debosky:


It is daft to fail to realise that the sending off permanently disrupted Arsenal's tactical plan.

Last time I checked that is what all red cards do, or at least are supposed to do. . . Thanks for stating the painfully obvious and pretending it was an "Eureka" moment.  

debosky:

No need to analyse - the whole world recognises that as an epically idiotic decision. If you don't, you're in the camp of epic idiots along with Busacca. . . .can't say I'm surprised

Two seasons in a row and you don't make it a habit? Alves was playing to get RVP booked in the first half - there is no way in hell that was a yellow.

How come a dodgy sending off was your tactic to qualify last year after losing the away leg to Inter? One could even argue that your win in 2006 was based on a dodgy refereeing decision to send off Lehmann, instead of giving the goal which had already been scored.

When you use cases of other teams (only one team by the way) being at a disadvantage yet winning as evidence of winning mentality, you have a distinct lack of cogent reasoning power. not-so-smart analysis to say the least.

*cough cough*

Did the ref score the 2 goals that we still needed to score to qualify?


Analyse that.^^

Answers must be no less than 2 pages, double spaced, with font size of 12. Spell check you essays before handing them in as errors will be penalized RVP style. Check your grammar too as we shall show no messi. Papers must be handed in by 6pm tonight.  

debosky:

Marginal decisions influenced by the referee's positioning and view of an incident cannot be compared to a sending off that is unparalleled in it's idiocy.

I think RVP's sending off was a marginal decision influenced by the ref's positioning and view of the incident. Abi? Oya analyse that and tell me why it isn't. pscchheeww!!

debosky:

What tosh - so we must defeat Barca in a severely handicapped manner to prove winning mentality? Abeg go play with your crayons. It was not 30 minutes - the sending off occurred at 55 minutes, leaving 35 minutes plus 4 minutes added on, virtually half the tie.

I no know say u sabi maths like this sha

Cry me a fukn river.

debosky:

Why must opposing teams continuously get unfair reds against Barca? Is it that they aren't actually as good as they think? Food for thought. Has Barca ever won a crucial game with a man down?

We don't make it a habit getting players sent off. We try to play football and score goals. Even when we don't need to.  

debosky:

So because Arsenal is not the first team the idiotic decision is justified?

You are still looking for justice? Sorry o. Don't go and look for trophy. Be looking for justice.

debosky:

No one at this club has low expectations - you on the other hand are implying that you must beat Barca after being deliberately impaired by the referee to prove something - that is utter and complete bollocks.

I implied no such thing. I used this case as an example, and not as a unit of measurement. Nice try tho.

Buncha fargin losers!!

This reminds me of the Newcastle game where a moment of (understandable) madness from Diaby got him sent off. Newcastle equalized.

If Newcastle overturned a 1 or 2 goal deficit, then yeah maybe we can poo on Diaby. A 4 goal deficit and I think it's obvious the squad has major issues.

But hey. . . It's arsenal. . . denial is their alabukun.

duduspace:

@Krayola

Joke or not, any one with a discerning eye would know that was what we set out to do, the object was to hang in there until Barca's pressing took its toll and then we could hit them in the latter stages. Classic rope-a-dope as someone called it.
There were 2 major things that spoilt any chance we had, Cesc's silly move and the Ref's decision.

Fair enough. The referee made a bad call that made things more difficult for Arsenal.

But please consider these. . .

We had a good goal disallowed in the first leg. (A bad call that made things more difficult for us)
We had a clear penalty not called in the 1st leg. (A bad call that made things more difficult for us)
We had a clear penalty not called in yesterday's first half. ( A bad call that made things more difficult for us)

All these would could have directly impacted the score line. Not one member of our squad used that as an excuse. Journalists mentioned it, but the squad dismissed it and insisted it was our responsibility to overcome such. It's all part of football. Champions don't make excuses. They win.

Ok. . .let's leave that for now.

RVP got sent off. But Arsenal were still in a position to go through to the next stage. They had to survive maybe 30 minutes with ten men. Tough task? hell yeah. But doable, as Inter Milan, the defending CHAMPIONS did last year (remember my last post about winning mentality?)

Meanwhile.  . . Barca still needed to score 2 goals to get through. So the referee may have made Arsenal's job more difficult, but he didn't exactly hand us the game. We still had a job to do, and we did it. Arsenal isn't the first team to get an unfair red, and Arsenal isn't the 1st team to get an unfair red against Barcelona in a crucial CL game. They just didn't have what it takes to overcome it.

This ref excuse is pathetic IMO. I think you guys just have very low expectations of your team. Demand more from Wenger, and put pressure on him when he does not deliver instead of just whining like he does. That's just my opinion.

hehehehe  

Barca players when asked about bad ref calls in the 1st leg. Mind you these were calls that could have had a direct impact on score line. Goal cancelled and clear penalty not called

note: everything before the "?" is the question, the answer comes after that

Alves: "Referee mistakes? It's the way it is, some decision weren't in our favour but that shouldn't be an excuse."

Xavi: "Referee? We didn't talk about that in the dressing-room. We should have finished it. They were effective, we weren't."

Guardiola: "Referee decisions? Everything is so close, that everything has an influence, so that too. We have the return game at home, now we'll have to focus on that."

Guardiola: "Messi goal unjustly cancelled, Pedro penalty not given, seems like Inter all over again? You have to be able to surpass that."

That's a difference between winners and losers. Excuses are for losers. Winners try to get past whatever is thrown at them, and blame themselves for not overcoming obstacles. Wenger and his habit of blaming everybody else for his shortcomings is rubbing off on his players and the fans, and I think it is rather unfortunate.

I can just picture that sorry old man in the dressing room telling his boys not to worry, that they did great and if not for the incompetent referee they would have been through. "Come on lads, great job. Just keep that up in the league and FA cup and hopefully we get decent referees and we'll finally have a trophy"

Nonzense

I swear it is impossible to overestimate the extent of gooner delusion on this planet. See dem dey talk as if yesterday na game plan 


As in they will almost always manage to shock you with just how out of touch with reality they are. They have completely lost touch with reality.

Get some squad depth. . . Tell your coach to sign some real players so u can end this "almost there" nonsense that plagues you season after season once you have injuries to your 2 or 3 class players.

Sit there and blame everyone else but your not-so-smart coach/club policy for your problems. Suck wenger's kokoro till it falls off. Nonsense and ingredientce sakulajous dikkonkous.

We will be here next season saying the same s.h.it and they will be making the same stale lame arguments/excuses

tkb417:

@Krayola
I'm trying to count the number of times RVP touched the ball. When I'm done, ill holla. Hold on pls

haha I have scientific calculator and excel spreadsheet. If u need help just let me know.

v3:

Krayola
Well thanks for admitting what we already know ~ Ʊ needed the ref's help to win last night

haha

We needed to beat the living daylights out of Arsenal and we did. The end.



I didn't even see the RVP red card sef. From what I remember we player against a full arsenal squad till the end. I have watched replays and rewound that game like 50 times and I still have no idea what red card y'all are talking about.

Nothing could have won u guys that match. All the powers were against you. All of them. Try again next time.

Good barca goal called offside in 1st leg --> No comment about referee--> could that have changed the course of the tie?
Blatant barca penalty not called in 1st leg-----> No comment about referee----> could that have changed the course of the tie?
Clear penalty when Messi brought down in box in 1st half today ----> No comment about referee---> Could that have changed the course of the tie?

These are all instances that could have had a direct impact on the score line. As in we had either put the ball in the back of the net, or would have had a penalty.


We scored their only goal in the game for them ffs!! We had more shots at our own goal that our fukn opponents.

RVP is sent off and only a mad mad will deny that it was a harsh call. Arsenal did not score, or win a penalty, or take a single shot at goal. No. They had a player sent off.

We still had to score 2 goals to get thru. . . albeit against 10 men, but we still had to put the ball in the back of the net. . . . twice. We did what we had to. We endured all the shite I listed above, didn't b.i.tch and whine, worked hard, and handled our biz.

If you feel cheated, eat a fat d.i.c.k and die slow.

LETS GO THERE!! GO CITEH!!

tensor777:

That is a very silly argument. I did not say it should be banned JUST because it is unnatural and disgusting but also because it is downright WRONG.

What is "WRONG" about it?

FYI throwing tantrums and calling it "faggottrry" does not make it wrong, it just helps your insecure punk as$ feel superior and powerful. SOmething you obviously crave desperately.

SEFAGO:

^ TBH, I am kind of tired myself, same s/h/i/t even the same people.

Nothing new, just recycled s/h/i/t

I tire o, my brother

It's almost like they don't think about the stuff they say. How can one make such ridiculous arguments? IMO the most they can argue for based on the nonsense they say is that maybe homosexuality should be discouraged in some societies because it may cause some discomfort for an overwhelming majority in those societies. And even that will need some serious argumentation and not this beer parlour nonsense these clowns keep spewing. This is comic relief, at best.

haha people still making the same lame arguments that have been shredded countless times on NL.

It's unnatural and disgusting.   Olodo rabatas

They suggest humans should model their behaviour around "nature", whatever that means. Maybe we should eat our young and murder our sex partners, you know, kinda like occurs in nature with some species eg praying mantis. Or lions that kill the young when they take over a new pride. It's natural, right?   Beer parlour intellectualism at it's finest.

Na una get time.

up naija!!!!!

Naija culture too much!! nothing do us!!

cap28:

Perhaps i should i have rephrased it to read: Patience Jonathan unable to read own speech like a literate adult - would that have made both of you feel better?

fa fa fa fowl!!

A literate adult is an adult that can read and write. I know she is an adult, and I know that she can read. . . I'm guessing she can write. SO she demonstrated, to some extent because she wasn't writing, that she is a literate adult. Maybe not the most eloquently speaking literate adult, but a literate adult nonetheless.

cap28 IS UNABLE TO ARTICULATE HIS THOUGHTS. He cannot say what he means because he CLEARLY does not know how, even after rephrasing,  but is here raising hell over some petty stuff      

I is rested my case. Court adjhoned. warrefa dat means  

cap28:

So what are you trying to say  - that despite Patience Jonathan's limited reading ability she might just be a closet intellectual!!! please don't make me laugh.  By their actions you shall know them, her actions to date are not those of someone with substance or great intellectual depth.

I have not made a single comment about her intellect.  Just stating my opinion that this obsession with her grammar and reading style is petty.

Will you answer the question about the OP and your propaganda? 

Was she "UNABLE" to read the speech that she read? 

ziccoit:

Why are they intellectual if they don't care? You might want to say they would not pass a comment.

Maybe b/c it's more about how well you think than how eloquently you speak. IMO true intellectuals care more about substance than flamboyance.

Politicians are known to be great speakers but a lot of the time are empty barrels. Na talk talk we wan chop?

Bawss1:

Are you saying that her terrible speech delivery is Nigerian? Thats an insult if so.  We (by we I mean the rest of the Nigerian population that do not support mediocrity) expect our first lady to communicate like a well schooled adult. We expect eloquence and not that halting delivery that is reminiscent of a child suffering from dyslexia. We expect and demand so much more. . .Are these tall expectations? Yes, but recall that to whom much is given much is expected.

I expect responsible governing. I couldn't care less about all this superficial nonsense. SO she doesn't speak "eloquently". . . so what? She can't have anything to offer?

Bawss1:

Now if she can't read a simple prepared speech smoothly then let her not even bother to make speeches in the first place. She has ample resources to better herself if she so desires, but first she has to acknowledge the fact that she has a problem. This is what we saying on this thread and its a pity that many people will like to deny the obvious. No wonder her handers probably don't see anything wrong here.

She is literate and read a speech well enough that I understood every word of it.  Did you understand the speech? WHat part of it were you unable to understand?

Why does the OP say she was unable to read a speech that she obviously read? That is  miscommunication IMO. The OP was unable to write exactly what he meant, but is here vexing that someone did not read well enough for his liking.

Nonsense and ingeeeeedience, sakulajous dikonkous  mtcheeww.

@Cap28  You op read that she was unable to read her own speech. Will you at least admit that was a misrepresentation of the facts?

Bawss1:


Again we ask: [b]should she subject the rest of the Nigerian populace to such embarrassment by force? This is the first lady of the federal republic of Nigeria we are talking about. Whether her role is recognized constitutionally or not she should stay clear of microphones and public speech making till she improves her reading ability. Simple.

Na by force say she must recite speech?

I am Nigerian, and I am not embarrassed by the speech. She read the speech well. Maybe not in the most fashionable manner, but she was clear enough in her delivery that understanding her was not difficult. What part of the speech were you unable to understand? Abeg tell me so that I can go and check if I'm missing something.

BTW how has she used force to embarrass us, Mr English expert?

I am embarrassed that some Nigerians are embarrassed by "Nigerianness" though.

WHy the hell should she "lay low" because of your petty insecurities? Are you guys for real?

It's so funny that most of us think this is the kind of stuff foreign intellectuals care about. Very few, if any, intellectuals will care about stuff like this. Mostly small minded folk, or people like Glenn Beck just lookin for a low blow to get a cheap laugh.

She read the speech with little trouble.

English is not our native language. It's an official language, but Nigerians should know that most people prefer to communicate in their native languages because it is more efficient as far as communicating goes. All these people wey inferiority complex don wound finish na una sabi. I wish people are this pissed when some of the best educated kids in Nigeria show that they don't understand any of our native languages.

I doubt any INTELLECTUAL WILL CARE HOW OUR FIRST LADY SPEAKS ENGLISH, OR READS OR WRITES IN ENGLISH. THEY SHOULD KNOW BETTER. IN MY OPINION THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT CARE ABOUT $HIT LIKE THIS ARE SMALL MINDED INSECURE ONES.

She speaks decent enough English IMO.

The topic reads " . . . . is unable to read her own speech"

Either the op no understood English, or he/she is being dishonest becuss from what I saw she read her own speech.

Why complain about someone's command of a language when you sef no sabi said exactly wetin u mean?

Bawss1:

Please don't tow the stutterer line here, Patience is obviously not one. I bet she speaks her native language fluently however thats not the case here. Her reading of a prepared speech was terrible, it was not because she was born with any speech impediments, that much is clear. Her command of the English language - Nigeria's official language - is very poor so thats why her speech delivery came out all forms of bad.

Her command of the English language is not excellent, but it is IMO far from poor. Most English speaking people will understand her with little difficulty. That is what communication is supposed to do. the rest na long storeeee

manny4life:

If you cannot speak, YOU CANNOT READ, period.

But she spoke, and she read. So that ^^, if it were true (which it isn't), does not apply to her.

She read a speech. I heard it and understood everything she said. I did not have to strain my ears or make any extra effort to understand her. I think your critique is a little too superficial.

manny4life:

Speaking very well is the first step to reading very well, speaking lays the foundation for better readers. If you cannot speak fluently, and freely, like let you tongue loose, there is high probability that you will flunk when it comes to reading. Speaking fluently makes good readers; it’s a tried and true learning process.

I'm a stutterer. I guess my mother should have removed me from school right off the bat because I never had a chance.

I think the quality of your arguments are more embarrassing than Patience Jonathan.

Haha

I think the real joke/embarrassment here is that some actually believe that being unable to speak English "fluently" is an embarrassment to the country.

What kind of embarrassment exactly is it?

cap28:


Mrs Jonathan stumbled all the way through the speech, she found it difficult to pronounce words like :"participate", "advocacy" and "women" she read in a painfully slow and hesitant manner indicating that she had no understanding of what she was reading.

Will u please explain how reading in a "slow and hesitant manner" indicates a lack of understanding of what one is reading?

cap28:

Right from the beginning my argument has beeen about her inability to read english not her accent.

IMO she was not unable to read. She read the speech and I understood it. Many other people did too. I think it is neither accurate nor fair to suggest she is unable to read.

cap28:

Why can't you accept the fact that Mrs Jonathan has no business making speeches in public in a language which she has difficulty reading and speaking?

SHe did not seem to me to have difficulty reading english. I noticed she had difficulty with some names that i think were unfamiliar, but I don't think that is a problem. Foreign names are often difficult to pronounce properly.

Her reading skills are fine IMO. I understood every word. Not sure what else communication is supposed to accomplish.

This self hate amongst Nigerians is quite disgusting to witness.

JeSoul:


  Haha! Oga, I have zero problem agreeing with the current evidence we have today - on whatever issue it may be. So if the historical community doesn't think anything unique or special about the story of Jesus, that is fine with me. Honestly. And that is because it has absolutely zero impact on how I choose to live my life.

Oga, me I am not afraid of scientific discovery or entertaining all kinds of theories or performing a litmus test of my beliefs - to me, it is good, because it will either help break away beliefs that are shallow - or strenghten that which is true.

I appreciate this. Tainx so mohsh!! 

haha ok

We can never prove that Mary was not a virgin. Fine. DO you at least agree that based on the evidence we have Mary was not the only virgin to have had a child? That Jesus' birth, while out of the ordinary, was far from unique, and that  his alleged deeds were also quite commonplace in the ancient world? That is if we assume that ancient religious stories record history accurately.

IMO many religionists do not dismiss just the main sciences. . .but other academic disciplines that provide evidence against religious claims.

They embrace archaeology when it supports the slightest biblical detail and dismiss the tonnes of archaeological evidence that cast doubt on biblical claims.

They dismiss scholars from the humanities, historians and anthropologists and so on, and what they tell us, based on tedious pain-staking research, about ancient cultures, how they lived, and evolved; and embrace claims made by unknown ancient writers as authoritative on these historical (not necessarily theological)  claims.

They dismiss obvious similarities between their beliefs and previously existing beliefs that share similar and in many cases identical theological details (e.g.  Virgin births or other miraculous births where common to ancient myths and were just symbolic way of saying "this is special child destined for greatness". Xtian: No. Those are fake. . Mary's own was real!! I saw it in a dream. The evidence you have was planted by the devil  Ok. Low blow. .  No vex ). Now, we can never prove that Mary was not a virgin, but how do we ignore/dismiss all the other pre-Christian virgin birth stories?



etc etc


I don't think it is unreasonable to say that it is not just science that popular religion is in "conflict" with, but knowledge as we know it.