₦airaland Forum

Cristalz:
Another unlucky goal.
Rafa thought the ball was going out so he didn't move. Ball decided to change its mind at the last minute; hit the post and changed direction.

Arshavin looked like he didn't expect it to go in.

You mean Reina. .

Arsenal need an own goal to score.

Ibime:
BTW, Im glad Gerrard's diving is coming back to haunt him. Howie Webb served him comeuppance for all the dodgy penalties he's been winning or trying to win recently. Gerrard and Rooney are the two biggest divers in English football today. They think they can get away with it cos they're the English media-darlings.

Ibime will never accept Gerrard . . Never.

Cristalz:
You mean, what is wrong with Cech and Almunia these days, right?

Cech has to be disabled to be that bad. .  

[quote author=~Sauron~ link=topic=365373.msg5104524#msg5104524 date=1260722722]It's not impossible. . . . . .They just need a physical presence in the attack.
Almunia is a disgrace sha. . . . . .He just flapped at the ball instead of catching it or punching it well off the pitch.[/quote]It's not the physical presence they need, sometimes it's a chacnge in mentality when there needs to be one.
They can't pass the ball, then there's no play. .

Unfortunately they have to pass to score. .
They hardly score from free kicks (direct or indirect) or corner-kicks . .

I just don't see how they can pass their way out of this with Masch in the game.

Cristalz:
Sure we can, dearie.
Nice 'conversing' with ya.

Till another day when ManU loses. . .

[quote author=~Sauron~ link=topic=365373.msg5104489#msg5104489 date=1260722366]Liverpool are no threat to United.
They are thousands of points away. . . . . .United need a kick on their backside.
Only Arsenal can do that now. . . . .Liverpool are rubbish and Tottenham have some sorta creeping neurosis.[/quote]It's impossible for Arsenal to win. .
They'll need two more men to accomplish that.

What's Xabi doing at Anfield?

[quote author=~Sauron~ link=topic=365373.msg5104460#msg5104460 date=1260721987]I want them as close to Man Utd as possible.[/quote]You mean you want Liverpool far away from ManU as possible. .

[quote author=~Sauron~ link=topic=365373.msg5104442#msg5104442 date=1260721742]I want Arsenal to win this game.[/quote]Why?

Denilson Lee Chan. .  

Johnson tears Arsenal apart.

Torres should be putting that in . . .
An extra touch wouldn't have ruined the chance. .

Arsenal have no striker?

4-4

You know it's reach the heart when Chac renders a long post.
No one's saying anything is lost yet; nor is there any sort of crisis.

We only hope you drop more points Chac. .  

Chei . . I don suffer. .
Woman palava. .

Criz can't we just end this?

@Loyika

Defensive Error",. . To concede 3 goals at home. 
"Drogbatastic",. . . A Drogba-esque performance and goal . . like the goals at the emirates. . 
"Cecherrorpronitis",. . To try to jump out at an in-Player whilst leaving your brain at the goal post.
"Cheklscummania" . . To love the team at the top of the table . .

and "Bluenonsense". . To love hating the best team in the world . . 



From my vast well of knowledge. . . Loyika. . . 

Got any more you have trouble with? 

[quote author=A-40 link=topic=362607.msg5100417#msg5100417 date=1260650318]I have no doubt in ma mind that your over reliance on Drogba would come back to haunt y'all this season infact a broken metatarsal and your season is up in smoke[/quote]No doubt in ya mind? . . Why do people like to talk about possibilities like they have an insight?

He has no doubt in his mind. .

@Criz. .

Isn't it amazing how we have to take this into another day? Who wants whose attention?
You said goodnight yesterday, only to wake up this morning engaging in a childish quotes of past events just to prove a point.
While you referring to my unforgivable erring in the past does justice for your present position, it still however does not justify what this whole argument was all about.

I used words in the wrong way in the past. . . .and in this case for a prolonged time. You corrected. I argued then sat back to look at it and wondered why I have always done that. I took correction and that is bygone. . Everyone has moments.




Now this is the last time I am going reply this. I am also going to try to do it in the most respectful manner.


PERSPECTIVE - The key word here.

Blip - a sudden minor shock or meaningless interruption;
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=blip


See how I choose carefully to support my argument. . . I don't see "problem". . .
Notice the words[b] sudden, minor, meaningless interruption.[/b] . which do well to explain my position of things. . I see us conceding from set-pieces a blip . . in the way I have defined above.
It's natural for humans to research and find texts that back up their points of view. However, proving yourself right is not the same as proving everyone else wrong.

The question is. . .  Am I wrong? . . Answer is No. .

But that really isn't the bone of contention.



The shocking situation now is that you spent hours of typing yesterday explaining why it wasn't a blip but a problem. You even required some help from Debo. . .  Take a look at this. . . This is you yesterday. .

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.

Look at that . . . You clearly put differences to those two words. . "blip and problem". . Suddenly this morning you are trying to make yourself look to the world that you understood the differences or similarities (whichever applies) between blip and problem all along. . . When in your statement above, you clearly thought they were different.

You then have the audacity to self-proclaim "immense reservoirs of the knowledge of English Language" by saying

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.


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

Was I talking about long term? What then do you mean by people using words they don't understand. . Name calling in the process as well when it's all misunderstanding from you.



What did you think I called Chelsea's situation? I called it a temporary - A blip. You said it's not. . And now you come back to say a blip is a temporary problem ? When I called it temporary all along. .?

1. You didn't know a blip was a problem. If you did you wouldn't have said I don't think it's a blip . . I think it's a problem

2. You meant to say Chelsea's problem was not temporary . .It's long term. That's why you said I don't think it's a blip . . I think it's a problem  

3. You don't know as much as you want to make people believe, if you did, you wouldn't have said. . I don't think it's a blip . . I think it's a problem . . only to come back and proclaim 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.


Is this not really talking about yourself. .?

You see what I mean






Now that leads us back to the main argument. I did not do great justice to myself yesterday.

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

This started the seemingly never-ending story. According to the above statement, I said Chelsea have a temporary situation, we will sort it out and move on.


Now your response . . was

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. Grin

At this point, you posted a counter-argument(please notice this as this is the key) . . A counter isn't in agreement with. So we can deduce that

1. You did not agree that Chelsea had a temporary situation (blip)
2. You did not think we will sort it out . . .
3. You did not agree we will be flying again.

If you agreed, why post a counter-argument? Let me show you what it means to agree.

As for the scoring part, yeah you're right

. . .

That's from you in the same post.


You first lines disagreed with me. So when you went on to post . . .

Sustain that run.  .  .not with this defense and this Cech, you won't.
I didn't say you can't climb Everest with these same players.  .  .I said not with this defense and this Cech.


The only deduction that can be made from here is that "Chelsea will not go on an unbeaten run" . . Now not because of Cech and the defence but because of this. . . .

I don't think it's a blip . . I think it's a problem  . . . Meaning I don't think it's temporary, I think it's long term. How can we you think we can have an unbeaten run when you don't see it as a blip - temporary problem. .

You see.


Your earlier post negates the fact that you said "because of shaky Cech and the shaky defence". .  rather because you think the situation is not temporary. (Blip). . So that ultimately renders the clause irrelevant. .

So when I removed the clause I knew what I was doing . . and that was why I told Debo that he doesn't know the history. Joining the argument in the middle was going to resort to basically the rudiments of English Language and the thinking that I am inadequate.

Removing the "conditional clause" becomes a valid thing. . because there is history which defines the "context" [/b]of the discussion. . Only of course if you say. . I'm sorry I didn't mean to say . .


                      [b]You think that's a ''blip''? I don't. I think it's a problem.

Aha! Now suddenly your latter conditional clauses become relevant and what a very silly thing will it be to say they can be removed. . but as long as the first start remains active . . . the next clauses become irrelevant because the first statement defines to a large extent the context of your disposition.




How then can we conclude that you were saying the same thing I was saying all along. ? Just how?


The conclusion from all this is that. .

You didn't know what a blip was . .
You said Chelsea's situation was not temporary, because you didn't know the meaning of blip.
You said Chelsea cannot go on an unbeaten run, (not because of Cech and the defense) because you said it's not a blip, because you didn't know the meaning of blip.






To express a strong position on a public forum is an entirely independent situation from resorting to personal insults, defamation of personality, using abusive language, and trying to make a fellow forumite look inferior because of a misunderstanding so open to interpretation, the misunderstanding could have come from yourself . .

I honestly believe the depths you have reduced to express a point is shameful and unworthy of Moderator status.
You are not fit to bear the status Moderator until you apologize publicly on this forum.

Not a single personal insult you rendered backs up your points any better so why use them?

You leave posts on the pages that insult the personalties of other forum members as long as they come from you . . yet you find yourself sitting on some moral high-ground, fit enough to issue warnings and delete posts whenever deemed necessary.

I am not doing this for myself but for the others in the future you will get into arguments with and then resort to name calling because you deem fit to misuse the the power of Moderator.

Moderation doesn't involve just deleting posts and rearranging them, it also involves conducting oneself in an exemplary manner. . . a manner worthy of emulation.  


Can we get some decent moderation please.





My last post!

debosky:
Congrats chavs, the useless scumtwats couldn't make y'all pay for slipping up.

Up next. . . .The battle of Anfield 2009 Part 2.

Thanks Man!
What better way to end what would have been a terrible day at the bridge. .
If only we took full points.

I am hoping you guys draw though . . you know like 4-4

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 . . .  

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.

@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) . . .

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".

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, 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 . .

Fair? . .
How can you talk about fair. . . When I talked first. . . I made a statement that said . .

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

Your next statement was . .

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. Grin

You said it was not a blip but a problem . . I questioned why you see it as a problem and not a blip quoting "it was a blip this time last year and it was solved with the same players" . . At this point I said I went back in time to disprove your statement saying it was a problem and not a blip. . .

So you saying I went on diversion is highly incorrect because at this point it was clearly relevant for me to do so.

Instead you came back with frivolous statements like

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.

You went on about form and this and that only to come back to say . .
If we sort it out we can go on a run . . . Which is exactly what I said from the start. .  



If you were not in the mood for meaningless arguments, you should have said from the start - "I agree Nateevs, if you sort it out you will go on a run"

Now you got off the wrong foot. . . deflect the argument along the way. . then try to come back with a smart one which looks obviously insane to me . . that you've been saying so from the start . . and now you are talking about fair. . .


You really are deluded . . and suffering from the Utd loss  . . I understand . .
However try to make sense of what you talking about rather than concentrating on insults . .

You were off the mark . . . You went on a rant . . a long run of absolutely meaningless and empty arguments . .
Simple. .

Still the same problem . . .
You haven't seen me say they are different. . .

I quoted them because they are the same things . . . and over and over you said them.
And that's is the part you don't get . . .

Why would you continue to say them over and over again when I rightly said . . .

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

from the beginning. . . Which happens strangely to be the same thing with all you said.


So if you understood what I said from the beginning as being the same with what you wanted to say (Or have said now) . . . Why even bother. . ?


Which just confirms what I have been saying. . . You have embarked on a run of meaningless arguments . . because from the start I said . . .

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

Now you check it all and return to me. . .

I decided to take you to the beginning . . .


This is what I said first. . .

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

Then you came back with

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.

You see. . .




Well you knew all along that . . .

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

Which means if we shape up we will.






Why then did you start the . .

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

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.

Second, it's not just about the players, it's about their F-O-R-M.

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

?




When you knew all along that . . . .

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

Which also means if we do . . we can sustain a run



Now isn't this like I said a run of meaningless arguments?  when I rightly said from the start that. . .

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

.




Now who's struggling to comprehend. ?

Gosh, Nateevs, for the last time, Chelsea will not sustain an unbeaten run with their defense this shambolic, and Cech this wobbly.
How do you want to sustain an unbeaten run, by magic??

You is the one who doesn't get it. . .
The question is not how do you do it? . . Rather can it be done?

You guys are at the top of the table 'cos you've first got a very good defense(or, you had a very good defense, under the current circumstances), and next, you score goals.
Didn't United's defense play a part in their winning the title last season?

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

Which otherwise means, the defence can shape up and an unbeaten run can be sustained
Whic brings me to the question . . . Why then are you stressing?
Why are you arguing ? . . because this is what I said from adam. .

We can sort ourselves out and continue on the run and you said it can't be done going on an unnecessarily long and meaningless argument only to come back to say . .  

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

As for going back in time, records are made and broken every day. You did something last season doesn't necessarily mean you will repeat it this season. That's being narrow-minded. You can, but will you? There's no certainty.

Is very different from CAN'T. . . which always makes history relevant when talking about future occurrences. .
?How then can it be wrong to talk about the past. . when it's been done before. . .


You are struggling . . . Take a break.

Cristalz:
@Nateevs
Won't say too much so your blind support will let you get the message.
First, this isn't last season. Need a calender?

Second, it's not just about the players, it's about their F-O-R-M.
If you like, get Messi, but if he is in poor form you'll never get a goal from him. Ya dig?
With your defense this poor and with Cech this shaky, you cannot sustain an unbeaten run. Ya dig?

It would really help you if you could learn to quit letting your support blind your judgment and reasoning abilities.

Go get over this loss ma!

You can't get any more contradictory. . . One more silly comment and we all will wonder what's suddenly happened to you.
You call something F-O-R-M. . . Yet you think we can't sustain a run.

Do you need proper explanation about form?. . . Bad form could last as long as a season. . it could also be a handful of matches. As few as four matches sometimes. . . How long does bad form have to be before it's called bad form or shaky form as you call it. . ?

Now if you know that bad form can be as little a handful of matches . . why bother stressing. . ?


Also how do we explain how quickly one can come out of bad form if you don't go back in time? . . So quoting what happened to Chelsea last year will help do that for you ? . . . geddit now?

If Chelsea could turn a bad run of defence performances to  sublime performances in a week, why are you stressing?


Go get some sleep. . . Every time you lose, you struggle with simple things. .