0-0 away at Arsenal would be a good result or a disgrace?

[mr_nool]

I've stood up for Roger (although doubting him being for real for a while when he first started posted) and actually used to really enjoy his posts. With a bit of patience, plenty of humour and a bit of imagination, it's not all too hard to understand what he is saying. I agree that some posters might have had too little patience with him, but lately he's been acting quite badly. Mancio is very confrontational, it's almost exclusively he who starts bringing personal abuse into the arguments, he is very rancourous and simply won't let things go. I really hope he's father will be alright, but if he chooses to use this forum to blow off steam / take his mind off his family situation, he should be prepared for getting abuse back when dishing it out. That's my two pence, at least.

I really don’t wanna polemize even with people I like and respect, but [highlight]I didn’t know that rain came before thunder and lightening in Holland![/highlight]..... Erik, Mate.
Same as per the bastard above , I really wanna quit but I will never let anyone fix the last lie about me.
I can see You may have some “Wonder-Due” to be paid off, but c’mon!
I am very well paid to make professional litigations and definitely I don’t need a couple of ill-instructed xenophobes in order "to blow off steam" out of my personal contingencies, FFS!



L. ANNAEI SENECAE EPISTULARUM MORALIUM AD LUCILIUM, I, V, 1-9
[1] Quod pertinaciter studes et omnibus omissis hoc unum agis, ut te meliorem cotidie facias, et probo et gaudeo, nec tantum hortor ut perseveres sed etiam rogo. Illud autem te admoneo, ne eorum more qui non proficere sed conspici cupiunt facias aliqua quae in habitu tuo aut genere vitae notabilia sint; [2] asperum cultum et intonsum caput et neglegentiorem barbam et indictum argento odium et cubile humi positum et quidquid aliud ambitionem perversa via sequitur evita. Satis ipsum nomen philosophiae, etiam si modeste tractetur, invidiosum est: quid si nos hominum consuetudini coeperimus excerpere? Intus omnia dissimilia sint, frons populo nostra conveniat. [3] Non splendeat toga, ne sordeat quidem; non habeamus argentum in quod solidi auri caelatura descenderit, sed non putemus frugalitatis indicium auro argentoque caruisse. Id agamus ut meliorem vitam sequamur quam vulgus, non ut contrariam: alioquin quos emendari volumus fugamus a nobis et avertimus; illud quoque efficimus, ut nihil imitari velint nostri, dum timent ne imitanda sint omnia. [4] Hoc primum philosophia promittit, sensum communem, humanitatem et congregationem; a qua professione dissimilitudo nos separabit. Videamus ne ista per quae admirationem parare volumus ridicula et odiosa sint. Nempe propositum nostrum est secundum naturam vivere: hoc contra naturam est, torquere corpus suum et faciles odisse munditias et squalorem appetere et cibis non tantum vilibus uti sed taetris et horridis. [5] Quemadmodum desiderare delicatas res luxuriae est, ita usitatas et non magno parabiles fugere dementiae. Frugalitatem exigit philosophia, non poenam; potest autem esse non incompta frugalitas. Hic mihi modus placet: temperetur vita inter bonos mores et publicos; suspiciant omnes vitam nostram sed agnoscant. [6] 'Quid ergo? eadem faciemus quae ceteri? nihil inter nos et illos intererit?' Plurimum: dissimiles esse nos vulgo sciat qui inspexerit propius; qui domum intraverit nos potius miretur quam supellectilem nostram. Magnus ille est qui fictilibus sic utitur quemadmodum argento, nec ille minor est qui sic argento utitur quemadmodum fictilibus; infirmi animi est pati non posse divitias.
[7] Sed ut huius quoque diei lucellum tecum communicem, apud Hecatonem nostrum inveni cupiditatum finem etiam ad timoris remedia proficere. 'Desines' inquit 'timere, si sperare desieris.' Dices, 'quomodo ista tam diversa pariter sunt?' Ita est, mi Lucili: cum videantur dissidere, coniuncta sunt. Quemadmodum eadem catena et custodiam et militem copulat, sic ista quae tam dissimilia sunt pariter incedunt: spem metus sequitur. [8] Nec miror ista sic ire: utrumque pendentis animi est, utrumque futuri exspectatione solliciti. Maxima autem utriusque causa est quod non ad praesentia aptamur sed cogitationes in longinqua praemittimus; itaque providentia, maximum bonum condicionis humanae, in malum versa est. [9] Ferae pericula quae vident fugiunt, cum effugere, securae sunt: nos et venturo torquemur et praeterito. Multa bona nostra nobis nocent; timoris enim tormentum memoria reducit, providentia anticipat; nemo tantum praesentibus miser est.[highlight]Vale.[/highlight]

I stand by what I wrote earlier. Someone criticising Mancini is not having a go at you personally.
And I'm certainly not going to bother finding a translation of a fucking Seneca letter, just to try to decipher who you are insulting how.

[brite blu sky]

I know from my own experience this forum can be a harsh place for dickheads. I used this, it was fun and it really helped me.

LINK

ps. i cheated a bit and took a photo of myself in the end.. but y'know it is the spirit of the thing that counts.

[Swales4ever]

I've stood up for Roger (although doubting him being for real for a while when he first started posted) and actually used to really enjoy his posts. With a bit of patience, plenty of humour and a bit of imagination, it's not all too hard to understand what he is saying. I agree that some posters might have had too little patience with him, but lately he's been acting quite badly. Mancio is very confrontational, it's almost exclusively he who starts bringing personal abuse into the arguments, he is very rancourous and simply won't let things go. I really hope he's father will be alright, but if he chooses to use this forum to blow off steam / take his mind off his family situation, he should be prepared for getting abuse back when dishing it out. That's my two pence, at least.

I really don’t wanna polemize even with people I like and respect, but [highlight]I didn’t know that rain came before thunder and lightening in Holland![/highlight]..... Erik, Mate.
Same as per the bastard above , I really wanna quit but I will never let anyone fix the last lie about me.
I can see You may have some “Wonder-Due” to be paid off, but c’mon!
I am very well paid to make professional litigations and definitely I don’t need a couple of ill-instructed xenophobes in order "to blow off steam" out of my personal contingencies, FFS!



L. ANNAEI SENECAE EPISTULARUM MORALIUM AD LUCILIUM, I, V, 1-9
[1] Quod pertinaciter studes et omnibus omissis hoc unum agis, ut te meliorem cotidie facias, et probo et gaudeo, nec tantum hortor ut perseveres sed etiam rogo. Illud autem te admoneo, ne eorum more qui non proficere sed conspici cupiunt facias aliqua quae in habitu tuo aut genere vitae notabilia sint; [2] asperum cultum et intonsum caput et neglegentiorem barbam et indictum argento odium et cubile humi positum et quidquid aliud ambitionem perversa via sequitur evita. Satis ipsum nomen philosophiae, etiam si modeste tractetur, invidiosum est: quid si nos hominum consuetudini coeperimus excerpere? Intus omnia dissimilia sint, frons populo nostra conveniat. [3] Non splendeat toga, ne sordeat quidem; non habeamus argentum in quod solidi auri caelatura descenderit, sed non putemus frugalitatis indicium auro argentoque caruisse. Id agamus ut meliorem vitam sequamur quam vulgus, non ut contrariam: alioquin quos emendari volumus fugamus a nobis et avertimus; illud quoque efficimus, ut nihil imitari velint nostri, dum timent ne imitanda sint omnia. [4] Hoc primum philosophia promittit, sensum communem, humanitatem et congregationem; a qua professione dissimilitudo nos separabit. Videamus ne ista per quae admirationem parare volumus ridicula et odiosa sint. Nempe propositum nostrum est secundum naturam vivere: hoc contra naturam est, torquere corpus suum et faciles odisse munditias et squalorem appetere et cibis non tantum vilibus uti sed taetris et horridis. [5] Quemadmodum desiderare delicatas res luxuriae est, ita usitatas et non magno parabiles fugere dementiae. Frugalitatem exigit philosophia, non poenam; potest autem esse non incompta frugalitas. Hic mihi modus placet: temperetur vita inter bonos mores et publicos; suspiciant omnes vitam nostram sed agnoscant. [6] 'Quid ergo? eadem faciemus quae ceteri? nihil inter nos et illos intererit?' Plurimum: dissimiles esse nos vulgo sciat qui inspexerit propius; qui domum intraverit nos potius miretur quam supellectilem nostram. Magnus ille est qui fictilibus sic utitur quemadmodum argento, nec ille minor est qui sic argento utitur quemadmodum fictilibus; infirmi animi est pati non posse divitias.
[7] Sed ut huius quoque diei lucellum tecum communicem, apud Hecatonem nostrum inveni cupiditatum finem etiam ad timoris remedia proficere. 'Desines' inquit 'timere, si sperare desieris.' Dices, 'quomodo ista tam diversa pariter sunt?' Ita est, mi Lucili: cum videantur dissidere, coniuncta sunt. Quemadmodum eadem catena et custodiam et militem copulat, sic ista quae tam dissimilia sunt pariter incedunt: spem metus sequitur. [8] Nec miror ista sic ire: utrumque pendentis animi est, utrumque futuri exspectatione solliciti. Maxima autem utriusque causa est quod non ad praesentia aptamur sed cogitationes in longinqua praemittimus; itaque providentia, maximum bonum condicionis humanae, in malum versa est. [9] Ferae pericula quae vident fugiunt, cum effugere, securae sunt: nos et venturo torquemur et praeterito. Multa bona nostra nobis nocent; timoris enim tormentum memoria reducit, providentia anticipat; nemo tantum praesentibus miser est.[highlight]Vale.[/highlight]

I stand by what I wrote earlier. Someone criticising Mancini is not having a go at you personally.
And I'm certainly not going to bother finding a translation of a fucking Seneca letter, just to try to decipher who you are insulting how.

I do respect what You feel and stand for, because I do respect You.

I know You like to be very concise, which is very popular nowadays, but sometimes not so useful.
I am sure You do understand what pretend You don’t. I am also sure that when You meet a person in the real life, You stand for what You see, starting from the business card up to the figures he does offer for Your free and wise assessment. You don’t take 6 months to argue which of Your fellow directors is sending You a kind of Vhero in disguise in order to undermine Your good job or to joke at You / Your authoruty.
In a nutshell and because I like You: the Seneca letter is not an insult at You and/or at Your friends/ forum’s principals. It is, or better was, a friendly, missed attempt to drive You a reflection on a long serving manner to look at the the life: live up the present, made up Yr. Assessment by the experience You live, don’t wank Your mind with what m8 turn to be if this will turn to be that, and so on.

It’s not the first time, neither the second that You, dear Mate, pretend not to be in the knowledge that I did present myself very politely and full of humble respect onto this forum, trying very hard for at least 6 months to offer only football issues for debating.
Every argument I posed has already become true by now and by the way. (apart for the 4-2-3-1 formation which will take another few months to be fully deployed). Apart from a couple of attempt from Ted, Dubber and DH to shut me up in the very early, I have only been snobbed and slunk off.
Only after that long lasting service, I did decide to show off that I am pretty able pay the others with the same shit.
Incidentally, all those gentlemen who took so much trouble to show me that the only language available here is that from the urban dictonary, suddenly started to understand me and to accuse me to be a rude boy not interested in debating football....
I know it, You know too, that is why I dared ask You if rain comes ahead thunders in Holland, Fellow.

You know Erik, there is a footy pundit on this forum, once known as Ted, who was man enough to show all his disappointment for the sacking of Leslie by changing is nick to Ted Hughes: a typical show off, I’d say.
Now, this Chap not only know football like a coach, but also holds the rare gift to explain it like a professional football writer. I’d say it’s only by fate that he does not earn his beans as Football Editor at a National paper.
Now, according to Your argument, he is Hughes , whilst I am Mancio with a derogative attitude.... can You offer me any evidence of just a single case in which I insulted him for “being critical toward Bobby”? On the contrary, I could copy several occasions when, even if I didn’t agree completely with him (prob. cuz of my faulty limits) I presented my hat off his fine football analysis and arguments. That is why, any time I am not completely sure of my football argument, I look for his view on the specific issue: a milestone, I’d say.

Cicero once said: “Rem tene, verba sequantur”. [Don’t bother to translate it to find out who I am trying to insult...], it means: “You don’t have to worry how fine is Your language if You own the argument You want to talk”

Cheers

[Swales4ever]

I know from my own experience this forum can be a harsh place for dickheads. I used this, it was fun and it really helped me.

LINK

ps. i cheated a bit and took a photo of myself in the end.. but y'know it is the spirit of the thing that counts.

That’s definitely a better suggestion than usual. Even closer to goal, maybe....
Hat off for that, Mr. B.

[john68]

Mancio,
Whilst this place can sometimes be extremely uncompromising and unforgiving, it can at other times be very accommodating and can forgive very quickly. That was why, some time ago I suggested to your good self and also those involved in a previous confrontation with you, that you should consider the final whistle blown on the argument and that whoever considered they had won or lost, should accept that and move on.
Arguments, especially heated and venemous ones can be amusing, for a short time, but then become like a virus. they affect others, they infect the threads (as this one) and they lower the level of debate, discussion and humour. They detract from the usual good experience on here for others not involved in the argument.
I understand that we are all human and try to defend our positons but confrontation is only entertaining for others for a short time.

Both Ted and BBS are highly regarded posters, for their analytical insight and thoughtful opinions. Carl is...well Carl is Carl and usually highly amusing and well loved. When you are posting in rational debate, you too are thought provoking and often very insightful. It is almost criminal that because of these confrontations, that these qualities are lost to unecessary silly public mud slinging at each other.

We all receive insults on here. Personally, I am an old senile fucler, who posts stats containing the wrong numbers. I get told. I accept it and usually smile. This place can be very forgiving mate. Friendships mend quite easily with a smile.

Luv n hugs.
John

[Socrates]

Mancio,
Whilst this place can sometimes be extremely uncompromising and unforgiving, it can at other times be very accommodating and can forgive very quickly. That was why, some time ago I suggested to your good self and also those involved in a previous confrontation with you, that you should consider the final whistle blown on the argument and that whoever considered they had won or lost, should accept that and move on.
Arguments, especially heated and venemous ones can be amusing, for a short time, but then become like a virus. they affect others, they infect the threads (as this one) and they lower the level of debate, discussion and humour. They detract from the usual good experience on here for others not involved in the argument.
I understand that we are all human and try to defend our positons but confrontation is only entertaining for others for a short time.

Both Ted and BBS are highly regarded posters, for their analytical insight and thoughtful opinions. Carl is...well Carl is Carl and usually highly amusing and well loved. When you are posting in rational debate, you too are thought provoking and often very insightful. It is almost criminal that because of these confrontations, that these qualities are lost to unecessary silly public mud slinging at each other.

We all receive insults on here. Personally, I am an old senile fucler, who posts stats containing the wrong numbers. I get told. I accept it and usually smile. This place can be very forgiving mate. Friendships mend quite easily with a smile.

Luv n hugs.
John

Problem with the analogy of the argument to a football match is that it has demonstrated that the referee is a wanker and that Carl is head of a firm of hooligans intent on bullying someone off the board because he doesn't fit their idea of what a City fan should be - presumably an ill educated working class Mancunian? The complicity of some of the stewards in allowing this hooliganism would be shocking if it weren't so typical. I always enjoy M4E's posts in spite of the jumbled up English. You just have to let them flow over you to get the meaning. The quote above "don't wank your mind" made me spit my coffee out this morning. I'm sure there must be more than you and I that can enjoy that? It's pure poetry!

Rog, please stick around - concentrate on putting your understanding of Mancini's vision across and just ignore the fools that bring this forum down to such a base level.

[brite blu sky]

Mancio,
Whilst this place can sometimes be extremely uncompromising and unforgiving, it can at other times be very accommodating and can forgive very quickly. That was why, some time ago I suggested to your good self and also those involved in a previous confrontation with you, that you should consider the final whistle blown on the argument and that whoever considered they had won or lost, should accept that and move on.
Arguments, especially heated and venemous ones can be amusing, for a short time, but then become like a virus. they affect others, they infect the threads (as this one) and they lower the level of debate, discussion and humour. They detract from the usual good experience on here for others not involved in the argument.
I understand that we are all human and try to defend our positons but confrontation is only entertaining for others for a short time.

Both Ted and BBS are highly regarded posters, for their analytical insight and thoughtful opinions. Carl is...well Carl is Carl and usually highly amusing and well loved. When you are posting in rational debate, you too are thought provoking and often very insightful. It is almost criminal that because of these confrontations, that these qualities are lost to unecessary silly public mud slinging at each other.

We all receive insults on here. Personally, I am an old senile fucler, who posts stats containing the wrong numbers. I get told. I accept it and usually smile. This place can be very forgiving mate. Friendships mend quite easily with a smile.

Luv n hugs.
John

Problem with the analogy of the argument to a football match is that it has demonstrated that the referee is a wanker and that Carl is head of a firm of hooligans intent on bullying someone off the board because he doesn't fit their idea of what a City fan should be - presumably an ill educated working class Mancunian? The complicity of some of the stewards in allowing this hooliganism would be shocking if it weren't so typical. I always enjoy M4E's posts in spite of the jumbled up English. You just have to let them flow over you to get the meaning. The quote above "don't wank your mind" made me spit my coffee out this morning. I'm sure there must be more than you and I that can enjoy that? It's pure poetry!

Rog, please stick around - concentrate on putting your understanding of Mancini's vision across and just ignore the fools that bring this forum down to such a base level.

The irony is that you are doing exactly the thing you are complaining about, and so is M4E.. you just think you are hiding it or above it because you believe you are being eloquent. Imo that is a trap that a lot of Uni Cunts fall into and if you cant say it in a simple way then you need to go back to the terraces and re-learn the basics and understand that the idea of an us and them only exists in our own minds and any attempt to cover the tracks of basic thinking through overblown language is just being pompous and is the source of the term Pompous Twit.

just sayin'

[Ted Hughes]

I've stood up for Roger (although doubting him being for real for a while when he first started posted) and actually used to really enjoy his posts. With a bit of patience, plenty of humour and a bit of imagination, it's not all too hard to understand what he is saying. I agree that some posters might have had too little patience with him, but lately he's been acting quite badly. Mancio is very confrontational, it's almost exclusively he who starts bringing personal abuse into the arguments, he is very rancourous and simply won't let things go. I really hope he's father will be alright, but if he chooses to use this forum to blow off steam / take his mind off his family situation, he should be prepared for getting abuse back when dishing it out. That's my two pence, at least.

I really don’t wanna polemize even with people I like and respect, but [highlight]I didn’t know that rain came before thunder and lightening in Holland![/highlight]..... Erik, Mate.
Same as per the bastard above , I really wanna quit but I will never let anyone fix the last lie about me.
I can see You may have some “Wonder-Due” to be paid off, but c’mon!
I am very well paid to make professional litigations and definitely I don’t need a couple of ill-instructed xenophobes in order "to blow off steam" out of my personal contingencies, FFS!



L. ANNAEI SENECAE EPISTULARUM MORALIUM AD LUCILIUM, I, V, 1-9
[1] Quod pertinaciter studes et omnibus omissis hoc unum agis, ut te meliorem cotidie facias, et probo et gaudeo, nec tantum hortor ut perseveres sed etiam rogo. Illud autem te admoneo, ne eorum more qui non proficere sed conspici cupiunt facias aliqua quae in habitu tuo aut genere vitae notabilia sint; [2] asperum cultum et intonsum caput et neglegentiorem barbam et indictum argento odium et cubile humi positum et quidquid aliud ambitionem perversa via sequitur evita. Satis ipsum nomen philosophiae, etiam si modeste tractetur, invidiosum est: quid si nos hominum consuetudini coeperimus excerpere? Intus omnia dissimilia sint, frons populo nostra conveniat. [3] Non splendeat toga, ne sordeat quidem; non habeamus argentum in quod solidi auri caelatura descenderit, sed non putemus frugalitatis indicium auro argentoque caruisse. Id agamus ut meliorem vitam sequamur quam vulgus, non ut contrariam: alioquin quos emendari volumus fugamus a nobis et avertimus; illud quoque efficimus, ut nihil imitari velint nostri, dum timent ne imitanda sint omnia. [4] Hoc primum philosophia promittit, sensum communem, humanitatem et congregationem; a qua professione dissimilitudo nos separabit. Videamus ne ista per quae admirationem parare volumus ridicula et odiosa sint. Nempe propositum nostrum est secundum naturam vivere: hoc contra naturam est, torquere corpus suum et faciles odisse munditias et squalorem appetere et cibis non tantum vilibus uti sed taetris et horridis. [5] Quemadmodum desiderare delicatas res luxuriae est, ita usitatas et non magno parabiles fugere dementiae. Frugalitatem exigit philosophia, non poenam; potest autem esse non incompta frugalitas. Hic mihi modus placet: temperetur vita inter bonos mores et publicos; suspiciant omnes vitam nostram sed agnoscant. [6] 'Quid ergo? eadem faciemus quae ceteri? nihil inter nos et illos intererit?' Plurimum: dissimiles esse nos vulgo sciat qui inspexerit propius; qui domum intraverit nos potius miretur quam supellectilem nostram. Magnus ille est qui fictilibus sic utitur quemadmodum argento, nec ille minor est qui sic argento utitur quemadmodum fictilibus; infirmi animi est pati non posse divitias.
[7] Sed ut huius quoque diei lucellum tecum communicem, apud Hecatonem nostrum inveni cupiditatum finem etiam ad timoris remedia proficere. 'Desines' inquit 'timere, si sperare desieris.' Dices, 'quomodo ista tam diversa pariter sunt?' Ita est, mi Lucili: cum videantur dissidere, coniuncta sunt. Quemadmodum eadem catena et custodiam et militem copulat, sic ista quae tam dissimilia sunt pariter incedunt: spem metus sequitur. [8] Nec miror ista sic ire: utrumque pendentis animi est, utrumque futuri exspectatione solliciti. Maxima autem utriusque causa est quod non ad praesentia aptamur sed cogitationes in longinqua praemittimus; itaque providentia, maximum bonum condicionis humanae, in malum versa est. [9] Ferae pericula quae vident fugiunt, cum effugere, securae sunt: nos et venturo torquemur et praeterito. Multa bona nostra nobis nocent; timoris enim tormentum memoria reducit, providentia anticipat; nemo tantum praesentibus miser est.[highlight]Vale.[/highlight]

I stand by what I wrote earlier. Someone criticising Mancini is not having a go at you personally.
And I'm certainly not going to bother finding a translation of a fucking Seneca letter, just to try to decipher who you are insulting how.

I do respect what You feel and stand for, because I do respect You.

I know You like to be very concise, which is very popular nowadays, but sometimes not so useful.
I am sure You do understand what pretend You don’t. I am also sure that when You meet a person in the real life, You stand for what You see, starting from the business card up to the figures he does offer for Your free and wise assessment. You don’t take 6 months to argue which of Your fellow directors is sending You a kind of Vhero in disguise in order to undermine Your good job or to joke at You / Your authoruty.
In a nutshell and because I like You: the Seneca letter is not an insult at You and/or at Your friends/ forum’s principals. It is, or better was, a friendly, missed attempt to drive You a reflection on a long serving manner to look at the the life: live up the present, made up Yr. Assessment by the experience You live, don’t wank Your mind with what m8 turn to be if this will turn to be that, and so on.

It’s not the first time, neither the second that You, dear Mate, pretend not to be in the knowledge that I did present myself very politely and full of humble respect onto this forum, trying very hard for at least 6 months to offer only football issues for debating.
Every argument I posed has already become true by now and by the way. (apart for the 4-2-3-1 formation which will take another few months to be fully deployed). Apart from a couple of attempt from Ted, Dubber and DH to shut me up in the very early, I have only been snobbed and slunk off.
Only after that long lasting service, I did decide to show off that I am pretty able pay the others with the same shit.
Incidentally, all those gentlemen who took so much trouble to show me that the only language available here is that from the urban dictonary, suddenly started to understand me and to accuse me to be a rude boy not interested in debating football....
I know it, You know too, that is why I dared ask You if rain comes ahead thunders in Holland, Fellow.

You know Erik, there is a footy pundit on this forum, once known as Ted, who was man enough to show all his disappointment for the sacking of Leslie by changing is nick to Ted Hughes: a typical show off, I’d say.
Now, this Chap not only know football like a coach, but also holds the rare gift to explain it like a professional football writer. I’d say it’s only by fate that he does not earn his beans as Football Editor at a National paper.
Now, according to Your argument, he is Hughes , whilst I am Mancio with a derogative attitude.... can You offer me any evidence of just a single case in which I insulted him for “being critical toward Bobby”? On the contrary, I could copy several occasions when, even if I didn’t agree completely with him (prob. cuz of my faulty limits) I presented my hat off his fine football analysis and arguments. That is why, any time I am not completely sure of my football argument, I look for his view on the specific issue: a milestone, I’d say.

Cicero once said: “Rem tene, verba sequantur”. [Don’t bother to translate it to find out who I am trying to insult...], it means: “You don’t have to worry how fine is Your language if You own the argument You want to talk”

Cheers

Hey Mancio I'm not either a Hughes or Mancini supporter, I'm just a City supporter who doesn't like sacking managers! I actually think Mancini is mostly doing better now than Hughes probably would have done but some of the things he's done I strongly disagree with & I say so.

Anyhow I hope you stick around as I enjoy a bit of banter with you & as I've said before, don't take everything so personally, just take it all with a pinch of salt, as we say.

[Socrates]

Mancio,
Whilst this place can sometimes be extremely uncompromising and unforgiving, it can at other times be very accommodating and can forgive very quickly. That was why, some time ago I suggested to your good self and also those involved in a previous confrontation with you, that you should consider the final whistle blown on the argument and that whoever considered they had won or lost, should accept that and move on.
Arguments, especially heated and venemous ones can be amusing, for a short time, but then become like a virus. they affect others, they infect the threads (as this one) and they lower the level of debate, discussion and humour. They detract from the usual good experience on here for others not involved in the argument.
I understand that we are all human and try to defend our positons but confrontation is only entertaining for others for a short time.

Both Ted and BBS are highly regarded posters, for their analytical insight and thoughtful opinions. Carl is...well Carl is Carl and usually highly amusing and well loved. When you are posting in rational debate, you too are thought provoking and often very insightful. It is almost criminal that because of these confrontations, that these qualities are lost to unecessary silly public mud slinging at each other.

We all receive insults on here. Personally, I am an old senile fucler, who posts stats containing the wrong numbers. I get told. I accept it and usually smile. This place can be very forgiving mate. Friendships mend quite easily with a smile.

Luv n hugs.
John

Problem with the analogy of the argument to a football match is that it has demonstrated that the referee is a wanker and that Carl is head of a firm of hooligans intent on bullying someone off the board because he doesn't fit their idea of what a City fan should be - presumably an ill educated working class Mancunian? The complicity of some of the stewards in allowing this hooliganism would be shocking if it weren't so typical. I always enjoy M4E's posts in spite of the jumbled up English. You just have to let them flow over you to get the meaning. The quote above "don't wank your mind" made me spit my coffee out this morning. I'm sure there must be more than you and I that can enjoy that? It's pure poetry!

Rog, please stick around - concentrate on putting your understanding of Mancini's vision across and just ignore the fools that bring this forum down to such a base level.

The irony is that you are doing exactly the thing you are complaining about, and so is M4E.. you just think you are hiding it or above it because you believe you are being eloquent. Imo that is a trap that a lot of Uni Cunts fall into and if you cant say it in a simple way then you need to go back to the terraces and re-learn the basics and understand that the idea of an us and them only exists in our own minds and any attempt to cover the tracks of basic thinking through overblown language is just being pompous and is the source of the term Pompous Twit.

just sayin'

There you go. Chip, shoulder. Shame really.

[mr_nool]

Mancio,
Whilst this place can sometimes be extremely uncompromising and unforgiving, it can at other times be very accommodating and can forgive very quickly. That was why, some time ago I suggested to your good self and also those involved in a previous confrontation with you, that you should consider the final whistle blown on the argument and that whoever considered they had won or lost, should accept that and move on.
Arguments, especially heated and venemous ones can be amusing, for a short time, but then become like a virus. they affect others, they infect the threads (as this one) and they lower the level of debate, discussion and humour. They detract from the usual good experience on here for others not involved in the argument.
I understand that we are all human and try to defend our positons but confrontation is only entertaining for others for a short time.

Both Ted and BBS are highly regarded posters, for their analytical insight and thoughtful opinions. Carl is...well Carl is Carl and usually highly amusing and well loved. When you are posting in rational debate, you too are thought provoking and often very insightful. It is almost criminal that because of these confrontations, that these qualities are lost to unecessary silly public mud slinging at each other.

We all receive insults on here. Personally, I am an old senile fucler, who posts stats containing the wrong numbers. I get told. I accept it and usually smile. This place can be very forgiving mate. Friendships mend quite easily with a smile.

Luv n hugs.
John

Problem with the analogy of the argument to a football match is that it has demonstrated that the referee is a wanker and that Carl is head of a firm of hooligans intent on bullying someone off the board because he doesn't fit their idea of what a City fan should be - presumably an ill educated working class Mancunian? The complicity of some of the stewards in allowing this hooliganism would be shocking if it weren't so typical. I always enjoy M4E's posts in spite of the jumbled up English. You just have to let them flow over you to get the meaning. The quote above "don't wank your mind" made me spit my coffee out this morning. I'm sure there must be more than you and I that can enjoy that? It's pure poetry!

Rog, please stick around - concentrate on putting your understanding of Mancini's vision across and just ignore the fools that bring this forum down to such a base level.

I want Roger to stay on board as well, and as I've pointed out I do enjoy (most of) his posts. He does know his football. But fact remains: he needs to learn not to take everything personal and to cut down on the personal abuse. And most of all, he needs to stop with the downright silly threats of legal action, etc.

[brite blu sky]

Mancio,
Whilst this place can sometimes be extremely uncompromising and unforgiving, it can at other times be very accommodating and can forgive very quickly. That was why, some time ago I suggested to your good self and also those involved in a previous confrontation with you, that you should consider the final whistle blown on the argument and that whoever considered they had won or lost, should accept that and move on.
Arguments, especially heated and venemous ones can be amusing, for a short time, but then become like a virus. they affect others, they infect the threads (as this one) and they lower the level of debate, discussion and humour. They detract from the usual good experience on here for others not involved in the argument.
I understand that we are all human and try to defend our positons but confrontation is only entertaining for others for a short time.

Both Ted and BBS are highly regarded posters, for their analytical insight and thoughtful opinions. Carl is...well Carl is Carl and usually highly amusing and well loved. When you are posting in rational debate, you too are thought provoking and often very insightful. It is almost criminal that because of these confrontations, that these qualities are lost to unecessary silly public mud slinging at each other.

We all receive insults on here. Personally, I am an old senile fucler, who posts stats containing the wrong numbers. I get told. I accept it and usually smile. This place can be very forgiving mate. Friendships mend quite easily with a smile.

Luv n hugs.
John

Problem with the analogy of the argument to a football match is that it has demonstrated that the referee is a wanker and that Carl is head of a firm of hooligans intent on bullying someone off the board because he doesn't fit their idea of what a City fan should be - presumably an ill educated working class Mancunian? The complicity of some of the stewards in allowing this hooliganism would be shocking if it weren't so typical. I always enjoy M4E's posts in spite of the jumbled up English. You just have to let them flow over you to get the meaning. The quote above "don't wank your mind" made me spit my coffee out this morning. I'm sure there must be more than you and I that can enjoy that? It's pure poetry!

Rog, please stick around - concentrate on putting your understanding of Mancini's vision across and just ignore the fools that bring this forum down to such a base level.

The irony is that you are doing exactly the thing you are complaining about, and so is M4E.. you just think you are hiding it or above it because you believe you are being eloquent. Imo that is a trap that a lot of Uni Cunts fall into and if you cant say it in a simple way then you need to go back to the terraces and re-learn the basics and understand that the idea of an us and them only exists in our own minds and any attempt to cover the tracks of basic thinking through overblown language is just being pompous and is the source of the term Pompous Twit.

just sayin'

There you go. Chip, shoulder. Shame really.

Would be if i didn't have a BA and a Masters from one of the best colleges in London, Socrates old chum. Certainly doesn't make me any better than anyone else though.

[Chinners]

Cheers, this thread has given me an idea for a new feature in the bollox .. POSTER FACING LEGAL ACTION OF THE DAY BOLLOX ....

[Socrates]

Mancio,
Whilst this place can sometimes be extremely uncompromising and unforgiving, it can at other times be very accommodating and can forgive very quickly. That was why, some time ago I suggested to your good self and also those involved in a previous confrontation with you, that you should consider the final whistle blown on the argument and that whoever considered they had won or lost, should accept that and move on.
Arguments, especially heated and venemous ones can be amusing, for a short time, but then become like a virus. they affect others, they infect the threads (as this one) and they lower the level of debate, discussion and humour. They detract from the usual good experience on here for others not involved in the argument.
I understand that we are all human and try to defend our positons but confrontation is only entertaining for others for a short time.

Both Ted and BBS are highly regarded posters, for their analytical insight and thoughtful opinions. Carl is...well Carl is Carl and usually highly amusing and well loved. When you are posting in rational debate, you too are thought provoking and often very insightful. It is almost criminal that because of these confrontations, that these qualities are lost to unecessary silly public mud slinging at each other.

We all receive insults on here. Personally, I am an old senile fucler, who posts stats containing the wrong numbers. I get told. I accept it and usually smile. This place can be very forgiving mate. Friendships mend quite easily with a smile.

Luv n hugs.
John

Problem with the analogy of the argument to a football match is that it has demonstrated that the referee is a wanker and that Carl is head of a firm of hooligans intent on bullying someone off the board because he doesn't fit their idea of what a City fan should be - presumably an ill educated working class Mancunian? The complicity of some of the stewards in allowing this hooliganism would be shocking if it weren't so typical. I always enjoy M4E's posts in spite of the jumbled up English. You just have to let them flow over you to get the meaning. The quote above "don't wank your mind" made me spit my coffee out this morning. I'm sure there must be more than you and I that can enjoy that? It's pure poetry!

Rog, please stick around - concentrate on putting your understanding of Mancini's vision across and just ignore the fools that bring this forum down to such a base level.

The irony is that you are doing exactly the thing you are complaining about, and so is M4E.. you just think you are hiding it or above it because you believe you are being eloquent. Imo that is a trap that a lot of Uni Cunts fall into and if you cant say it in a simple way then you need to go back to the terraces and re-learn the basics and understand that the idea of an us and them only exists in our own minds and any attempt to cover the tracks of basic thinking through overblown language is just being pompous and is the source of the term Pompous Twit.

just sayin'

There you go. Chip, shoulder. Shame really.

Would be if i didn't have a BA and a Masters from one of the best colleges in London, Socrates old chum. Certainly doesn't make me any better than anyone else though.

Explains why you are being such a cunt then. To put in your own words. Would you really rather be like carl than ruggero? If so there is something seriously wrong with you.

[Socrates]

Mancio,
Whilst this place can sometimes be extremely uncompromising and unforgiving, it can at other times be very accommodating and can forgive very quickly. That was why, some time ago I suggested to your good self and also those involved in a previous confrontation with you, that you should consider the final whistle blown on the argument and that whoever considered they had won or lost, should accept that and move on.
Arguments, especially heated and venemous ones can be amusing, for a short time, but then become like a virus. they affect others, they infect the threads (as this one) and they lower the level of debate, discussion and humour. They detract from the usual good experience on here for others not involved in the argument.
I understand that we are all human and try to defend our positons but confrontation is only entertaining for others for a short time.

Both Ted and BBS are highly regarded posters, for their analytical insight and thoughtful opinions. Carl is...well Carl is Carl and usually highly amusing and well loved. When you are posting in rational debate, you too are thought provoking and often very insightful. It is almost criminal that because of these confrontations, that these qualities are lost to unecessary silly public mud slinging at each other.

We all receive insults on here. Personally, I am an old senile fucler, who posts stats containing the wrong numbers. I get told. I accept it and usually smile. This place can be very forgiving mate. Friendships mend quite easily with a smile.

Luv n hugs.
John

Problem with the analogy of the argument to a football match is that it has demonstrated that the referee is a wanker and that Carl is head of a firm of hooligans intent on bullying someone off the board because he doesn't fit their idea of what a City fan should be - presumably an ill educated working class Mancunian? The complicity of some of the stewards in allowing this hooliganism would be shocking if it weren't so typical. I always enjoy M4E's posts in spite of the jumbled up English. You just have to let them flow over you to get the meaning. The quote above "don't wank your mind" made me spit my coffee out this morning. I'm sure there must be more than you and I that can enjoy that? It's pure poetry!

Rog, please stick around - concentrate on putting your understanding of Mancini's vision across and just ignore the fools that bring this forum down to such a base level.

I want Roger to stay on board as well, and as I've pointed out I do enjoy (most of) his posts. He does know his football. But fact remains: he needs to learn not to take everything personal and to cut down on the personal abuse. And most of all, he needs to stop with the downright silly threats of legal action, etc.

Yes, I was appealing to your better nature because I know you have one. Plenty on here don't.

[Original Dub]

And the moral of the story after all these pages is...


















We could all do with a good Roger.

[ant london]

Honestly....this ought to be locked. It's become very silly. It's 6 and two threes but some of our best posters are not covering themselves in glory in continuing this.

Antti/Tokyo.....can it would you

[Chinners]

Ha ha OD ... I thought it was Alan

[brite blu sky]

The irony is that you are doing exactly the thing you are complaining about, and so is M4E.. you just think you are hiding it or above it because you believe you are being eloquent. Imo that is a trap that a lot of Uni Cunts fall into and if you cant say it in a simple way then you need to go back to the terraces and re-learn the basics and understand that the idea of an us and them only exists in our own minds and any attempt to cover the tracks of basic thinking through overblown language is just being pompous and is the source of the term Pompous Twit.

just sayin'

There you go. Chip, shoulder. Shame really.

Would be if i didn't have a BA and a Masters from one of the best colleges in London, Socrates old chum. Certainly doesn't make me any better than anyone else though.

Explains why you are being such a cunt then. To put in your own words. Would you really rather be like carl than ruggero? If so there is something seriously wrong with you.

I can't see too much wrong with Carl, in fact he seems quite happy to be told to fuck off. That in itself is a quality that can be learnt form. Anyway why in hell should i have to choose between two of your offerings simply because you want to try and pigeonhole me. You will have to do a bit better than that sunshine. And while your at it see if you can come across as anything other than a pompous old fool. ;)

[Socrates]

Hard not to be pompous when you are utterly disgusted.

Agree with Ant, it should have been locked days ago.

[brite blu sky]

Well if you ask me Socrates you have simply co-opted yourself into a deep hole digging team by backing up your mate instead of putting him straight. How anyone cannot see that is beyond me. Anyone coming on a forum and particularly someone who can't understand the language properly (but won't admit it ) and chooses to call all and sundry out on wrongly perceived slights and going ott on it, is going to get it in the neck. The fact that you choose to back someone up that does that ends up saying more about you than it does anything else.

There is no need for a slanging match here as many have tried to point out, but at the same time personally i can fully understand anyone that has piled in. I think the poster at the center of all this is hilarious, i just wish he could see that too.