Euros 2020 - in 2021

Norpig wrote:I can see you really are a pompous prick. I don't know whats happened to you over the last few years but you need help or to be dragged away from your computer.

You claim to not care what's said on the internet yet spend hours pulling up people on the smallest little thing and then merrily type 1000 words as a response. You can't stand to be wrong can you?

As for the racial slur it's laughable, are the internet police on their way to arrest Lusty for using the phrase sheep shagger? Are they fuck! 

It's your site at the end of the day but i'm not giving you the satisfaction of me leaving. The way things are going you'll end up alone on here arguing with yourself as everyone else will have given up and left.

You have my every sympathy, Norpig. You are a good bloke.

Sluffy's our 'facts ' man. But what is a fact? In true Sluffy style, pin back yer lug 'oles. Einstein had a hypothesis of a planet occurring. This could not be tested, so it could not be a theory, because a theory is a proven hypothesis. So it was not a fact that the planet would occur, until it was observed. However, the planet was always there. So a fact is a fact when it can be tested and proven. However, this is a scientific connotation of a fact.
Imagine someone living on that planet, there would be no question the planet existed. So the planet was also a fact. It is a matter of perspective. That persons existence can also be seen as a fact (but there are also debates about this).
The question of "fact" does not have a simple answer.  Indeed, philosophers and logicians have struggled for centuries to determine what is and what is not a "fact." Are facts true?  Can facts be false? How do we determine the truth value of any statement?
Propositional logic, for example, proposes a model of what state of affairs must obtain for an expression to be true, and the relation between the model and the expression that is mapped onto it is independent of individual interpretation because it is a logical relation that must necessarily be true, but only under the given conditions.
Suppose we are watching a Star Trek movie, and a character says "The warp drive is down, Captain!"  Is this a factual, true statement, even though we know that warp drives do not exist?  Or do we accept the statement as true because the idea of warp drives exists or because they exist within the context of the movie?  Suddenly things are complicated.  Well, perhaps we can turn to mathematics to determine what is a fact.  Aren't there a priori truths that are facts, such as 2 + 3 = 5?  Yes, but note that this mathematical statement is a fact only in the realm of rational numbers.
Considering the difficulty that serious thinkers from Aristotle to Frege and Russell had in determining the nature of facts and truth, it strikes me as irrational for journalists to claim that they have some unique ability to determine what is and what is not a fact.  Perhaps this reality sheds some light on why various polls now report that Americans distrust journalists almost as much as they distrust politicians . . . but of course these polls will be considered factual and true only by those who want to believe them.  Without actually conducting such a poll ourselves, we have no way of knowing whether such polls even exist, for they may be as fictional as warp drives in a movie.
Nurse!

Norpig wrote:You have single-handedly sucked all the joy and fun out of this place Sluffy.

Its not about wrong or right, as i said i don't know either of you personally i can only go off what i read on here. Lusty did like to push your buttons but you are no angel in that front either are you? The phrases nut job and mentalist spring to mind.

Ignoring posts works both ways by the way, no one expects you to be the guardian of all that is right on the internet but you seem to think that's your role.

I'm sure away from here you are a decent bloke but for the last few years on here you have become as big a troll as the people you claim troll you.

Sucked all the fun out of the site did I?

Well maybe I did as what I was doing was to simply stop the hatred and anger that one or two vented on here at the time of Brexit and Anderson.

Indeed Wanderlust even voted FOR Brexit for God's sake!!!

How would you describe someone who did that then posted volumes of his anger and hatred because it came about???

Nutjob and mentalist was nothing compared to what he was saying about me!

I shouldn't need to point out the bleeding obvious but the reason why Wanderlust and a few others simply wouldn't agree to disagree, draw a line under things and move on was because they became obsessed with me - I was the one they had issues with, not what I wrote or how I modded.

Let's flip this issue around and say YOU was the mod and I just a normal poster and not an Admin or anything, and I complained about Wanderlust 'sheep shagger' comment (and I pointed out he wouldn't dare use the 'N' word in the same way), what would you do in my shoes?

I like to think no matter what you thought of me there was merit in my request and you would say something to Wanderlust.

He might have called you a tit or something, made a bit of a fuss about it in a jokey way BUT he would have packed it in.

Do you think you would have had to ask him SIX TIMES and he still ignored you and continued on with it?

I don't.

So HIS issue has nothing to do with what is being said but the person who is saying it - ie ME!

That being the case what do you want me to do about it?

Stop posting perhaps?

Well funnily enough that was exactly what I was going to do just before the pandemic started - I even said my good bye behind the scenes to BTID and Karly if you don't believe me and want to check with them.

But lockdown started, I was in the vulnerable category, so I changed my mind as the site gave me something to pass my time away on lockdown.

So what else could I do - I could ban him.

If you remember I did once but he contacted you on WW asking to come back - so I let him.

I had hoped that he might have changed - but clearly he hadn't.

What else then?

I thought about ridiculing what he had posted - the absolutely stupid stuff like being £168m out on his claims that Anderson had taken out of the club, how he new all about government works by working in a NON GOVERNMENT organisation, etc, etc.

I hoped if he could see for himself how stupid he looked he might stop doing it.

Nope I was wrong again.

I then thought maybe he would reflect on how his nearest and dearest may see him and thus why I posted about how I felt sorry for those who had to put up with him in real life.

No wrong again, he just carried on as always on here, with him determined to bang heads with me.

The bloke has got an issue - I would have thought that was a given to all by now - and it was never going to end was it?

And you are right, I'm not here to be the guardian of everything right on the internet but I certainly have a legal obligation (in theory anyway) to keep whatever posted on here is within the law.

My judgement (even if you and everyone else disagrees) was that the sheep shagger comment - which I fully accept was meant in joke and not malice went a little bit too far and ALL I asked was for him to not use it again.

He's not been banned for his sheep shagger comment he's been banned for the continuous trolling thereafter and despite being warned SIX times about it.

As I've already explained

Sluffy wrote:I'm sorry if you will miss Wanderlust's contributions on here, however maybe you might have seen him in an entirely different light if he was trolling/defying/being deliberately awkward, obtuse, belligerent, bloody minded, scoring points, trying to be smart, avoid admitting he was wrong, playing to the crowd, trying annoy me, or maybe even attempting to make my life a misery or whatever the fuck he was doing etc, etc, etc, to you on a daily basis when you simply ask him to 'please' comply with the few site rules we actually have on here, namely the one about not breaking the law.

Try looking at Wanderlust through my eyes, maybe you will see him far, far differently then?

Sluffy we are never going to agree on this so i'm just going to leave it there and save me the trauma of reading an essay every time i reply 

Norpig wrote:Sluffy we are never going to agree on this so i'm just going to leave it there and save me the trauma of reading an essay every time i reply 

OK, but fwiw my last essay does explain it all.

To be honest i'll lost the will to live halfway through it.

Norpig wrote:To be honest i'll lost the will to live halfway through it.

Tbh I've long thought that you've probably not bothered to read a great deal of what I wrote (or attached a great deal of weight to it if you had) in explanation of things from my point of view and that's why you have stuck to your long held views of how you continued to perceive me to be somehow always in the wrong.

Maybe if you had read a little more from my side of things, you might have softened your view of me a little?

Anyway we now moved on.

Here's the first dose. Chosen entirely at random, I might add

England already through as Finland got beat last night but what will Southgate do tonight? Will he take the handbrake off and let them play? I would go 433, we don't need 2 holding midfielders tonight.

Glad to see Denmark have qualified for the last 16 as well, they look inspired last night.

Gareth will cost us this tournament with his cautious tactics. Even tonight, when the result doesn't especially matter, he'll play a negative team and it'll end 1-0 or 1-1.

My team would be:

Pickford, Walker, Mings, Stones, Shaw, Sancho, Grealish, Henderson, Foden, Saka, Kane.

We'd win 5-2 with that team.

I can't see a win tonight either.

They have scored just one goal so far and apart from the first approx 15mins of the match against Croatia, England have been shite. I almost forget Kane is even in the team. He has his transfer away from Spurs in his mind all the time, it's got to be.

God knows why Southgate left Lingard out of the selection too!

Natasha Whittam wrote:Gareth will cost us this tournament with his cautious tactics. Even tonight, when the result doesn't especially matter, he'll play a negative team and it'll end 1-0 or 1-1.

My team would be:

Pickford, Walker, Mings, Stones, Shaw, Sancho, Grealish, Henderson, Foden, Saka, Kane.

We'd win 5-2 with that team.

You would have Pickford in goal by choice? Please be serious

Don't know about anyone else, but I'm struggling to whip up any enthusiasm.
After a season where I watched every Whites game online, plus around four games a week on Sky, BT, and amazon prime, I'm just about stuffed to the gills with footy.
With England already through, I might watch the Scottish gentlemen instead.

boltonbonce wrote:
With England already through, I might watch the Scottish gentlemen instead.

You Jock loving skirt wearing traitor 

I’m hoping he tries something new tonight, I think he will do as we have nothing to lose.  Need to try some of the young guns.  Play an exciting brand of football, give players the chance to show what they can do in a tournament

Norpig wrote:
You Jock loving skirt wearing traitor 

Sluffy, help. I'm being abused.

finlaymcdanger wrote:You would have Pickford in goal by choice? Please be serious

I accept he's been dodgy in the Premier League for a number of seasons now, but he's not done much wrong in an England shirt. Plus, I couldn't even remember the other goalkeepers!

Natasha Whittam wrote:

I accept he's been dodgy in the Premier League for a number of seasons now, but he's not done much wrong in an England shirt. Plus, I couldn't even remember the other goalkeepers!

I close my eyes every time he goes up for the ball. He's a liability and I wouldn't be surprised if he makes a massive mistake in this tournament but maybe his experience justifies his selection.

finlaymcdanger wrote:I close my eyes every time he goes up for the ball. He's a liability and I wouldn't be surprised if he makes a massive mistake in this tournament but maybe his experience justifies his selection.

Don't get me wrong, if one England player makes a massive cock-up that costs us the trophy it's odds on to be Pickford.

But he's a decent shot stopper to be fair.