Quote: SLIMply winning! "well you should be because however much you try and change the subject, i pointed out it was a vote by peers, so what would my or your opinion matter you dingbat! this not only makes you look stupid but makes it obvious you miss the whole point of a debate.
in your eyes it works like this.
1. make a statement.
2. when some one disagrees or makes you look stupid ask a totally unrelated question in order to cover up your stupidity!
mmmm very clever mister bond!'"
Resorting to insults... that's a sure sign you've lost the argument.
How is the question of whether Roby should have won the MoS instead of Chase unrelated to this debate? What a bizarre thing to say. I wasn't changing the subject, but taking the Wigan factor out of the equation (because clearly I can be accused - as a Wigan fan - of favouring Wigan players) when arguing that the decision was a joke. That accusation can't be levelled against me when it comes to a Saint! I'd rather a Saints player wasn't better than a Cas player, but Roby had an amazing season and he deserves to be ranked ahead of Chase. I wish it weren't true, but it is and it means Chase's award is a mistake.
And as for expressing a view, why shouldn't I be allowed to express my opinion? Judging by vote by those supposedly in the know doesn't mean the result must always be right.... or are you the kind of person that thinks Dances with Wolves is a better film than Goodfellas because it won that year's Best Picture Oscar (or that the Shawshank Redemption isn't a great film because it didn't win a single Oscar...)? You really should make your own mind up rather than following the herd.