[MattyJo]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
Ofcourse you did child, of course you did, whatever you think

If by 'structured and explained' you mean you provided no proof, no actual reasoning, just your view.. and then moaned at me when i did the same, then sure

Why do you resort to name calling when the link you posted puts tennis above soccer?

[MattyJo]

(Original post by Banishingboredom)
Right, let's ignore all the obvious negatives I could throw out about Rangers and focus on your argument.

1) Most people? Based on what evidence? Not like there was a survey. The majority of the people I know are Arsenal/ United/ Liverpool/ Fulham fans and they were supporting us after our improbable victory against Barcelona.

2) The source is from 2009, but given that since then we've won the Premier League and FA Cup double as well as the European cup and FA cup double our fan base is hardly likely to have dwindled is it.

3) History-less club? What defines History then? We won a european trophy before Liverpool, have been a well known top flight club for most of the last 107 years, and have recently topped up our medal collection. Surely by your logic supporting a team because they've won a load of medals in the past is glory hunting? When I started supporting Chelsea (1998 Fa cup final was my first game) we'd won relatively little, but were still well known. I've had all the glory and pleasure of watching my team win trophies, more than fans my age of clubs with so called History have had.

4) "Bought their way to some success" - everyone buys the title one way or another. United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Madrid etc. have all paid for it down the years.

5) "owned by an ignorant billionaire" - who isn't these days (apart from Rangers, who noone would be stupid enough to invest in)

6)"mind numbingly, boring football" -103 league goals in the 2010 season, a premier league record. This season we came from behind to beat Napoli 5-4 on aggregate, thrashed Spurs at Wembley, and produced what was described as one of the greatest European performances ever away to Barcelona.

Don't feed him anymore .

[ForensicShoe]

Blatter's a total ****.

And don't even get me started on his views regarding video technology!

[Jordan_1]

(Original post by Banishingboredom)
Right, let's ignore all the obvious negatives I could throw out about Rangers and focus on your argument.

1) Most people? Based on what evidence? Not like there was a survey. The majority of the people I know are Arsenal/ United/ Liverpool/ Fulham fans and they were supporting us after our improbable victory against Barcelona.

2) The source is from 2009, but given that since then we've won the Premier League and FA Cup double as well as the European cup and FA cup double our fan base is hardly likely to have dwindled is it.

3) History-less club? What defines History then? We won a european trophy before Liverpool, have been a well known top flight club for most of the last 107 years, and have recently topped up our medal collection. Surely by your logic supporting a team because they've won a load of medals in the past is glory hunting? When I started supporting Chelsea (1998 Fa cup final was my first game) we'd won relatively little, but were still well known. I've had all the glory and pleasure of watching my team win trophies, more than fans my age of clubs with so called History have had.

4) "Bought their way to some success" - everyone buys the title one way or another. United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Madrid etc. have all paid for it down the years.

5) "owned by an ignorant billionaire" - who isn't these days (apart from Rangers, who noone would be stupid enough to invest in)

6)"mind numbingly, boring football" -103 league goals in the 2010 season, a premier league record. This season we came from behind to beat Napoli 5-4 on aggregate, thrashed Spurs at Wembley, and produced what was described as one of the greatest European performances ever away to Barcelona.

1) There was even a thread created not long ago with the title. Why are so many British people supporting Bayern over Chelsea? And there were many pages of people giving their reason. Not to mention everyone outside of England.

2) With the emergence of Manchester City and Tottenham, I am sure that alone would have taken away many of your plastic fans.

3) You have only won the Premier League four times and only just won the Champions League. I don't think that qualifies as a rich history. Most people started supporting them when they were bought by a billionaire. Same with Manchester City, everyone who isn't ignorant can see that. " I've had all the glory and pleasure of watching my team win trophies, more than fans my age of clubs with so called History have had." Not if those clubs were Liverpool, Arsenal, Man United.

4) United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Madrid all earned their success. They have been great for a very long time. Chelsea, like City were a very average team until they were bought over.

5) Most clubs. None are as bad as Mr sack a manager Abramovich. Cannot wait till he gets bored with Chelsea and leaves them.

6) 'one of the greatest European performances ever away to Barcelona' you have got to be kidding right? haha. You mean that one where you parked the bus.. again and completely fluked a win? The only good part about the performance was your finishing. Your so called masterclass in defending was awful, how can you think giving one team so many chances (that they ****ed up themselves) could be considered good defending?

You even played for a draw against Bayern in the final. It was embarrassing watching Chelsea just hoof it up to Drogba and the long throw ins. Just a glorified Stoke.

[systeric]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
Any one of your posts on this thread

How on earth you've got such a ludicrously high rep I'll never know.

You clearly spend every waking hour on this forum, searching for people to lay into. They say one little thing you don't like - often not even being all that serious - and all of a sudden they're 'trolling,' 'ignorant' and (your personal favourite) 'boring'. All because they don't share the same opinion as you.

When you've found a target, you proceed to write 5,000 word essays 'dismantling' the same posts you apparently find tediously boring (nice life eh?)

God knows how you find so much to say, given your 'opponents' are allegedly so mind bogglingly stupid that they haven't even made a single substantial point that needs refuting.

You've obviously got terminal self-esteem issues and are trying to compensate by 'pwning' people on the internet and hording little green gems.

It's absolutely pathetic. Someone had to say it.

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by MattyJo)
Why do you resort to name calling when the link you posted puts tennis above soccer?

Nope, like I said to the other guy, our discussion was about which is harder in certain lengths of time wise and such. This is called endurance, and I like the link I posted states, tennis isn't as demanding endurance wise.

I know what the link shows and it has tennis above it in general but as we were discussing one point, not how much more reaction time is needed etc, you would think people would stick to looking at the point made.

[internet tough guy]

I think they should continue playing in 15 minute segments, while taking a player from each team off for every 15 minute segment the game goes on. The game would practically be the same as in normal time, except if your team ends up leading by the end of one of these 15 minute segments, then you have won the game.

[Kaz310]

To be honest, I only ever heard of the golden rule till I played it on my playstation 1. Didn't know it actually used to exist.

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by midlandsman)
and all of a sudden they're 'trolling,' 'ignorant' and (your personal favourite) 'boring'. All because they don't share the same opinion as you.

When something is fact, there is no opinion

When you've found a target, you proceed to write 5,000 word essays

I actually wrote less than the other guy..

It's absolutely pathetic. Someone had to say it.

Good for you, but atleast ramble on about something that makes sense next time.

[Kaz310]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
When something is fact, there is no opinion



I actually wrote less than the other guy..



Good for you, but atleast ramble on about something that makes sense next time.

I've read some of your posts in the past and you don't seem to come across as some ignorrant egotistical ***** as some are suggesting. Perhaps rather, people should be focusing more on the views of what the thread is about; Blatter and his anti-englism.

[systeric]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
When something is fact, there is no opinion

I actually wrote less than the other guy..

Good for you, but atleast ramble on about something that makes sense next time.

That's honestly the best you can do?

Patently nothing makes 'sense' to you except your own vapid, predicable, drivel and ad hom attacks. Not even a plain summary of your own life posting habits.

Let me spell this out as clearly as I can.

You are one of the rudest, most arrogant, cantankerous pricks I've ever encountered - on TSR or anywhere.

If you actually spoke to people in real life like you do on TSR, guess what? You'd have terminal brain damage from having your head kicked in every day.

In fact why not try that some time? I might quite like the results.

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by midlandsman)
That's honestly the best you can do?

What?

You said i got annoyed at his opinion. But there is no opinion about it, as it went against fact and he ignored it. Thus , given it is not something based upon opinion, he was wrong. Thus i did not call someone names based upon their opinion.

You stated i write long essays and such, even though i wrote less than him, and actually have ended u writing less than you.

Thus, like i said, your rambling about what you are annoyed about did not make sense.

Not my fault that gets you mad, but thats your issue, not mine.

[systeric]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
What?

You said i got annoyed at his opinion. But there is no opinion about it, as it went against fact and he ignored it. Thus , given it is not something based upon opinion, he was wrong. Thus i did not call someone names based upon their opinion.

You stated i write long essays and such, even though i wrote less than him, and actually have ended u writing less than you.

Thus, like i said, your rambling about what you are annoyed about did not make sense.

Not my fault that gets you mad, but thats your issue, not mine.

Lol. As if that invalidates everything I said.

The fact is you're incredibly rude, dismissive and bone headed and need calling out on it. So what if you're right, wrong or somewhere in the middle? If you had any semblance of social skill, you'd be able to point out someone's mistakes without treating them like a piece of **** underneath your shoe.

You spent a good few pages arguing with that guy. Many of those posts were pretty long. And there's an equivalent argument in seemingly every thread of the football forum. I've made 3 posts so far - and I'm making a special exception for you. You haven't written much in response because you simply don't have anything to say here.

It's plain for everyone to see that you're a douche bag, and there's nothing you can say to refute it.

[jam277]

(Original post by Banishingboredom)
Right, let's ignore all the obvious negatives I could throw out about Rangers and focus on your argument.

1) Most people? Based on what evidence? Not like there was a survey. The majority of the people I know are Arsenal/ United/ Liverpool/ Fulham fans and they were supporting us after our improbable victory against Barcelona.

2) The source is from 2009, but given that since then we've won the Premier League and FA Cup double as well as the European cup and FA cup double our fan base is hardly likely to have dwindled is it.

3) History-less club? What defines History then? We won a european trophy before Liverpool, have been a well known top flight club for most of the last 107 years, and have recently topped up our medal collection. Surely by your logic supporting a team because they've won a load of medals in the past is glory hunting? When I started supporting Chelsea (1998 Fa cup final was my first game) we'd won relatively little, but were still well known. I've had all the glory and pleasure of watching my team win trophies, more than fans my age of clubs with so called History have had.

4) "Bought their way to some success" - everyone buys the title one way or another. United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Madrid etc. have all paid for it down the years.

5) "owned by an ignorant billionaire" - who isn't these days (apart from Rangers, who noone would be stupid enough to invest in)

6)"mind numbingly, boring football" -103 league goals in the 2010 season, a premier league record. This season we came from behind to beat Napoli 5-4 on aggregate, thrashed Spurs at Wembley, and produced what was described as one of the greatest European performances ever away to Barcelona.

He just hates on us, leave him.

I don't know why people use these old arguments, we are not ****ing man city, we had a clear plan when abramovich came and we were doing as good if not better than tottenham before we had money, we were going bust in 03 and got a billionaire tycoon, even though we had no money we still got top 4 places.

I bet if tottenham got money, no one will say anything, although we probably had a better team than tottenham had when we didn't have money, I said this on the arsenal thread and they laughed, but when has tottenham ever got 75 points in the premier league and come 3rd(4 points away from the leaders) without money(which tottenham have got in fact)

[nonotrly]

Let's leave penalties as they are and find an alternative to Sepp Blatter.

[rorydaredking]

(Original post by wenger16)
Your missing the whole point. It shouldn't go down to individual skill; it should stil be team play which counts but by having 20 mins then pens then another 20 mins i believe it would be the perfect way for matches to end both teams would tested to the limit but in the end it would be about the team.

Whilst football is generally about the best team winning, part of it's magic is that it isnt always. Look at chelsea beating Barca. Clearly the worse team but good finishing meant they won. Bad decisions by referees cost teams cups and leagues. You cant make football so the best team always wins. Who is to say that in those extra 20 mins, if the worse team scores a lucky goal in the first 20, the better team are still better and just hit the crossbar 20 times, and have so many refereeing decisions against them. So the worse team still wins...

[nonotrly]

(Original post by rorydaredking)
Whilst football is generally about the best team winning, part of it's magic is that it isnt always. Look at chelsea beating Barca. Clearly the worse team but good finishing meant they won.

So the better team won...

[Banishingboredom]

(Original post by MattyJo)
Don't feed him anymore .