Cute. Didn't you say yesterday we should just stick to rugby and that we are better than this type of thing?



We haven't just had one game. That's just one example I found in the 2 minutes I was looking.



At no point have I spat my dummy out. You wrote something that was incorrect and was attempting to pass it off as fact. I simply corrected you.



I'm doing just fine thanks.

He didn't change his approach. He said 'sustained injury crisis' or similar many times and waaaay before he omitted it in the post you chose to jump on. If anyone is making things up, it's you.

In the time it's taken to write all these responses you could have looked up all these times Saints played during a sustained injury crisis. Well, actually you couldn't because it never happened. So what exactly are you supposed to be "proving"?*


*Please don't say "that NK said you NEVER played with 5 or more missing". You absolutely know that's not what is being discussed in this thread and you're beginning to sound like a child.

Then we (along with NK) agree. What are you arguing about?

I don't know that at all. I haven't read the whole thread. I saw a comment that I knew to be incorrect and corrected it. I don't see what the big fuss is.

I am not arguing with anyone. NK was passing something off as fact that I knew to be untrue. I said as much. And people don't like it.

I agree Saints haven't had a sustained period missing 5 or more players. I have never claimed otherwise. In fact I haven't made any claims that are untrue.

What are you arguing about?

But you never said he could be either! You worded it in such a way as to suggest he couldn't be by quoting how he'd played only as a bench hooker. Hence my response.

That said, I'm more than happy to concede this point if that wasn't your intention. However would you like to address the points raised regarding Hopoate not being a fullback in the present rather than the past? Your response would be far more interesting than your constant fixation on semantics.

I wouldn’t mind, he cut me off at 5, because I actually said 5,6,7+ but he can have his one game with 5.

I’m confused what he/she wants!

An admittance they have had a game with 5+ players missing through injury? They’ve had it numerous times now.

Me to say they’ve had an injury crisis in the last four and a bit years? Well I can’t do that as I’d be lying.

Saints have been very lucky with injuries and it’s played a big part in their success.

The end.

You must drive your husband/wife/partner up the wall

I can answer that very simply. I'm arguing because you're misinformed and I'm trying to put you right. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that NK has said 'sustained injury crisis' many, many times before the post you jumped on. You're deliberately derailing the thread in my opinion. Let it go.

Instead of arguing that he didn't say it IN THAT ONE INSTANCE, why not just discuss the topic in good faith?

Yes I said he had only played as a bench hooker because NK was happy to use that as evidence of him being a viable option there. But Hopoate's 100 appearances for club and country wasn't evidence enough of his viability. Surely you can see my point there.



Hopoate wouldn't be my first or even 2nd choice to play at 1 for us now, no. But again, I never claimed otherwise. He did however play most of the 2020 season ther so it's hardly like me claiming Sironen is a 6 because he played there 10 years ago. It's relatively recent that Hopoate has played 1.

I am not ignoring it. I have acknowledged several times that he is right in saying we haven't had a prolonged period where we had several missing. And I am not attempting to derail anything. I was just putting it out there that there have been occasions where we have been missing a few, as NK was implying it had NEVER happened.

I am happy to let it go and move on but if people either misquote me or accuse me of being ignorant or derailing threads I will respond.

If you haven't read the thread then you don't "know" anything. Every statement has a context. You weren't aware of the context in this case so your assumption that you "knew" something was incorrect. For someone so obsessed with semantics I thought you would have known this.

semantics
/sɪˈmantɪks/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them.

Stop trying to be a smart a*se.. NK said we had never been without so many, I said we have. That really is the start and end of it. For someone who has accused me of derailing a thread, posting condescending nonsense like this is a little bit hypocritical.

Let's move on shall we?

But you are and I'm sure you know it. This very post is the latest example. I've asked you to comment on Hopoate as fullback now as opposed to in the past which (once again) you've chosen to ignore whilst simultaneously focussing on one word "never" taken out of context.

Explain how that isn't derailing?