Originally posted by Nicey
View Post
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit 
morning
morning-
Morning -
Originally posted by Craig_H View PostOf course you'll pass mate, it's what you do. Something you struggle with, you avoid.
Thought of something to substantiate your view that our tendency to drop points at home doesnt exist or isnt a problem, yet? I'll go to bed, come back tomorrow and still wont find anything.
Sweet dreams Rover
Such misplaced self-confidence. Did you realize I was arguing about the semantics of your attitude not your analysis?.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
I don't see any valid basis for that conclusion from Gerrard's comments but since those comments don't actually fit with yours he's not being negative. That's something else Craig has failed to understand and, since you agreed with him, so have you.Originally posted by Sarb24 View Post.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
No, you haven't. Unfortunately others have. Possibly they get confused when someone doesn't agree with them and rather than reading what's been said jump to the conclusion that it must be the polar opposite of their own, simplistic analysis.Originally posted by Reggie View PostI'm pretty sure that Neil has agreed that we have had a tendency to drop points at home, but is saying this doesn't necessarily mean that we will continue to do so. Unless I've read his posts wrong
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
So saying we should be 7 points odd clear is negative and not realistic? Care to explain?Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
Saying we should have beaten the likes of Fulham, Stoke and West Ham at home is negative and not realistic?
Gerrard saying we'll pay for dropped points at home later is him taking a negative outlook and not being realistic?
Maybe he should be saying don't worry about dropping points at home against **** teams as long as we beat the Mancs, Chavs and Arse we'll be champions.....isn't that creating a false sense of security....but then I guess it would be good enough for some.
Contrary to what you say there is a big difference between being realistic and negative. There is a big thing between being positive and optimisitic.
For the record I don't think there are many negative and positive posters on here. I think there are a few realists and a lot of optimists
Definition of an Optimist: a person disposed to take a favorable view of things
Definition of a realist: Realists view the world in terms of what is (ie. Dropping 6 points at home against relegation fodder is ****...that's the realist view, not negative)
Definition of negative: characterized by or displaying negation or denial or opposition or resistance (Isn't any opposition, resistance, denial etc. Everyone acknowledges it's an achivement by our recent standards to be top. However, some people take a realist view and think we should be top by more)
Personally I'd put Gerrard in the realist campComment
-
Gerrard may not be talking about the dropped points recently, you don't know. The headline assumes he is and it's not from a **** rag. That said, even if he's not then the principle still applies. If we hadn't dropped points at home against **** teams he wouldn't be coming out and saying this would he?Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
The fact he is saying it means he is indirectly or directly referring to what has happened recently and saying it isn't good enough and can't be allowed to happen again from now
If we'd beaten Fulham and West Ham at home these quotes wouldn't have come out
Comment
-
-
I've been through all this already. I don't know why you have to justify yourself by labelling your own point of view as realistic. I don't think being pessimistic about the future is any worse than being optimistic. It seems arrogant and ignorant for any of us to call our own point of view as realistic, that's all. That's why I don't do it.Originally posted by Sarb24 View Post
FFS we're not even arguing about the same thing - why don't you see that?.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
Do you know what you're arguing about? Because apparently know one seems to know except you. And I'm sure I saw you say that no one is a realist, they're only negative. Might be wrongOriginally posted by Neil Young View PostComment
-
well if he pulled his finger out....
"Who's your Daddy now?"
LFC Champions one season someday
Jurgen Klopp is just boss
Semi retired poster
twitter: @parmsahota
insta:@parm78
Comment
-
I did say no-one was a realist, yes. At least I don't think it's appropriate anyone labels themselves as realists. You can be negative or positive - it's about projection for the future. I make no value judgement about whether it's better to be positive or negative, they're purely descriptive terms. I prefer to hope we'll be OK, you're worried we won't be. Why the f*ck you and Craig have a problem with my position is beyond me.Originally posted by Sarb24 View Post.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
Seems to be only you and Craig that cant understand the point he is trying to get across.Originally posted by Sarb24 View PostComment
-
-
Well we're not negative though are we. We're being realistic, that's why I put in the definitions above of being a realist. Just like Gerrard is being a realist and not negativeOriginally posted by Neil Young View PostComment
-
But surely beating United and Chelsea (arguably worth 12pts if you believe Sky) was brilliant - realists view, not positive.Originally posted by Sarb24 View Post
I think the problem is that the idea of 'realism' is ultimately subjective. You qualify as a realist to yourself as your view coincides with your own view of reality (somewhat unsurprisingly). The fact that you value this as somehow superior to other people's world view is, I believe, what Neil is objecting to.
Would you be so annoyed/defensive if the term pessimist was used in the place of negative?"The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind."
-- William BlakeComment
Comment