Bulls 12 Leeds 26, all posts here

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark ""As usual" ... is ME your tactical adviser? Whatever. You make an utterly duff point, since I can either discuss a match, or a season, including any or all other teams or - of course you well know this because it is actually trite - I can discuss the Bulls in (if i want) splendid isolation.
'"

Of course you can. You can also discuss the merits of growing rhubarb if you want. I never said you couldn't. But lets get back to the root of this.

You said "FYI we don't care whether Leeds play their Under-8s (whom we would definitely have beaten), or had a squad of 17 eight-foot tall Olympic sprint champion ninjas, we discuss the Bulls on here"

You posted that comment on a thread entitled "Bulls 12 Leeds 26". A thread for discussion about the game. My retort was simply "On this thread you discuss the Bulls, the officials and your opponents.". Not controversial and fairly accurate. Somehow you consider that to be me telling you what you can and cannot discuss and saying you can never discuss the Bulls in isolation. I understand why you want to ignore Leeds injured players for the purposes of your discussion and why that might suit but on a thread discussing the game it hardly helps those amongst us that occupy planet earth to further the discussion.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "Like I could say "England will be weakened in the World Cup if Rooney, Terry, Lampard and Ferdinand are injured". I wouldn't need to add any other teams into the pot. The discussion is capable of being had in glorious isolation.'"

Yes you could. Of course, if you did it on a thread entitled "Bulls 26 Leeds 12" it would confirm my suspicions about your sanity but, yes, I respect your right to post irrelevant gibberish on threads about a specific game. Happy?

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "I would say though while on this subject that your behaviour on the thread brings the words "pot" and "kettle" to mind. In your response to Adey a few pages back (in which he did not insult you), you used the following terms, to go with your arrogant earlier description of all but Adey on this thread as a "desert of idiocy" or some suchActually, it was Bullseye I described as an oasis of common sense amidst a desert of idiocy. I didn't use the phrase "all but" and I meant those focusing the blame on the referee. Still if the cap fits. Now, these comments you've quoted. lets put them into context shall we?

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "Quote
This was a reference to a sentence Adey had written. It was unusual for Adey to write such a sentence given, as I have stated above, he is usually fairly articulate. The sentence. "whether he was more bad for us first half - and whether that did more damage to us cos it messed with players' heads - and more bad for Leeds second half." I maintain, with the greatest of respect, that sentence is gibberish. "More bad for us than you cos he messed wiv our heads" Come on. That's not me being rude or unpleasant. That is me being frank with a poster who usually sets higher standards.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "QuoteSee above.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "Quotehe was talking about the views expressed by the ranks around him at the game. It may or may not be ill informed. I know those around me at Headingley and, indeed, most grounds I visit are usually ill informed. They're almost always biased. So, again, why are you so sensitive about my comment?

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "QuoteIt was garbage. I said it with respect but garbage is garbage. i suspect had it not been in the context of a defeat to Leeds had I come on here and said Sadler's opinions were garbage I'd have gotten 100% support and praise.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "I made a short reply and back cameI expect nothing more. Allow me to remind you that it was you, not me, who laid claims of discussing the matter like a grown up. patently, you haven't. If it makes you feel better, just say you've stooped to my level.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "Quotei didn't read it as saying that. Any adult with a functioning brain can understand my retort.

Jumbled, incomprehensible verbiage. The fact remains that1. I didn't and don't claim that we WILL beat Leeds every time if those 3 players are fit. You seem to be arguing that my belief we have enough to beat Leeds is wrong, but that's a different argument. Nevertheless, that can only be a matter of opinion anyway, not of fact, even though most reasonable observers could see how Bradford could quite easily have won Sunday's game had we not bombed so many chances, and that is without our key players. We didn't beat you - but to me clearly showed we had enough - on the day - to beat you. if you don't agree with that then I never denied your right to an opinion - but that's all it is - opinion.'"

I don't seem to be arguing anything of the sort. Again, it might help to remind you what you originally said.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "And with Orford, Kearney and Langley we would have enough to beat you.'"
I wonder why you said that? It's quite a forceful statement. Especially as you didn't beat us the time you did have those three players. Still, nowhere have I claimed you said you WILL beat us every time. That's an argument you appear to be having with yourself. All I have done is challenge the statement that you would have enough to beat us when you didn't when you did.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "2. In your haste to be clever-clever, your second sentence doesn't actually say anything, it's nonsense, because you appear to have missed a chunk out as well as got your negatives mixed up. I'm glad you don't draft stuff for me.'"
It's perfectly clear for any adult with a functioning brain. I wouldn't draft stuff for you, I doubt your client base could afford the Leeds charge rates. Anyway, drafting is for nerdy lawyers. Cool katz excel at advocacy and I reckon I am holding my own.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "QuoteYou've got your knickers in a twist here again. I've never said you cannot discuss the Bulls team in isolation. I said that you haven't been doing. You have been discussing a match. That is why you posted on this match thread.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "It is actually of great interest and relevance to me, as a Bulls fan, how our fringe players get on in a big test, and how we perform against another mid-table side, with our key positions weakened. So I discuss it. Whereas such a discussion in relation to the Leeds team is of no interest to me at all. Nobody was ignoring the fact that leeds had some players out too.'"
How your fringe players get on against the champions fringe players is interesting, I agree and we all saw how the two teams respective fringe players fared on Sunday.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "If you really want a topic headed "how would a 'full strength' Bulls fare against a 'full strength' Leeds" then go and fscking start one.'"
If it's all the same to you I will discuss Leeds versus Bradford on a thread about the Leeds versus Bradford match thread. The rational posters amongst us might want to use the thread to discuss all aspects of the game.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark " Don't presume to tell me what I can and can't discuss. Or if you do, don't be surprised if I tell you where to get off, and if you're ignorant and rude, as you were, don't be surprised if you get similar back.'"
It seems like you're the one telling people what they can and can't discuss. I've never told you to "go and fscking" start a different thread. I am happy posting in this one and I'll continue to do so despite your rude, ignorant and none grown up method of discussion. HTH