Bazdavies79

These aren't my own definitions. My viewpoint is close to weak agnosticism.

Au contraire, things often are so clear cut, and it's merely people who are afraid of the consequences of that clear cut-ness that seek to impart confusion. Would you like to point out just why you don't feel you're an atheist, despite by your own admission not being a theist, and atheist simply being "not theist"? And yes, it is that clear cut. But it isn't, it really isn't... I'm agnostic, I believe the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, I will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. 'Sitting on the fence' is a perfectly valid theological position to take, if Agnosticism is about knowledge and Theism and Atheism is about belief. Why would I concern myself with a belief in either of the the positive assertions 'there is a god' or 'there is not a god' without sufficient knowledge? Now point me to the study about agnostics being atheists in denial.

..that's a good starting point.

Well open a book Don, do a bit of reading, you'll find things aren't so clear cut as they are in your narrow little mind.

Gabby's assist and goal tally was the best in the squad.

Bent? We were talking about Gabby and you knows it :winkold:Oh I know, but Bent was easily our most potent attacking threat IMO.Until he got injured, then Gabby overtook him, statistically as a whole.He played 11 games more than Bent though.Yes, which is why I said as a whole, not by ratio. By ratio he was the second most prolific attacking player, after Bent. Which is why I find it bizarre he's considered a player who could be on the transfer list.

I capitalised it because I'm rubbish at writing. I'm not sure whether god exists, which would put me in a sub category of atheism or agnosticism. I lean towards the popular definition of words being the more valid so I call myself agnostic. But I don't care much for these labels as they don't do a very good job. But lets not get away from my original point, that the view of one poster was that people are 'too pussy' to admit they're atheist if they call themselves agnostic. A bizarre claim.

What utter drivel. Have you asked these people? It's what you think, not a fact. If you allow the possibility that there are no gods, you are an atheist and it's simply a matter of degree. Whether you are agnostic or not is completely unrelated. The definition of "agnostic" might be changing with misuse, but "atheist" still means the same thing. Atheism is a spectrum from weak ("I'm not sure whether there is a god") to strong ("There is no god"). If your personal vocabulary defines "agnostic" to mean the same as "weak atheist" then I'm afraid what you quoted is not drivel. It is drivel. The statement that people are 'too pussy' to admit they're Atheist is frankly arrogant and patronising. And like I said, I'm not concerned with labels, they do a poor job of defining complex ideas.

You'd assume the system good enough to get round that. If he was a good passer a passing % would be relatively high in a squad/for his age/position etc etc. I kind of agree with you though, stats are important, but not more important than old fashioned watching a player.

How reliable/comprehensive are football stats as you go down through the leagues?

I'm Agnostic. I'm someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities. I use the term in it's popular sense, like many a great mind have before me. Strictly speaking incorrect I suppose, if you believe the meaning of words can't change through popular use. I won't get anal about labels, they do a very poor job of defining such complexities anyway. Ideas are more important. What utter drivel. Have you asked these people? It's what you think, not a fact.

Bent? We were talking about Gabby and you knows it :winkold:Oh I know, but Bent was easily our most potent attacking threat IMO.Until he got injured, then Gabby overtook him, statistically as a whole.

He played a part, best player? nah. My vote would go to Gabby. Best player is a bit of a misrepresentation though, I think least shit is probably more apt a description. Everybody had a shit season, Gabby wins it as he actually wasn't shit for a brief spell. His tally of assists/goals put him at the top of the pile in an attacking sense, helped by Bent's absence. My least shit player of the season was Gabby. Runner up Bent.

Bent? We were talking about Gabby and you knows it :winkold:

I appreciate all the disciplines when executed well. I know exactly what you're getting at, but I think it's missing the point.

Yeah, well put.

I don't believe nobody liked him. I am suggesting exactly that. What I don't understand is how you thought he was our best player.

Let's see how good this lad is before we start condemning our most potent attacking player of last season to the dustbin.

It was called the really wild show when I watched it, I think a spin off came later called the really really wild show. RIP.

90% don't hate Ireland, I think a lot of people want him to do well. I think that's why he won. These awards in my memory rarely relate to on the pitch performances.

I saw a stat showing th number of passes attempted v Newcastle; KEA 43, Lowton 42, Ireland 39, Bannan 35, Holman 34, Clark 33, Vlaar 30, Bent 29, Lichaj 22, Weimann 17. KEA completed 91% of his passes, Ireland 90%, Holman 79% and Bannan 77%. Lowton was by far the most accurate passer in defence with 83%. Vlaar had 77%. Lichaj and Clark came out overall as the worst passers in the team with a very poor 68% and 64% success rate.

No I don't think that's fair. Giving what was then a 5 year contract on big money to a then 35 year old goalkeeper is bad business whatever way you look at it. We were desperate at the time, having just lost Friedel and Given fair play to him maximised the situation. But it doesn't matter whether he's flavour of the month or not. It was never a good deal for Aston Villa.I agree with the original poster, he's not flavour of the month.

How can it mean jack shit? The most votes for any player were for Stephen Ireland? Why? Because he was a class above anyone else in that team, and also added hard work to his game. Was he bollocks, and neither was Barry when he used to turn up to collect his annual award.

Fans player of the year means jack shit. Gabby and Bent and even Given played a bigger role IMO.

If you're classing last week as one of those 2 guide games, it goes to show you haven't a clue. Sunday wasn't one of his best games for us. He was solid, but he's been much better. People clearly only have an appreciation for the swanky shit and not hard graft and team work Well, I don't think you 'have a clue', it was the best game he's had IMO, better than the Chelsea performance. He had a good all round game.