Good god...I go away and watch Clerks for a couple of hours and come back to this.
kaizoku said:
I'm talking about the fact that you keep forcing me to reply and reply to elaborate on what is essentially a misunderstanding - perhaps you could just read my posts more carefully or something.
I'm forcing you to reply to anything. If you're certain I'm wrong and that you can't convince me otherwise, stop replying. If you think you can convince me, that's your choice. No forcing. I don't feel you're forcing me to reply, I just choose to. Back when Liverpool were beating Barcelona and someone said some stupid shit about liverpool being cowards I just said it was stupid and that I'd refuse to talk about it beyond that, it's easy enough.
We've come to agree that Messi is untouchable unless some kind of problem occurs. Similar to Gerrard that even when things are horrible, player wants out, club has accepted, theres a buyer willing to smash records and everything is in place, he still winds up staying. Thats how difficult it is to sign players like that. and timing is everything.
You've already said he almost went another time. It can't be that difficult if he almost went elsewhere two summers in a row. As a United fan I'm surprised you don't see how quickly everything can go from Old Trafford hero to out the door.
you say he stayed because of the contract offer - why did he stay the first time round then? there was no contract offer then...oh but wait I have already been "pwned" thats just great.
Man, don't act so put upon. I never said you were owned, I never said anything like that. I've not been dismissive once, every point I've made I've made fully. Who knows why he stayed the first time round, the argument isn't whether he stayed or went because of death threats, the argument is whether or not he's untouchable. And if he almost went twice, he's not untouchable.
none of us are club officials. if you say I believe the press - who are you believing? we all get our stories from somewhere, i choose to believe certain stories and you choose others, doesnt make either of us anymore more right or wrong.
I believe what the people involved say, so long as it fits the events and there's nothing to make me suspicious. The press are in it for the press, they'll write whatever they feel will sell the most papers. They have no chance of being closer to the situation than the people themselves. I happen to think most people tell the truth about these things. Not always, but I'll keep my faith in people unless there's something out of place to make me think otherwise.
all the while pricks like ryck keep having immature little digs at me.
Well, at least you took the higher ground.
I'm a man utd fan, we have more bullshit written than anyone else, I am well versed in filtering out the lies from what may be the truth. and my interpretation from everything i have heard and read is that gerrard loves the club but he truly wanted to leave to win something but he was forced to stay as he feared for his family becoming unsettled, children bullied in school etc etc. then they won stuff and he was happy to accept the situation and sign a new deal. in my eyes that is perfectly human and not sensational at all.
I don't quite understand. Are you arguing my side of the argument now? You're supposed to be arguing that someone like Gerrard is unotuchable, yet you've just said in this quote that he wanted to leave to win things at one point. How is that untouchable, players who want to leave aren't untouchable.
As for your interpretation of everything you've read...you either haven't read the quotes about the contract I posted, or you're interpretation of those quotes is seriously different to mine.
I dont think thats even the point of view expressed by the media as its rather combustuous, its just my intuition and what many other football fans feel may have happened, its probably the most normal and reasonable explanation there is. liverpool really were in a bad position at the time having lost owen etc, the big guns were jumping ship.
Again, you've switched sides in the argument, we've gotten so caught up in this that you're actually arguing that Gerrard was touchable now. You're supposed to be arguing he's not.
I'm not interested in a debate about arsenals youth set up, i'm just tired of getting flamed for relaying news that people dont like hearing.
Then why even bring it up! Just to get more flames? Are you trying to provoke people?
I had a debate with mama - why is it he fails to get through to me? he happens to be wrong and I have failed to get through to him thank you very much.
See, this is where most of us fall down. You're having this debate because you're convinced you're right. I'm having this debate to see whether I'm right, to see if there's another point of view that will find faults in my opinion. So far, you've not said anything to change my mind. But I'll carry on, because you might.
Conviction in one's opinions is cheap. Conviction means nothing. Around the world, everyday people have arguments with opposing points of view. They might
both be wrong, but the only certainty is they're not both right. Yet they're both convinced they are. The very nature of thought means that we cannot see what we cannot see. Until one of them can see what the other sees, they will continue to believe their own opinions with absolute conviction.
And it won't matter if you point out to most people that their conviction means nothing, that the other person's conviction is equally strong, they'll say "yeah...but they're wrong", not even realising that that's the conviction that's worthless.
So when we say "you're wrong", it's a delusion. It means nothing, it;s purely based on conviiction. Most people think somehow, out of the billions of people on earth, they've hit the jackpot. They know what's good and what's bad, they know what's right and what's wrong, and that if they could just convince everyone else to see things properly, that they'd realise it too.
What they should be doing is doubting their own opinions. Not thinking they're wrong, but thinking they might be wrong. Conviction should be removed entirely from the process. A debate should go on, like we're having here, to see if there's anything else anyone hasn't thought of or hasn't seen. If it's something that can have evidence (unlike, say, religion), that should be put forward, like I did with those quotes. We're all football fans and heavily into it so this isn't really applicable here as it'd be too difficult to measure who has the greater knowledge and understanding of the game, but experts should be listened to and you're opinion should be checked against theirs. Because, hard as it is for people to believe, opinions are not equal. A person with greater knowledge and experience on a subject will have an opinion worth far more than a layman. The layman should feel free to express his opinion, but if it differs that much from the expert, s/he needs to look at why.
So getting back to the subject, when you just outright say I'm wrong, that's just conviction talking. If you're debating with me to convince me you're right, it's not likely to be productive. If you're debating with me to question your own opinion to further your understanding of the matter at hand, I think we'll really get somewhere.
It's difficult, I'll admit I'm still guilty of conviction in my opinions sometimes. I always try and look at it the other way, but I catch myself slipping up. I'm sure I've done it in this topic, maybe even in this debate. But I don't argue to convince you you're wrong, I argue to get to get to the truth of the matter, to find out what the actual answer is.
Sorry to go so heavy on everyone in a football topic, but I'm never shy from talking about this. I feel the world would be a better place if everyone questioned their opinions rather than put them forwards with such conviction...and maybe talking about it in a football topic on a gaming forum won't change anything, but it won't hurt.
until next time!