Team for Rochdale

[Barney]

Your assumption is incorrect. I'm not trying to draw attention to anything I've done,

You clearly are. Nobody else mentions donations as much as you do. Doesn't that tell you something? It's got absolutely nothing to do with you whether I donate or not any way.

 

[Finn Keane o' Balmaqueen]

Will Hammond be playing?

 

[PeteBlade]

Or was it a fair and correct observation? Are you actually aware of the specific situation and exactly what it is I was making the point about by the way? If yes, please proceed to tell. If not, maybe try not getting involved with things you know absolutely nothing about.

It was a whiny moan around the time you falsely claimed to have been banned from posting I seem to recall.

As I said, from memory it was you making a big song and dance about how the site was run because you claimed to be getting a load of abuse and were telling the site owners how they should respond.
I believe you were given a polite reminder of how the site was run and funded.

And I'll get involved in the topics of my choosing, thanks.

 

[Barney]

It was a whiny moan around the time you falsely claimed to have been banned from posting I seem to recall.

As I said, from memory it was you making a big song and dance about how the site was run because you claimed to be getting a load of abuse and were telling the site owners how they should respond.
I believe you were given a polite reminder of how the site was run and funded.

And I'll get involved in the topics of my choosing, thanks.

Brilliant, so you don't even know what it is you're arguing about. What was my exact point? Until you know what it was you are in no way qualified to make any judgements about it. So what was it? Make the effort to find out or again, don't get involved in something you know absolutely nothing about.

 

[PeteBlade]

Brilliant, so you don't even know what it is you're arguing about. What was my exact point? Until you know what it was you are in no way qualified to make any judgements about it. So what was it? Make the effort to find out or again, don't get involved in something you know absolutely nothing about.

I didn't realise you needed a PhD to get involved in one of your exchanges. They're hardly high brow are they?

And to be fair, does anyone really ever know what your exact points are?

Something along the lines of blah blah look at me, you're wrong, you're shit, I'm right, I've been right all along blah blah.

And as per my previous reply, I'll get involved in whatever I please stomper.

 

[Barney]

I didn't realise you needed a PhD to get involved in one of your exchanges. They're hardly high brow are they?

And to be fair, does anyone really ever know what your exact points are?

Something along the lines of blah blah look at me, you're wrong, you're shit, I'm right, I've been right all along blah blah.

And as per my previous reply, I'll get involved in whatever I please stomper.

Yet more tripe to cover up the fact that you don't actually know what you're talking about. Get involved in what ever you please by all means, but for your own sake I'd advise against getting involved in something you don't know about in future, because more often than not you have to detract from the original point you made about the subject, and as you've found out, you generally end up looking a bit daft as a result.

 

[PeteBlade]

Yet more tripe to cover up the fact that you don't actually know what you're talking about. Get involved in what ever you please by all means, but for your own sake I'd advise against getting involved in something you don't know about in future, because more often than not you have to detract from the original point you made about the subject, and as you've found out, you generally end up looking a bit daft as a result.

If anyone has the slightest idea what the hell you're banging on about this time id be highly surprised.

Why not use the private message function?

 

[Barney]

If anyone has the slightest idea what the hell you're banging on about this time id be highly surprised.

Why not use the private message function?

Yes, you can use it to inform me of your knowledge of the situation you were making points about. When you find out of course.

 

[PeteBlade]

Yes, you can use it to inform me of your knowledge of the situation you were making points about. When you find out of course.

I think I've alluded to the situation I believe this related to above, one of your many tantrums. You have that many it's hard to narrow it down.

As with the other 99% of this forum, I've no desire to converse with you privately at any length.

And as for looking daft, finally a subject you ARE an authority on.

 

[Barney]

I think I've alluded to the situation I believe this related to above, one of your many tantrums. You have that many it's hard to narrow it down.

As with the other 99% of this forum, I've no desire to converse with you privately at any length.

And as for looking daft, finally a subject you ARE an authority on.

Talking about something you don't have a clue about can hardly be beaten in the silliness stakes. That said, i'm sure it can be rivalled with some of your other posts.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

It will definitely be,

Long
Edgar Basham McEveley
Brayford Woolford
Flynn Coutts Reed
Adams Sharp

Same subs, maybe Collins replacing McGahey.

After Saturday's showing, that'd be a very satisfying selection. The only concern the lack of any "enforcer"-type replacement for Hammond. Anyway, we'd start to see whether 3-5-2 was just a flash in the pan, or whether it's a viable option going forward, able to withstand suspensions & the like.

Seem to recall hearing somewhere that Rochdale play 3-5-2 (as an option maybe, rather than as their standard template)?

 

[PeteBlade]

Talking about something you don't have a clue about can hardly be beaten in the silliness stakes.

Yet you do it every time you talk about Sheffield United.
Delicious irony.

 

[Barney]

Yet you do it every time you talk about Sheffield United.

Explain how, and why?

 

[PeteBlade]

Explain how, and why?

Very demanding aren't you Stomper?
As I've said before, I have little desire to trawl through your various rants and arm chair opinions.

 

[Barney]

Very demanding aren't you Stomper?
As I've said before, I have little desire to trawl through your various rants and arm chair opinions.

No, I'd just think for your statement to be taken seriously, it's really somewhat of a necessity to explain it. It transpires you can't. It seems making points about something you actually don't know about wasn't the only thing you were going to make yourself look daft about.

 

[Bladebri]

So hammond not playing then

 

[PeteBlade]

No, I'd just think for your statement to be taken seriously, it's really somewhat of a necessity to explain it. It transpires you can't. It seems making points about something you actually don't know about wasn't the only thing you were going to make yourself look daft about.

But you're not taken seriously by anyone.
I'll leave you to telling everyone you encounter how silly they are.
Night Stomper.

 

[Barney]

But you're not taken seriously by anyone.
I'll leave you to telling everyone you encounter how silly they are.
Night Stomper.

Oh, I was waiting for all the knowledge and all the explanation. I believed in you.

 

[sitwell]

Your assumption is incorrect. I'm not trying to draw attention to anything I've done, I'm pointing out your unwillingness to accept any responsibility for the financial good health of the site. Chip in a few quid and I'll happily desist. As it stands, while you pontificate for free.......



Quite

Good job you don't get charged ,all those big words would be a bit pricey Trig

 

[sheffielder]

Oh, I was waiting for all the knowledge and all the explanation. I believed in you.

I think Pete just comes on here to rip you a new one!

 

[Trigger Blade]

You clearly are. Nobody else mentions donations as much as you do. Doesn't that tell you something? It's got absolutely nothing to do with you whether I donate or not any way.

Yes, it tells me I mention donations in the context of you not having made one. You're quite right, it's nothing to do with me that you're a tightwad, that's up to you.

Munificent Trig

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Yet more tripe to cover up the fact that you don't actually know what you're talking about. Get involved in what ever you please by all means, but for your own sake I'd advise against getting involved in something you don't know about in future, because more often than not you have to detract from the original point you made about the subject, and as you've found out, you generally end up looking a bit daft as a result.

So Barney, rather than being cryptic, if you’re going to have this ongoing argument on a public forum that we all wade through, why not enlighten us all as to what it was about? You could say “none of our business” but as Pete says, if that’s the case, why not use private message to communicate?


I suspect Pete has it bang on. I recall Barney bitching and moaning about abuse from other posters, calling for them to be banned and then having an absolutely hilarious mother of all tantrums when he thought he had been banned starting off with the theme of “you won’t get away with this Foxy” which later changed to “I know he can do what he wants but isn’t it unfair” before Foxy eventually confirmed he had in fact not banned anyone and Barney was left looking rather foolish as per usual.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

No, I'd just think for your statement to be taken seriously, it's really somewhat of a necessity to explain it. It transpires you can't. It seems making points about something you actually don't know about wasn't the only thing you were going to make yourself look daft about.

I’ll add a little meat to the bones to give you a feel for what Pete’s talking about without scrolling back through old posts


1. Pretending to know what positions Adkins prioritized so you could give him abuse.


2. Pretending to We never sign anyone that fans have suggested and conceding after being shown extensive evidence.


3. Not knowing whether or not you went to the Millwall game shortly after the event.


4. Not knowing and then repeatedly failing to understand that Dean Hammond is suspended.




I’m sure there’s lots more but you can’t really expect us to trawl throught all the posts to remind you of all the times you’ve been silly. That’s just the SUFC ones and doesn’t include the “calling out” debacle with alco or the tantrum at Foxy or any other such non-football related indiscretions. But basically Barney, time and time again you have proven yourself on here as a prized pillock.

 

[Barney]

I’ll add a little meat to the bones to give you a feel for what Pete’s talking about without scrolling back through old posts


1. Pretending to know what positions Adkins prioritized so you could give him abuse.


2. Pretending to We never sign anyone that fans have suggested and conceding after being shown extensive evidence.


3. Not knowing whether or not you went to the Millwall game shortly after the event.


4. Not knowing and then repeatedly failing to understand that Dean Hammond is suspended.




I’m sure there’s lots more but you can’t really expect us to trawl throught all the posts to remind you of all the times you’ve been silly. That’s just the SUFC ones and doesn’t include the “calling out” debacle with alco or the tantrum at Foxy or any other such non-football related indiscretions. But basically Barney, time and time again you have proven yourself on here as a prized pillock.

1. It's obvious. You've either not been following things closely, or you're just plain stupid to not have realised. One of the two.
2. My point wasn't intended as "never", as much as "most". Pedantry comes to mind here. You're ignoring the point and being as pedantic as you can to discount it. Which probably indicates it was a good point.
3. I was clear on that from the off. If you look back at that you'd know. I'm presuming you haven't.
4. I'd suspect not watching the guy play for 4 months might have had something to do with that. As I say though, if it floats your pedantic boat not to mention that - by all means.

Something points to the fact that you post rather a lot without actually thinking too much about it. Less words, less length, more engagement of the brain required here I think.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

1. It's obvious. You've either not been following things closely, or you're just plain stupid to not have realised. One of the two.
2. My point wasn't intended as "never", as much as "most". Pedantry comes to mind here. You're ignoring the point and being as pedantic as you can to discount it. Which probably indicates it was a good point.
3. I was clear on that from the off. If you look back at that you'd know. I'm presuming you haven't.
4. I'd suspect not watching the guy play for 4 months might have had something to do with that. As I say though, if it floats your pedantic boat not to mention that - by all means.

Something points to the fact that you post rather a lot without actually thinking too much about it. Less words, less length, more engagement of the brain required here I think.

1. Nope. You made assumptions based on outcomes as to the behaviours and attitudes and continue to try to present them as fact.
2. Nope, you were given examples and denied that it ever happened until you were given links to this forum where players within the current squad were suggested before Adkins was even here and then conceded you were wrong.
3. No you weren't. You contradicted yourself and then didn't answer when questioned about it. So, did you go or not?
4. Not watching the guy for 4 months doesn't preclude you from understanding other posters telling you he's suspended. No pedantry, just another example of your failure to understand.

Really? What points to that "fact"? I'm not the one making sweeping statements that I have to be corrected on time after time.

 

[Barney]

1. Nope. You made assumptions based on outcomes as to the behaviours and attitudes and continue to try to present them as fact.
2. Nope, you were given examples and denied that it ever happened until you were given links to this forum where players within the current squad were suggested before Adkins was even here and then conceded you were wrong.
3. No you weren't. You contradicted yourself and then didn't answer when questioned about it. So, did you go or not?
4. Not watching the guy for 4 months doesn't preclude you from understanding other posters telling you he's suspended. No pedantry, just another example of your failure to understand.

Really? What points to that "fact"? I'm not the one making sweeping statements that I have to be corrected on time after time.

1. Again, you either didn't follow what happened, or you're just plain stupid. Which is it?
2. You're using a casual exaggeration of "every" to completely discount an accurate point. Pedantry at it's idiotic finest.
3. Go back through the thread. You'll find you are in fact, categorically wrong on that.
4. Show me a post where I've presumed he wasn't suspended even after I was told he was. You ignored the four months and now you've realised you don't really have a leg to stand on.

I'm not ruining any more threads, if you want to reply to this do it via private message. If you don't, I'll presume you've got an ulterior motive and seek not to reply any way.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Saturday was Hamsters TENTH booking of the season. Doesn't that get him a ban?

Whatever midfield we put out, I hope they don't have a stinker. I don't want a Doylesque scenario with Hammond where a poor performance in his absence suddenly makes him indispensable.... even though it was sort of true for Doyle.

If anybody else puts Hammond in their team against Rochdale then I do have to question whether they follow us or not.

He didn't have a disastrous performance on Saturday. Not many other options are there? When you've got a poor squad, you unfortunately have to select poor players.

That penny was very slow to drop wasn't it?

 

[1danewhitehouse]

http://www.s24su.com/forum/index.php?threads/who-to-sign-in-the-jtw.43736/page-5#post-896442

Barney

It's there in black and white. You made untrue statements and was corrected. Why try to rewrite history?

 

[PeteBlade]

Congratulations 1danewhitehouse it didn't take long for you to join the ever growing list of people who Barney thinks are stupid.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

you

Ah well, shit happens.