Why are they unacceptable as they are?

Good for you.

You need to take a long hard look at yourself, sunshine. Speaking about mcguire the way in which you did on here before his injury was confirmed was an absolute disgrace, Geoff.

I prefer you in those tights to the shorts you had on earlier.

It's all about context and an appropriate interpretation of consecutively ordered words forming sentences and opinions which you appear incapable of handling in a rational and unbiased manner.

I can't see anything in Clarke's comments which point to him being happy that McGuire got injured during the execution of his own intentional act of foul play.

Because to state "McGuire's injury could well act as a lesson to any other player watching that it doesn't pay to cheat. Perhaps the rugby Gods have punished him for his unsportsmanlike play" infers that his injury was as a result of karmic justice and as such deserved and the fault of Mcguire, which considering the very real risk of injury and worse to players playing our game, i find it pretty tasteless and unacceptable for someone who acts as a public face of our game to say.

Are you saying that you find it acceptable for Clarke to infer Mcguire deserved the injrury and was to blame for it.

Or

That Clarke isnt inferring Mcguire deserved and was to blame for the injury?

really? you think the meaning of a sentence is always dependant on the order the words appear? That is a very naive understanding of the english language but it does explain a lot.
i didnt ever say he was 'happy' about it did i?

It's pointless even bothering with you as you simply repeat the same lines time after time.

All you've done above is make assertions as to what you think Clarke meant.

Either way, you need to pull yer knickers put of yer 'arris!

He said "PERHAPS the Rugby Gods have punished him for his unsportsmanlike play".

He didn't say "HOPEFULLY the Rugby Gods have punished him for his unsportsmanlike play".

its a very simply question

Can you read?

I said it was the [i"appropriate interpretation"[/i of the [i"consecutively ordered words forming sentences and opinions which you appear incapable of handling in a rational and unbiased manner"[/i.

I’ve not popped onto the Warrington board so I can’t comment on that front. However it looks like that Danny has got you right where he wants you.

That’s complaining about his cheeky but not nasty character that he is on here.

Think about it…

I mentioned that was the key word on Friday. They've been too busy frothing at the mouth to take it on board.

He did indeed, but why would you think that prefacing offensive statements with uncertain adverbs removes the possibility of causing offence?

Why would i base my interpretation on the order of the words and not their context and meaning? The order of the words is pretty much secondary to context and meaning.

I'll tell you Damo, he's wrong as per usual. David makes wild assertions but never backs them up. His worst (and most unforgivable) was when he said Jayne Tomlinson was faking her cancer. Just don't get on the wrong side of him, that's all I can say.

Anyway, I digress. ALL OVER the board would suggest on every thread rather than starting the one thread like I have done.

Like I say, wild assertions.