₦airaland Forum

Android22:
How can it be irrelevant when 1. It was offside. 2. The replays show it. 3. The onfield ref acknowledged it because he gave City a free kick after the VAR review 4. Tim Howard (who played for Everton) reviewed it and proved it? So you want the PGMOL to damn the hard evidence and give you the decision that favors you regardless of the evidence?

CAPdan21:
Ok I'll bite....post a gif of the incident showing where and who was offside in that phase of play

donjazet:

It would forever be a mystery how the English media allowed the criminal not to grant interview for 20 fucking_years.
How did a whole British press cower to this criminal and allow him to get away with never giving a public interview even when they knew how evil he was??
That's an 8th wonder of the world. Did he buy the media?

Android22:
https://j.gifs.com/RlB7qY.gif

Astrid4:
Alaye rest
Why must he grant an interview?
Ya just whining and disturbing the whole thread, you were the same fool that called for tuchel sack few weeks back; Roman has not been involved in Russia's politics for sometimes, y'all keep recycling his old pics with Putin, how is Roman a killer, do you see blood in his hand, y'all keeping speculating shit.

Kloppo:
Lool as expected,not surprising....your post reeks of ignorance and naivety....the internet,Google,YouTube is your best friend,make use of it....

Why didn't he condemn the invasion in his press statement...I think we know where his loyalty lies and it is not with the people about to be bombed by putin

Astrid4:
How many Americans came condemned the invasion on Iraq and the deposition of the leader of Cuba

Kloppo:
I don't engage in whataboutism....

Abrahamovich guilty abi e no guilty,he knew they will definitely come for him,so he came prepared and made contingency plans ready

did he sympathize with the people of Ukraine from his release statement? Did he try to distance himself from Putin or russian govt if he was falsely linked?

Astrid4:
[s][/s]


I don't engage whataboutism...
You have no proof Roman is guilty of any shiii
And him not sympathizing with anyone is his choice, there is something called non alignment. Do you research before spilling trash, a businessman gives no fvck about your politics he only cares about his investment.
Finito

Kloppo:
This naive guy really called his club's darling SUGAR DADDY a "business man that doesn't give a fvck about politics", Ogbeni... he is called a RUSSIAN OLIGARCH for a reason(use your dictionary if you don't know the meaning)...if he is not guilty,why is he stepping down and see whether them no go collect the club for him hand like they have done with his other assets, and can't even step his toes in uk

Werey come be like fugitive but he is not guilty

CAPdan21:
Lol...did u look at your own gif...the angle here is bad/inconclusive, richarlison is not offside there it's not by drawing fancy white line...I've watched the highlights where a better angle was used and he was clearly onside

Android22:
I hope you can see that you are clearly out of your depth. The term devout Christian refers to what some Nigerians call spirikoko. People who are absolutely and inflexibly committed to their faith. They are different from nominal Christians who might fill out a form to state that they are Christians, but do not hold tenaciously to the Christian tenets. For e.g, a nominal Christian might go to church on Sundays or maybe only during Christmas, Lent, Easter, New Year etc but a devout Christian will most likely be in church midweek, for choir practice, every other day etc. Just the way you hear people say "radical muslim" "extremists" etc for certain types of Muslims. And then you have those who pick and choose what to believe about Islam even though they also claim to be muslim. If you still don't see how it applies to you and your version of agnosticism, then free the issue.

A001:
You're delusional. Agnosticism isn't a religion, and that's a fact.

You don't understand the meaning of these words you use.

Agnostics don't do devotions like religious people, and that's they can't be described as devout.

Stop saying nonsense. In most societies, there are religious people (Christians, Muslims, and the likes) and irreligious people (agnostics, atheists, secular humanists called freethinkers generally).

Snap out of delusion.

Android22:
A non-deluded person said devoted people do devotions. So a devoted wife...never mind. Same people who call themselves rationalist and free thinking.
You gave me a good laugh today I tell you. I'll do well to look out for your posts henceforth.

A001:
It's obvious you type before you think. If not, you would know devout is primarily used for religious people.

Its secondary meaning, committed, isn't what you meant in those posts, which is why I said you don't describe an agnostic as devout in that context.

I don't blame you anyway; oyinbo le, especially for a typical religionist who doesn't read books on philosophy.

Android22:
Ok Mister Intelleshual.

Ibime:
Thugberg did what popizaino likes


https://youtube.com/shorts/ExMh2rNRxU0?feature=share

Android22:
I don't know why the truth is paining you like this. So who was keeping Richarlison onside? Answer with your full chest. Did you watch the video itself? Paul Tierney clearly showed by his hands that he was ruling for offside. In my heart of hearts I wished Richarlison scored from that progression of play so that VAR would have just drawn their plenty lines and shown you that the player was offside. The funny thing is, you are ignoring the evidence with your eye and crying foul when the PGMOL even told you that even if Richarlison was not offside, Rodri still did not handle the ball. I thought you'd be happy seeing that it brings back memories like these:

A001:
And Google told you agnosticism is a religion?

Is it a religion in the world of irreligion?

Are you even sure Nairaland isn't also a religion?

Lols.

It's clear you don't know what agnosticism is all about.

WhoDeyHause:
Fouls have been given for this from referees. Ojoro city.

donjazet:
You can understand that not many Chelsea fans like myself would be brave enough to make a distinction between roman and Chelsea.
I can't stop supporting Chelsea because of Roman but I'm not foolish enough to continue to cheer for the criminal despite our shared love of the club.

Any right-thinking Chelsea fan would be able to separate the man from the club. He's a criminal first before anything. A hardened cold-blooded killer who just happened to have a soft side for Chelsea, the same way Escobar had a soft side for animals.

And moreso Abrahmovic owning Chelsea was just a means to an end for him, the same way Escobar built schools and homes for the poor in Medellin. These acts of "generosity" were not altruistic in purpose but a cynical attempt at buying love and public approval for political purposes.

However, we all now know that both are criminal masterminds.

Kloppo:
This naive guy really called his club's darling SUGAR DADDY a "business man that doesn't give a fvck about politics", Ogbeni... he is called a RUSSIAN OLIGARCH for a reason(use your dictionary if you don't know the meaning)...if he is not guilty,why is he stepping down and see whether them no go collect the club for him hand like they have done with his other assets, and he can't even step his toes in uk where his investments are

Werey come be like fugitive but he is not guilty

Amoto94:
Android22 you made your points and expose the inconveniences in the claim of irreligiousness by many who are quick to say we are not religious, religion is about creed/belief followed by acts of devotion. Whatever you believed in and uphold as your creed definitely can be said to be a religion for you anyone trying to distort this fact is only attempting to reverse reality.

A001:
What's the creed of an agnostic?

It's obvious you don't know what a creed is like your delusional friend who sees anything and everything as a religion and devotion.

Agnostics are faithless people because they've no god, no creed, and no religious faith.

Amoto94:
By definition agnostic goes thus, a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. Therefore agnosticism is a belief system thus a religion practised by agnostics.

Amoto94:
By definition agnostic goes thus, a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. Therefore agnosticism is a belief system thus a religion practised by agnostics.

A001:
That's your parochial opinion. Agnosticism isn't a belief system, but a philosophical position or viewpoint.

But then, I know everything is a belief system to delusional people.

Agnostics are unbelievers, skeptics, and heretics.