I know it's a crap webpaper, but....
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:20 pmRead this load of tosh
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion ... 68233.html
My reply....(assuming they will get around to deleting it.)
I have to say that you have inspired me Martin and that's not something that happens too often and certainly usually not by someone who is the web's equivalent of a shock jock, opinionated, often wrong and completely unaccountable.
However you inspired me to register on this website for the sole purpose of replying to your article which I considered a tragedy on all fronts, from it's amateur writing to it's awful content, let's begin shall we?
Let's begin with writing, you start the second sentence with the word "and", a grammatical mistake and a concept basic enough for most children learning to read to grasp. You follow that up with "Well, that is what the FA have, bizarrely, decided." Does punctuation live in the same unopened tin as your ability to use grammar?
Following on the heels you have managed to use no less than four dashes, a punctuation mark used to replace the phrase "that is" incorrectly only to follow that up using a hyphen on two words that are not hyphenated.
Then there is content. You start with a outlandish claim that could only be used in order to set tone as a hatchet job, as you fail at any other point within the article to address it with facts or even reference it. Then you claim that Martin Atkinson says "he would not have sent him off for doing the same thing to a player" when in fact he actually said, "he would not have sent the player off had he seen the incident with the fan at the time". I can understand with your inadequate grasp of English how the two might look the same, but it also casts a light on your grasp of football, whereas a player has a certain level of protection afforded by the FA and FA officials, fans who wander onto the pitch do not.
You carry on to claim that the FA are ignoring their own rules and regulations. Could you please provide me with the regulation that Bellamy should have been banned under?
Now while you are unloading your impotent broadside on the FA, you have used the most puzzling of phrases within the last sentence, "Wembley disciplinary chiefs.." Now as far as I am aware, Wembley is a ground or venue if you like, and the Football Association is a governing body. I fail to understand how you expect the rest of us to be entrenched in reality, when you are quite clearly not.
As a Manchester City supporter you could dismiss my reply as the off-tilt ranting of a rabid "fan"(Another excellent use of quotation marks there, or not) and I might be concerned that such a reply might inspire you to redouble your efforts to debase my club, but as this is in fact your third article on the same subject within the last two days, I severely doubt you could find the time and with your writing, let's face it, you have more chance of shooting yourself in the foot as displayed with the waste of space above.
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion ... 68233.html
My reply....(assuming they will get around to deleting it.)
I have to say that you have inspired me Martin and that's not something that happens too often and certainly usually not by someone who is the web's equivalent of a shock jock, opinionated, often wrong and completely unaccountable.
However you inspired me to register on this website for the sole purpose of replying to your article which I considered a tragedy on all fronts, from it's amateur writing to it's awful content, let's begin shall we?
Let's begin with writing, you start the second sentence with the word "and", a grammatical mistake and a concept basic enough for most children learning to read to grasp. You follow that up with "Well, that is what the FA have, bizarrely, decided." Does punctuation live in the same unopened tin as your ability to use grammar?
Following on the heels you have managed to use no less than four dashes, a punctuation mark used to replace the phrase "that is" incorrectly only to follow that up using a hyphen on two words that are not hyphenated.
Then there is content. You start with a outlandish claim that could only be used in order to set tone as a hatchet job, as you fail at any other point within the article to address it with facts or even reference it. Then you claim that Martin Atkinson says "he would not have sent him off for doing the same thing to a player" when in fact he actually said, "he would not have sent the player off had he seen the incident with the fan at the time". I can understand with your inadequate grasp of English how the two might look the same, but it also casts a light on your grasp of football, whereas a player has a certain level of protection afforded by the FA and FA officials, fans who wander onto the pitch do not.
You carry on to claim that the FA are ignoring their own rules and regulations. Could you please provide me with the regulation that Bellamy should have been banned under?
Now while you are unloading your impotent broadside on the FA, you have used the most puzzling of phrases within the last sentence, "Wembley disciplinary chiefs.." Now as far as I am aware, Wembley is a ground or venue if you like, and the Football Association is a governing body. I fail to understand how you expect the rest of us to be entrenched in reality, when you are quite clearly not.
As a Manchester City supporter you could dismiss my reply as the off-tilt ranting of a rabid "fan"(Another excellent use of quotation marks there, or not) and I might be concerned that such a reply might inspire you to redouble your efforts to debase my club, but as this is in fact your third article on the same subject within the last two days, I severely doubt you could find the time and with your writing, let's face it, you have more chance of shooting yourself in the foot as displayed with the waste of space above.