Maths? You mean incorrectly thinking he'd said 14-12 instead of 14-10? You think that's maths?

It's funny how you want to discount daft spelling mistakes, because that's all they've managed. I happened to misunderstand "the score after the incident was 14-10" as meaning the actual score on the board at that point was 14-10, which of course means I have no understanding of English if you're clutching at straws trying to get any sort of victory, however small, in the aftermath of a defeat at the hands of my team. Being unable to spell though, well that is no indication at all of a person's poor grasp of English is it? Let's keep this going, and maybe eventually my iPad will do an "autocorrect" (

) and you really will be able to tug each other off!

regardless of all the petty grammar/spelling posts, do you now see that the notion put forward that Peacock and indeed Leeds went into their shells, and were battered by Wigan is a load of tosh, considering the fact that leeds out scored Wigan after the bit of biff.?

Work out? You said it in an ambiguous way. I said that pages ago. I thought you were referring to the actual score because of the way you said "the score after the incident was..." In your eagerness to jump all over that you've shown your own grasp of English to be pitiful. You've confused boarder with border and except with accept like you probably confuse your with you're and their with there. You know the saying about people in glass houses right? Then again, maybe you don't, so let me spell it out to you: you don't have the intellect or aptitude to critique another person's intelligence or grasp of English. Not by a long, long way.

'A' spelling mistake is a bit different to 3 pages of "it was 14-12, what are you talking about?" "Who scored for Leeds to give them such a lead?"

The printer, take note.



I don't think anyone said Leeds on the whole went into their shells but Peacock, in comparison to his earlier aggression, definitely did. He took the ball in as you'd expect him to, always. There was none of the earlier fire though; our lads had stood up to him more than they did two weeks previously. As for the points scored after the biff, I don't think much of that was to do with Peacock myself, but even if it were, that isn't what "going into his shell" was a reference to, it was his loss of aggression, the likes of which saw him steam for Micky Mac and come off second best.

And as I pointed out at the time, if you were actually capable of effectively communicating then there would have been no issue. Misunderstanding what someone wrote because they wrote it badly is one thing, repeatedly confusing similar sounding words is another, and one that definitely indicates a poor grasp of English, something you should have corrected if you wanted to jump all over my posts.

Boring now bye bye my wino and pie eating friends!

Oh well that confirms it with that post. peacock one of the toughest battlers in the history of the game went "into his shell" because you said so.

You could've just lived with Peacock and Co came off second best but no it had to be Peacock went into his shell, and was battered and was smashed by a bunch of 7 year olds from Wigan.

He hardly came off second best, Mcclorum snaked him round the chops and got sin binned which could have cost his team the game.

Lol calm down dear.

I'm perfectly calm, talking to idiots always has that effect on me.

Have you worked out the 14-10 thing yet???

Funny how all these armchair defenders of the sport's purity are disgusted by Wigan's appalling tactics, etc, etc,. and yet Wellens (no Wigan fan I think we can agree) was perfectly happy to give them great credit for how well they played.