Mantis Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I think it was Woodtom who used to be in a band, was quite an easy going kind of guy and who was pretty positive about things a couple of years ago? I want that guy back, now you're acting as bad as some of the other 'posters' on here. Never been in a band mate - my bro was though. not sure that would have been mentioned. I was pretty positive about things and still am in some aspects of Villa - Lerner, Lambert, Weimann for example. I think you will find that when people debate with me in a sensible manor, they get easy going responses. Id like to think i am quite open to change and I definitely always admit when I got it wrong. I am not sure why but at times people don't debate sensibly and just have a go instead. i can take that like, but its quite a shame. If you go back a few pages to my original post tonight, you won't notice many sensible answers to the question I proposed. KJ PArton and MarkAVFC maybe, but other than its just jumping on my back. Now them posters might argue they didnt see my question as sensible. Thats fair enough. Why bother replying in the first place would be my question? Heaven forbid someone should be positive about Villa. Heaven forbid that someone should disagree with that positivity (or as I saw it - delusional). It wasn't delusion, just somebody saying they'd like to see Villa have more players of Benteke's quality. What's wrong with that? That isnt what they said. I think you knew exactly what the meant. You're just arguing over semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 (edited) What nonsense? You dismissing anything I say as 'nonsense' is patronising and condescending. Anyway this is pathetic, massively off topic and I'm not wasting any more time discussing this. Will probably see you in the Westwood thread next season when he misplaces a pass.* Ciao. *Disclaimer: Before this gets flagged up for Poster on poster, this actually happened Edited June 21, 2013 by StefanAVFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I think you knew exactly what the meant. You're just arguing over semantics. Well I read it as he thought Villa had a god given right for a team of players like that. Seen as the lad hasnt been back on yet (and hes going to get quite a shock if and when he does ), neither me, you or anybody else knows exactly what he meant. If he meant what you think, then fair enough and vice verser. I really don't see the problem. I think he meant what I said, and if he did, Id be very interested to know how he came to that conclusion. Ironically, because I am quite interested in debating it FWIW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I think you knew exactly what the meant. You're just arguing over semantics. Well I read it as he thought Villa had a god given right for a team of players like that. Seen as the lad hasnt been back on yet (and hes going to get quite a shock if and when he does ), neither me, you or anybody else knows exactly what he meant. If he meant what you think, then fair enough and vice verser. I really don't see the problem. I think he meant what I said, and if he did, Id be very interested to know how he came to that conclusion. Ironically, because I am quite interested in debating it FWIW. Doug's post a couple of pages back summed it up for me. He clearly wasn't demanding we have that kind of quality but saying he'd like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I think you knew exactly what the meant. You're just arguing over semantics. Well I read it as he thought Villa had a god given right for a team of players like that. Seen as the lad hasnt been back on yet (and hes going to get quite a shock if and when he does ), neither me, you or anybody else knows exactly what he meant. If he meant what you think, then fair enough and vice verser. I really don't see the problem. I think he meant what I said, and if he did, Id be very interested to know how he came to that conclusion. Ironically, because I am quite interested in debating it FWIW. Doug's post a couple of pages back summed it up for me. He clearly wasn't demanding we have that kind of quality but saying he'd like it. He said Benteke is not too good for us - We should have quality players like him throughout the team. We are Aston Villa FFS, not some promoted side'. That to me (or at least the last bit) reads as more of a 'its our right as a club better than a promoted side' than 'I would like'. Im not even sure where you and Doug get 'I would like' from that tbh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 It's about the context. You're just nitpicking. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 It's about the context. You're just nitpicking. But Im not. Can you tell me what is meant (or what you believe is meant) by - We are Aston Villa FFS, not a promoted side. There were promoted sides that finished above us last season? And the season before that. The 'FFS' adds further implications that it is plainly obvious that we are big enough for a team load of Christian Bentekes. At no point does his post or the context of it, indicate that he meant that is simply what he would like. I would really like you to point out clearly how you got to that conclusion as it genuinely isnt clear to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 It's about the context. You're just nitpicking. But Im not. Can you tell me what is meant (or what you believe is meant) by - We are Aston Villa FFS, not a promoted side. There were promoted sides that finished above us last season? And the season before that. The 'FFS' adds further implications that it is plainly obvious that we are big enough for a team load of Christian Bentekes. At no point does his post or the context of it, indicate that he meant that is simply what he would like. I would really like you to point out clearly how you got to that conclusion as it genuinely isnt clear to me. What Doug said. I think you're reading way too much into the use of the word "should". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 It's about the context. You're just nitpicking. But Im not. Can you tell me what is meant (or what you believe is meant) by - We are Aston Villa FFS, not a promoted side. There were promoted sides that finished above us last season? And the season before that. The 'FFS' adds further implications that it is plainly obvious that we are big enough for a team load of Christian Bentekes. At no point does his post or the context of it, indicate that he meant that is simply what he would like. I would really like you to point out clearly how you got to that conclusion as it genuinely isnt clear to me. What Doug said. I think you're reading way too much into the use of the word "should". And the 'We are Aston Villa FFS, not a promoted side'? As I originally asked? Or are you just conveniently ignoring this part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 You could also say that the 'Benteke is not too good for us' part, also does not support what you and Doug are suggesting it meant. You wouldnt say, 'Benteke is not too good for us I would like a team of Bentekes'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 It's about the context. You're just nitpicking. But Im not. Can you tell me what is meant (or what you believe is meant) by - We are Aston Villa FFS, not a promoted side. There were promoted sides that finished above us last season? And the season before that. The 'FFS' adds further implications that it is plainly obvious that we are big enough for a team load of Christian Bentekes. At no point does his post or the context of it, indicate that he meant that is simply what he would like. I would really like you to point out clearly how you got to that conclusion as it genuinely isnt clear to me. What Doug said. I think you're reading way too much into the use of the word "should". And the 'We are Aston Villa FFS, not a promoted side'? As I originally asked? Or are you just conveniently ignoring this part? You'll have to ask him that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 It's about the context. You're just nitpicking. But Im not. Can you tell me what is meant (or what you believe is meant) by - We are Aston Villa FFS, not a promoted side. There were promoted sides that finished above us last season? And the season before that. The 'FFS' adds further implications that it is plainly obvious that we are big enough for a team load of Christian Bentekes. At no point does his post or the context of it, indicate that he meant that is simply what he would like. I would really like you to point out clearly how you got to that conclusion as it genuinely isnt clear to me. What Doug said. I think you're reading way too much into the use of the word "should". And the 'We are Aston Villa FFS, not a promoted side'? As I originally asked? Or are you just conveniently ignoring this part? You'll have to ask him that. I have. And now I am asking you seen as though your so adamant I am wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Another 12 months and a large profit (to re-invest in other Bentekes), unless his agent is an idiot. Unfortunately that's the way it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 It's about the context. You're just nitpicking. But Im not. Can you tell me what is meant (or what you believe is meant) by - We are Aston Villa FFS, not a promoted side. There were promoted sides that finished above us last season? And the season before that. The 'FFS' adds further implications that it is plainly obvious that we are big enough for a team load of Christian Bentekes. At no point does his post or the context of it, indicate that he meant that is simply what he would like. I would really like you to point out clearly how you got to that conclusion as it genuinely isnt clear to me. What Doug said. I think you're reading way too much into the use of the word "should". And the 'We are Aston Villa FFS, not a promoted side'? As I originally asked? Or are you just conveniently ignoring this part? You'll have to ask him that. I have. And now I am asking you seen as though your so adamant I am wrong? How am I supposed to know what he thinks? What I do think though is that this whole argument over semantics is quite frankly dumb. There's no need to nitpick just because some people dare to be positive about the team they support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
479Villan Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Didn't somebody say we were all going to see him re-up this week? We're running out of "this week." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 How am I supposed to know what he thinks?. You seemed to have a pretty good idea a few posts ago when you said that I had clearly misinterpreted it wrong. I would like to know how I have misinterpreted it now that you have realised what his full quote has said as since I highlighted it you seem reluctant to stand by your original statement that he clearly meant 'he would like that'. What I do think though is that this whole argument over semantics is quite frankly dumb. There's no need to nitpick just because some people dare to be positive about the team they support. Why bother getting involved then? I am not nitpicking - I am quite interested in how he came to that conclusion and would like to debate it. If you, Ciggiesnbeer or anyone else doesn't want to debate it then that is fine. Mantis, I like you as a poster but it seems you came into a debate here without actually knowing the full extent of the post I originally quoted. Since finding that out, you seem to be back pedalling. There is no shame in saying you were clearly wrong to dismiss my interpretation of CnB's post so quickly , otherwise I would be most interetsed (as asked before) if you could point out how/why I am clearly wrong in my interpretation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Didn't somebody say we were all going to see him re-up this week? We're running out of "this week." Yeah there were a few rumours knocking round. I was hanging onto Richards positivity. I am currently falling to the ground unless something happens tomorrow. I know they dont really mean much but the odds have gone back in our favour. Was 2/5 to be at Villa next season. That is quite short considering the next team is 4/1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
479Villan Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Didn't somebody say we were all going to see him re-up this week? We're running out of "this week." Yeah there were a few rumours knocking round. I was hanging onto Richards positivity. I am currently falling to the ground unless something happens tomorrow. I know they dont really mean much but the odds have gone back in our favour. Was 2/5 to be at Villa next season. That is quite short considering the next team is 4/1 I don't think this week is make or break, I just laugh at people who turn their opinion into "YOU WAIT AND SEE HOW INFORMED I AM." It's like giving the Mail an account here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 How am I supposed to know what he thinks?. You seemed to have a pretty good idea a few posts ago when you said that I had clearly misinterpreted it wrong. I would like to know how I have misinterpreted it now that you have realised what his full quote has said as since I highlighted it you seem reluctant to stand by your original statement that he clearly meant 'he would like that'. What I do think though is that this whole argument over semantics is quite frankly dumb. There's no need to nitpick just because some people dare to be positive about the team they support. Why bother getting involved then? I am not nitpicking - I am quite interested in how he came to that conclusion and would like to debate it. If you, Ciggiesnbeer or anyone else doesn't want to debate it then that is fine. Mantis, I like you as a poster but it seems you came into a debate here without actually knowing the full extent of the post I originally quoted. Since finding that out, you seem to be back pedalling. There is no shame in saying you were clearly wrong to dismiss my interpretation of CnB's post so quickly , otherwise I would be most interetsed (as asked before) if you could point out how/why I am clearly wrong in my interpretation? I just think it's clear that he doesn't think we have some sort of divine right to have world class players all over the pitch. I'm fully aware of the post your originally quoted thanks, and I'm not backpedaling. I think your interpretation is still wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Didn't somebody say we were all going to see him re-up this week? We're running out of "this week." Yeah there were a few rumours knocking round. I was hanging onto Richards positivity. I am currently falling to the ground unless something happens tomorrow. I know they dont really mean much but the odds have gone back in our favour. Was 2/5 to be at Villa next season. That is quite short considering the next team is 4/1 I don't think this week is make or break, I just laugh at people who turn their opinion into "YOU WAIT AND SEE HOW INFORMED I AM." It's like giving the Mail an account here. Scrap them odds, theres now very little on show with us being 11/17 whilst arse, Plop and Tott all at 3s. I don't really think anybody knows anything tbh. I dont think the discussions are any further on than they were a month ago tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts