row
Del Bosque won club and national team trophies as a coach

Osazsky see mumu stats for being a better coach than pep.

1. Fergie has more trophies? In how many years
2. U don't deserve a reply for this
3. So? This means this guy is greater than mou or ferg.
4. U still don't deserve a reply.
5. If I slap u ehn!!!!!

Jokerman:
Coz he doesn't do difficult jobs... And Mourinho started from smaller clubs as well so he had to win the Europa

Is this ur way of defending mourinho?
Loser

Jokerman:
He won 3 trophies for Man utd.. Making it 4 European trophies in his CV, your pep just has rwo

Guardiola don't do "Europa"

igwefivestar:
ok. Let's see what will happen this season but I Don't see city wining it again this season.

That's what you said last season

Jokerman:
Lol... My fellow messinalty fan....

Story, messian or not, tell me how they are greater than PeP

Jokerman:
How did Pep demystify Ferguson??

2 finals played against ferg. 2 finals won against ferg.

Jokerman:
Come shut it.... Ferguson, Mourinho, Michels all better than Guardiola

U dont know football.
If I ask you how they are better than him now, u wouldn't even be able to mention me back

iLegendd:
"Greatness is not achieved in 3 seconds, but 3 seconds is the defining factor of greatness." — Joe Clef.

"Legal business requires you to be streetwise even if it's online otherwise you're unwise." Joe Clef

If you want to make money, be a talkative online, but silent (think-active) offline.

If you do this, all your talks online can be turned to money and your silence offline can be turned to mystery and respect.

Rule 1: Online — always talk more than necessary.

Rule 2: Offline — always say less than necessary.

I agree, but only 69%. Because,
"Every wise man had coined their quote from the perspective In which they view a matter, if you are not in the same angle with them, never follow them"-Blabbermouth©

Jokerman:
Oga swerve, am surprised you haven't called Eder as usual

The guy shock u. By the way, what drug did you take b4 u concluded IFFHS was owned by an individual

Jokerman:
Using a lowly team as Leicester city to win the league, or using lowly Porto to win UCL, all greater feats

Stooory.
The world will remember "They won a league" and not a lowly bla bla bla u are saying

Moreover, why do Jokerman and Beverlyjean keep running to UCL records when they are being pushed to the wall.
Ronaldo and Zidane, don't they have a league they play in at all?

Jokerman:
Lol... Barcelona fan I expect nothing less??
Was Pep the first to get 100 points in a season?
16 trophies in 3 years makes you a genius??
What about someone who won the UCL 3 times in a row... What do you call that??

All those u mentioned who has a greater trophy number (save Ferguson) 2. Who has a greater trophy/year ratio than Guardiola 3. All 6 trophies in a year. (First year as senior manager) DONT BLABBER, TELL ME ANYTHING GREATER THAN THAT

Beverlyjean:
What the 4k is chance creator... U delusional fans keep on creating delusional stats

After match, you no dey see "Key Chance Created" for the match stats??
U should have wondered why Ronaldo never smell IFFHS world's best playmaker, despite his high assist number.
No worries tho, winter (December) is coming.
A girl once said "Ballon d'or is d koko"

Jokerman:
lol... However Ronaldo has won golden boot in 3 different countries

1 in England
3 in Spain
1 in UNL

See stats oooo

Ronaldo: I am Europe's finest goal poacher.
Messi: Wait.....
Highest Golden Boot Winner: Messi
Europe's highest Goalscorer: Messi
Europe Highest assist maker: Messi
Europe's best chance creator: Messi
Highest Goalscored in a year: Messi
Messi: Bro, I don't poach goals, I am the Goal

Blabbermouth:
You: There is never a pure state of nothing
I: Agreed, or else that state would still be all what there is till today.
Conclusion: You and I Both agree to "There was always something"

I:This Eternal Something that has always existed isn't bound by space and time
You: Everything we know is bound by space and time. So that means my notion is wrong
I: This guy is pointing a pistol at himself. Any thing that is bound by time has a beginning. Are you telling me that "the eternal something that we both said was always existing has a beginning?? If so, then there would be a time when it wasn't existing at all and that is the time of " nothing" which we both know is actually impossible..
It is bound By space? Every space we occupy in the universe has always been in existence b4 us. Are u now concluding that, The space is the eternal something? if so make a box about the size of a plot of Land. When ur greatgrandson is about age, let him open the box and bring out a cat, infact, not a cat, we want him to bring out a lifeless tennis ball.
SO FAR,
We have agreed on, 'there was always something, and I demonstrated how this eternal something cant be bound by time and space or else, there would be a state of 'nothingness " which is nonsensical.

I: This eternal something has the power to bring other things into existence
You: Not verified, because "cats can't produce any thing other than cat"
I: Don't be ignorant na, look around, see books, see tables, look up see a plane. Infact look at your phone. Are they all Humans? . According to your one-sided logic, "Why can humans produce other things apart from humans". Funny man, Humans have the power to bring " Sex dolls, Humanoids, robots into existence ". In the same scope the eternal something could. If there were no humans that made it, this things can't produce themselves, and won't exist. If there was no eternal something that made it, Humans and every other things u see can't simply create themselves.
You see how logical it sounds, don't you?
The LOGICAL CONCLUSION:
I said from the beginning, we have reasoned logically with " what is existing as we could see".
So, There was always something, which has always been in existence, and has the power to bring other things into existence, in the same scope humans could.
Go thru the epistle one more time for clearer understanding.
I ain't supposed to go thru this stress to reply you, because u see this as an argument and thus argue blindly. Argue with validity next time, all this I said are clear even from epistle and perfectly logical.

This was the summary of all the point davien raised, which I painstakingly replied. HappyPagan, ediko5 and JeromeBlack , how this didn't follow logic is wah I need to know.
He thought I don't know anything abt logical reasoning at all

BY FAITH, and BY LOGIC. God truly exist. What is your purpose of existence? That is what you should ask yourself now. Think about it!!!! God bless

davien:
You couldn't construe an argument worth the little mental effort I used to address you. I had a good time laughing at your baby logic though. Thanks

When i reassessed my epistle to your understanding, U couldnt object. Hope it's crystal clear now?
If u still have any one of the statement dat doesn't go well with you, pls pinpoint. And stop this your "aimless counter" its making u look defenseless
To God be the glory

Laurene:
ronaldo performed and won more trophies than Messi last season overall

eni4real and Jokerman, come and see this one oo

gurunlocker:
My reasonable people, abeg ignore Beverlyjean

It's obvious he or she has nothing upstairs

I always know someone set of Ronaldo fan not to be sensible, but your own is like zee world.

Beverlyjean was my long time debate mate. It pains meh the way u guys are bashing her with solid points. She Is very informed, but always want things her way, even if it means skewing facts and stats.
Can you imagine sm1 saying
1. Messi only contributed by goals last season
2. SerieA is more competitive than Laliga
3. Ronaldo deserved to be in the top 10 spot because he just joined juventus.
My guy Chanchit don answer her tho no need toh stress mahself.

Beverlyjean:
U saying nonsense ... So now it's not about goals cos Ronaldo powered that season... Then Messi doesn't deserve it cos he only performed by goals

Messi only performed by goals?. See as dem dey bash ur ignorance...
A girl once said "Ballon d'or is the koko". I don't want to hear any noise again come December.

davien:
LOL.. I like the way believers have to deny both facts, reason and logic to defend their arguments.
Your "epistles" crumbled under scrutiny like all arguments for metaphysical beings.

Argue constructively next time.
Point for point. Just like I did. Look up the post I replied ur nonsense.
Its a hard pill, just swallow it and move on, and stop hiding behind "Everything is nonsense, even tho I can't find a counter".
Once again, don't stress me, if you are to raise something against it, let it be smtin the epistle either didn't cover or u didn't find satisfactory. All those u stated, I went thru a waste of time to re-express. Hope u are cleared.
God bless

Where is Bernardo Silva and Allison Becker??. Ronaldo doesn't deserve that spot.
MODIFIED:
SM1 just said: We don't know the format they used for the UNL , until they announced they are playing the 'final' of the tournament.

davien:
Your logic doesn't work... So you can't say a god/gods exists based on it.

A rebuttal, proof or even a reassessment of your argument was not provided.

To be honest, it's nothing but false equivalence and misrepresentations.

Something always exists..

You group everything that does into the term "eternal something"

You impose it has no needs not already met by itself and yet again impose a will that requires it to have wants.. Thus not only contradicting yourself but conjuring an unsubstantiated claim that can't be logically proven but require evidence.

You claim all things that create/produce other things are in of themselves greater than their creations while ignoring things like atoms, people, DNA, matter, the gases that form our atmosphere, electrons, protons, that form/produce things greater than themselves through cause and effect.

Then add a gender to which your "eternal something" can be addressed and then finally landing on your preconceived bias and terming it God.

If you have to go to such great lengths of bad logic to believe in god, is it worth the mental loops.. Since it doesn't make sense, why not use faith instead of dishonesty?

Anyone that's reading this would think you have a point. But u didn't read the epistle well at all. You keep conflicting, agreeing with some and trying to counter it at the same time.
Look up this post readers, yh read the one b4 this. Even thou they were clearly explained in the epistle. This man Here want to argue blindly.
Well he has been thrown into a loop, it's either he concurs with logic or explain to us how something can come out of nothing. {which is also the same thing he frowned at}.
Hahaha
To God be the glory

davien:

In the real sense this statement doesn't make any sense.. For one, "nothing" is what we humans use to define a lack of physical objects.. And no matter how much we push back the notion of "nothing" there is never a pure "nothing" state.

So "nothing" can come out of "nothing" is nonsensical, the only thing we know to be true is something coming from something and so it appears something is what exists with no defined beginning(except the observable universe)

True as we(science) can tell.. Apart from the known universe.

Everything we know to exist is bound by space and time, sorry
Your assertion is false..


What verified object matches this description that we know is real and can ascertain its existence?
This is another assumption put into your logic.

We don't even know what the something that always existed is, nor if it may only make replicas of itself.
This assumption isn't even true in the most part if scrutinized properly... For example, Cats don't produce anything other than Cats.

We live in a cause and effect universe that builds on physical relationships that gives us patterns.
Again... When we apply something and nothing we fail to realize that it only applies to the object in question, they lose meaning and can't be used to make logical deductions.

For example would you say without the something of Nigeria, that whole area would be "nothing", no land, no country, no soil, no people, nothing at all?

Or that without the something of your birth and existence there would be "nothing", no other human being born to your family, no aunty, no uncle to this new human, nothing at all?

What happens is that things still fill in the metaphorical gap of our idea of "nothing" and only is fulfilled when we mean uniqueness, and even that is thrown out the window of our understanding.

Your "epistles" are unsound and lay assumption after assumption to try to insist on even bigger assumptions.
Nothing is not a physical state of anything, it is a term we've used to associate the lack of a predefined thing and without that something... You can't remove things from existence into a state of nothing as nothing has never been known to be a state of anything.

You: There is never a pure state of nothing
I: Agreed, or else that state would still be all what there is till today.
Conclusion: You and I Both agree to "There was always something"

I:This Eternal Something that has always existed isn't bound by space and time
You: Everything we know is bound by space and time. So that means my notion is wrong
I: This guy is pointing a pistol at himself. Any thing that is bound by time has a beginning. Are you telling me that "the eternal something that we both said was always existing has a beginning?? If so, then there would be a time when it wasn't existing at all and that is the time of " nothing" which we both know is actually impossible..
It is bound By space? Every space we occupy in the universe has always been in existence b4 us. Are u now concluding that, The space is the eternal something? if so make a box about the size of a plot of Land. When ur greatgrandson is about age, let him open the box and bring out a cat, infact, not a cat, we want him to bring out a lifeless tennis ball.
SO FAR,
We have agreed on, 'there was always something, and I demonstrated how this eternal something cant be bound by time and space or else, there would be a state of 'nothingness " which is nonsensical.

I: This eternal something has the power to bring other things into existence
You: Not verified, because "cats can't produce any thing other than cat"
I: Don't be ignorant na, look around, see books, see tables, look up see a plane. Infact look at your phone. Are they all Humans? . According to your one-sided logic, "Why can humans produce other things apart from humans". Funny man, Humans have the power to bring " Sex dolls, Humanoids, robots into existence ". In the same scope the eternal something could. If there were no humans that made it, this things can't produce themselves, and won't exist. If there was no eternal something that made it, Humans and every other things u see can't simply create themselves.
You see how logical it sounds, don't you?
The LOGICAL CONCLUSION:
I said from the beginning, we have reasoned logically with " what is existing as we could see".
So, There was always something, which has always been in existence, and has the power to bring other things into existence, in the same scope humans could.
Go thru the epistle one more time for clearer understanding.
I ain't supposed to go thru this stress to reply you, because u see this as an argument and thus argue blindly. Argue with validity next time, all this I said are clear even from epistle and perfectly logical.