Liverpool FC Forum

by **LFC2007** » Sat May 05, 2007 7:26 pm

Again, it was in posts aimed at Stu that I posed the questions of Rafa's performance not 'Eds'. Therefore why would 'Eds' respond in first person as if it were his post I was responding to?

By 'Eds'

"How can you possibly state I am whinning perpetually about Rafa’s performance? On one single post? What planet are you from? Have you not heard the great things I have said about the man in my reply to you? Signing Reina, Mascherano and Alonso has been an enormous enhancements to the club, winning the CL league and FA Cup have been fantastic achievements?? Or have you chosen to ignore this seeing as it doesn’t suit your agenda? When did I say I was infallible I used the arrogance in my debate as humour and to antagonize you, something which you are too stupid to understand as you have fallen into the trap of thinking that I think of myself as being “infalliable”, idiot of the highest order! "

In addition, In one of my last posts I said ' I don't need to brag with arrogance about my credentials'. This was in response to 'Stu's' post. Why therefore would 'Eds' respond in first person by saying 'I used the arrogance in my debate as humour'.

Please explain to me why? I could go on throughout the post and cite further examples of this.

by **LFC2007** » Sat May 05, 2007 7:31 pm

Stu.Murph wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:I'm not going to drag up every single thread and analyse it and I'm not going to waste my time on someone who's only way of conducting an argument or expressing a view is by being abusive.
You've been banned before, you've demonstrated how insulting you can be to other forum members not just me, it undermines everything you say.
You can go through life being an abusive bigot but it won't get you very far.

Yet again commenting on things you know absoloutely nothing about...

Keep it up.

I know you have been banned before, the forum moderators have told me. I know you are a bigot, it is endemic within your posts.
I know you have been abusive to me, its not debatable it's a fact:
Examples:

'You generally talk sh!te'.
'FARK OFF'.
'GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL'

It's absolutely pathetic. You belittle others to get your point accross.

by **Stu.Murph** » Sat May 05, 2007 7:34 pm

LFC2007 wrote:
Stu.Murph wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:I'm not going to drag up every single thread and analyse it and I'm not going to waste my time on someone who's only way of conducting an argument or expressing a view is by being abusive.
You've been banned before, you've demonstrated how insulting you can be to other forum members not just me, it undermines everything you say.
You can go through life being an abusive bigot but it won't get you very far.

Yet again commenting on things you know absoloutely nothing about...

Keep it up.

I know you have been banned before, the forum moderators have told me. I know you are a bigot, it is endemic within your posts.
I know you have been abusive to me, its not debatable it's a fact:
Examples:

'You generally talk sh!te'.
'FARK OFF'.
'GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL'

It's absolutely pathetic. You belittle others to get your point accross.

You know I've been banned? Wow!

Keep going lad... you're making yourself look a bigger tool with every post.

by **Stu.Murph** » Sat May 05, 2007 7:36 pm

LFC2007 wrote:Please explain to me why? I could go on throughout the post and cite further examples of this.

Go on, its quite amusing...

I love the way you've now backed down over the "guest" posting...

Eds, looks like we may have been rumbled mate... :laugh:

by **LFC2007** » Sat May 05, 2007 7:37 pm

I know you've been banned, it's a reflection of you, not me.

by **redtrader74** » Sat May 05, 2007 7:38 pm

Hey people in this case Lfc2007 is right, i have read through the posts with interest and couldn't understand why Eds post was replying in the first person to Lfc2007's post, which was a reponse to, and directed at Stu.

BTW Stu, have a look, guests are posting. :eyebrow

by **Stu.Murph** » Sat May 05, 2007 7:38 pm

But it clearly is a reflection on you that you are claiming myself Eds and the banned member who posted that paragraph before all to be me...

by **Stu.Murph** » Sat May 05, 2007 7:40 pm

This is getting better by the minute!

Guests are not allowed to post on this website. FACT!

To expand on that point, when a member is banned and their account deleted it shows up as "guest". Also, your IP address shows on the site when the admin and mods log in, so they can see who has an alias name by simply looking at the IP address and comparing it.

I believe by knowing someones IP address you can tell what country and even what part of which country they are from... but not being overly good on computers I can't confirm that...

So as I was saying... keep going.

by **Emerald Red** » Sat May 05, 2007 7:45 pm

This thread has turned into a p*ssing contest, and "I've got a bigger handbag than you. Watch it!" type argument!

by **Bad Bob** » Sat May 05, 2007 7:56 pm

Stu.Murph wrote:To expand on that point, when a member is banned and their account deleted it shows up as "guest".

Right you are, mate. Some of your finest posts now appear under the name "Guest"! :nod

by **LFC2007** » Sat May 05, 2007 7:58 pm

Stu.Murph wrote:But it clearly is a reflection on you that you are claiming myself Eds and the banned member who posted that paragraph before all to be me...

It seems fairly dubious to me as to why 'Eds' has responded in first person to questions aimed at 'Stu'. It is also fairly dubious that the exact same content of the debate between me and 'Stu' has been used in the post by 'Eds'. It is also strikingly co-incidental that the language and insulting nature of the post by 'Eds' is the same as that of 'stu'. The bottom line is why would 'Eds' respond in first person as If I were addressing his posts when I clearly was not. I clearly quoted Stu's posts and then responded accordingly. It makes no sense.

I'm no computer whizz kid but an IP address identifies a specific computer, therefore it is possible that you could have access to more than one computer e.g. a work computer and a home computer, or a PC and a laptop.

by **LFC2007** » Sat May 05, 2007 8:01 pm

So you accept that being abusive and insulting is the way to go about expressing a view?

Please tell me Stu, I'm dying to know how you think telling someone to Fark off is going to help you express your view more successfully.

by **peterc1992** » Sat May 05, 2007 8:13 pm

Cool Hand Luke wrote:Dudek - His contract is up, he will leave.

Paletta - Loan him out for a season, if not in the Premiership, in the Championship. But either way he needs to be playing regular first team football in England.

Mark Gonzalez - Loan him out to a Premiership team where he will be regularly.

Fowler - Let him go since we have signed Voronin, would have kept him otherwise.

Bellamy- Sell him if we can find a top class striker.

I agree!Loan Palleta out to anothert team,give him some regular footbal and bring him back then when sami's gone,and he will play more regularly,Fowler has to go too,he is good enough in his head but physically he is not the same.
One thing i dont agree with loaning Gonzalez,i just dont think hes good enough and he has to go.I dont think he brings anything except speed to the team and hed be better off in horse racing!

by **Stu.Murph** » Sat May 05, 2007 8:18 pm

LFC2007 wrote:So you accept that being abusive and insulting is the way to go about expressing a view?

Please tell me Stu, I'm dying to know how you think telling someone to Fark off is going to help you express your view more successfully.

Where did I say fark off then soft lad?

by **Stu.Murph** » Sat May 05, 2007 8:20 pm

LFC2007 wrote:
Stu.Murph wrote:But it clearly is a reflection on you that you are claiming myself Eds and the banned member who posted that paragraph before all to be me...

It seems fairly dubious to me as to why 'Eds' has responded in first person to questions aimed at 'Stu'. It is also fairly dubious that the exact same content of the debate between me and 'Stu' has been used in the post by 'Eds'. It is also strikingly co-incidental that the language and insulting nature of the post by 'Eds' is the same as that of 'stu'. The bottom line is why would 'Eds' respond in first person as If I were addressing his posts when I clearly was not. I clearly quoted Stu's posts and then responded accordingly. It makes no sense.

I'm no computer whizz kid but an IP address identifies a specific computer, therefore it is possible that you could have access to more than one computer e.g. a work computer and a home computer, or a PC and a laptop.

I have access to three home computers, mine, my fathers and my laptop.

All of which are connected to the same network.

Like I said before, stop clutching at straws.

I am not saying any more on the matter.

Liverpool FC Forum

Should they stay or should they go now?

Who is online