And guess what I haven't said that either!



So I didn't say "the context was changed in Clarkes full quote" - thanks for clearing that up.

What's it like at the bottom of that hole? Have you reached those Chilean miners?

i dont disagree, im havent called for Clarke to be sacked, hung drawn and quartered or anything else. Simply called him tasteless and classless.
not in a professional capacity and certainly not at the expense of someone who had just suffered serious injury no. If i did i would expect to be challenged onit
Because if it is left unchecked it escalates. I have no doubt because of these comments by Clarke and the defence of them, that the next person to suffer serious injury will have the same accusation levelled at them, and the same defence of it will be given and so on and so forth. I believe thats an atmosphere we dont need in the game and it is up to us as fans to keep it out.
Mcguire's injury isnt funny, neither were Clarkes comments. As we can see people certainly wouldnt find the same principle funny when applied to other people. Clarke deserved to be challenged on what he said, and i havent really seen anything massively over the top in what has been said about him. And can you not see how wearing Clarke masks would quite easily be construed as supporting Clarke? and that doesnt even begin to address some of the comments from wigan fans on this board who felt emboldenned by Clarkes comments and went even further.

no, of course you didnt,because that was what i said.

if [iyou need to read the whole thing to appreciate the context and meaning[/i then by definition the context is different between the smaller quote you responded to and the full quote [iyou need to read to appreciate the context and meaning. [/i and as such when we move from reading the smaller quote to the full quote the context must to change otherwise we dont [ineed to read the whole thing to appreciate the context and meaning[/i because the smaller quote is fine. So what is the difference?

and if there isnt one you have to accept that there is no difference to the statement i put which Cronus found so offensive but which you said wasnt analogous because it was a different context and Clarkes statement which we already knew, just like we already knew that the word perhaps was pretty much irrelevent, but watching you spend 5hours and 6 pages defending a position you dont really believe was quite fun

OK, how about this one then, since you like ridiculous comparisons...

1)A well respected man is bitten by an insect while working abroad. He contracts a debilitating disease and dies a slow death.

2) A horrible chav attempts to steal an old lady's handbag in the street. Whilst running away from the scene he trips over a curb and gets a compound break of his ankle.

From the nonsense you have posted you are suggesting that both people deserve the same amount of sympathy?

What can I say Pie People....

The trusty bog brush of Truth and Decency, as brandished by Smokey, has just administered the most public ass reaming ever seen on any of these Boards.

Nuff said I think.