Aha! But I can twist it in my favor! It is in my brilliant use of the qualifier "by law." I never denied that I want Leeds to go down. (I just said it up there: I just want them to lose.) I want teams to beat them. Absolutely, but I never said they should be automatically relegated by some strange law because they are badly behaved. However, Man City or whoever is high enough in the Fair Play table (which is based only on how many cards you get, not if you win or lose) gets to automatically qualify for Euro championship, even if they're the somewhere in the second half of the EPL, because the better teams (who win through normal means) also have better disciplinary records. All I'm saying is you've somehow equated my wanting a team to lose because they've coddled brutes, with wanting them to be automatically relegated by a law based on behavior alone. And then you've somehow connected that to mean that I should also support a team to automatically be rewarded with Euro qualification not on their game performance (win, lose or draw) but on how many yellow or red cards they can avoid getting. The problem is not my twisting the argument. The problem is you making connections where there are none. Damn, did I tell you I am a highly-paid criminal defense lawyer? And brilliant and breathtakingly good-looking? And also in possession of minty-fresh breath?
worldcup... You said that you wanted Leeds to go down because they have Smith and Bowyer. You SPECIFICALLY said THAT is the reason you wanted Leeds to go down. Because they have disciplinary problems and therefore you hate the whole team and want them to be relegated...not by law as you say, but because they are criminals. So from this, one should be able to infer that you would want teams that have good little boys to be promoted or to be successful, again...not by law as you say, but because they are good little boys and you like good little boys. The point is, pay attention and read carefully now...there was never any mention of teams getting promoted on the Fair Play award! It was teams getting qualified for competitions based on Fair Play. While I agree with you here: Sure, get a nice Fair Play award, maybe a little cash, at the end of the season, hell, every month, but don't make it qualification to then go into a competition where you play for an award.... ...I am not sure why you think it is completely unreasonable for me to say that your thinking is inconsistent...i never said you were a "raving lunatic" about giving someone more than they are due, but in the case of Leeds...you do seem to be quite raving. Surely, even you can admit that wanting a whole team to be relegated because of 2 players and not wanting another team to get qualified for a competition because of good behaviour is a tad off kilter?
But why do you infer that? I said I want Leeds to go down, yes, I want them to be so badly beaten they should be relegated, yes. I just never said that someone should be rewarded for good behavior. There's a Latin name for this, reductio ad absurdum. You took it there, not me. You took one instance and inferred it to the point of absurdity. I never made that claim. Yes, you can infer it. But just because it may work in the mechanics of the logic doesn't mean it is true. You claimed Leeds did so well with those louts, when O'Leary was there. I pointed out they didn't. Because, well, what do they have to show for having them? A gigantic debt and NO silverware. Nothing. Who is being selective here? I also pointed out that O'Leary claimed at least twice that Bowyer and Woodgate's bad behavior damaged their entire season. You said no, no, it was just that he was lamenting their trials. Well, how did they get involved in a trial? Was it some mercurial twist of fate? No, it was a result of their bad behavior! Who's being selective? And that you fail to see the irony of making statements to the effect of "I don't care if a player is a trouble-maker as long as he's talented" while at the same time taking my one assertion to an absolute unimplied absurd end, is the reason you will refuse to acknowledge any argument I make. And what's the point of having a talented player when they get enough yellow cards and red cards to have to sit out a match every four games? At that rate, they would be on the bench at least 25% of an EPL team's games. (And what if they also get into trouble off the pitch? Not that that's ever happened?) The team loses three times: They lose talent and they lose the continuity in a team, as well as the strategic options with that player. My point is that Leeds coasted along on illusions, on thinking they should risk all (dollars, team unity) just for "talented players." That they were "successful" (without winning anything) for just a season does not validate that gamble. You can have tough, rough players, but louts will always cost you. Finally, I decide to have a little fun at the expense of Leeds (everybody has teams they pick on) but you decide to challenge it for any reason you can pick up on. Just because I actually articulate a reason. You don't pick on any one else when they have no reason whatsoever for disliking a team ("Yorkshire twats?") but you proceed to lambaste every argument I have, even where there's proof behind it, taking every effort to require logical solidity, taking every effort to stretch one argument to absolutely absurd conclusions. Who has the personal problem here? I would much rather you just have come out early and said you identify with the players in question. I much warmed to your stories of your coaching experience and could see how you saw yourself in those players. I respect that and have no need to disabuse you of your notions. However, you seem to want to attack everyone of mine. And that is where I took offense.
But I still love you, StarFooker. As long as you keep supporting Liverpool. ;-) "Don't go changing, to try to please me ..."
i am not lambasting anyone...i am still having fun here with this argument... And i did not mean for you to take offense...don't be so sensitive... Also, i am not picking on you...i was just pointing out that you wanted a WHOLE team relegated for a few players...but you did not want to award a WHOLE team for good behaviour. That is the main sticking point here... Can't we just have a discussion without people getting angry?! If you want, i'll start an argument with Buddha, squealy and some others...
I think the fact that they're "Yorkshire twats" is a pretty decent reason for wanting them to be relegated to be fair.
OK, SF, you're right it is nuts. I'm nuts. But it's just as crazy to want a team to be relegated for being "Yorkshire twats". However, there's no arguing that "Yorkshire twats" is a lot more fun that saying "hooligan." So, now I want Leeds to be relegated because they're "Yorkshire twats". Let's have a pint, squealy!
Oi Starfucker! Wanna scrap?
Who you callin' a twat, punk?!
Don't hate me because I'm beautiful. Hahahahahahaha.
Of course, they're Yorkshire Twats until they don the shirt. *Predicts FB will disagree*. :-)
Brilliant.
