Well that's not entirely true.HarveysDeciple wrote:
It's no coincidence that no -one ever interprets your posts in a manner you deem to be accurate.
Quite a few people interpret my posts precisely as they are intended.
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Well that's not entirely true.HarveysDeciple wrote:
It's no coincidence that no -one ever interprets your posts in a manner you deem to be accurate.
Exactly. Hit the nail on the head. Yep, all of us - we all misinterpret Rodgerfox's posts every single time!! Just incredible how simple we all are. It is never rodger's fault - ever. Not once!! And now we are all sooks to boot!! Yep, we sure are - you're right oh great one. It is a shame this forum is not worthy of your superior intellect that so baffles us commoners time after time. There are many fine posters on here who never seem to get misinterpetted unlike our old Rodg - so he must be way above their intellect as well. Think I'll stick to reading Bigmart's posts - he seems to know what he is talking about and I never seem to misinterpret his words - ever!!HarveysDeciple wrote:It's no coincidence that no -one ever interprets your posts in a manner you deem to be accurate.rodgerfox wrote:yipper wrote:
And so here we go on our usual way - a few personal insults get thrown out. You are the most predictable poster on here. I can read perfectly well mate, even slowly!! And we have all read the same dribble from you over and over. Get a life you hero.
You're a bit slow.
Here we go??
'a few personal insults' have alrady been thrown out....
-Get a life you hero
-You are becoming a master at saying something and then back-pedalling your way out
-that's right, rodgerfox the master of making a statement then coming out with "Oh but I didn';t mean that at all".
-dodgy
-NOW please, if you're going to subject us all to your self absorbed drivel
-you have an undying man-crush on GT. He is your boyfriend
Please. If you get sooky over an 'insult' on the internet, can you please lodge a complaint with the mods about the above ones I've copped in the first two pages of this poast before you start grizzling.
Because the meaning of your statement changes depending on what people say, purely for the purpose of being argumentative.
Yet it's just everybody else being simple, not your fault at all
Me, for instance. Given that you did not see the game, most of your comments are fairly accurate.rodgerfox wrote:...Quite a few people interpret my posts precisely as they are intended.
I find it just a little bit bizarre, that you've responded twice.barks4eva wrote:Is it just a little bit bizarre, IMHO of course, that someone who does not bother going to our games, sometimes doesn't even watch our game on TV, someone who says he no longer feels the passion for AFL footy, yet somehow finds innumerable hours to post here writing about it all at great length, as if offering pearls of saintly wisdom for all the, as he puts it uninformed "morons"!
Oh Perleeeeeeeeeeze![]()
dodgy the game is up, back in your foxhole!
Spot on Barks, but be careful - you'll be labelled a 'bully' shortly for having the temerity to point out the inescapable truth of this situation.barks4eva wrote:Is it just a little bit bizarre, IMHO of course, that someone who does not bother going to our games, sometimes doesn't even watch our game on TV, someone who says he no longer feels the passion for AFL footy, yet somehow finds innumerable hours to post here writing about it all at great length, as if offering pearls of saintly wisdom for all the, as he puts it uninformed "morons"!
Oh Perleeeeeeeeeeze![]()
dodgy the game is up, back in your foxhole!
And of course most people would interpret not playing very well as meaning playing poorly.... how fatuous can you get drawing out a clarification over 3 pages.An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
Grandstanding, pontification, opinionating, SHOULD BE AT LEAST BASED ON SEEING THE ACTUAL BLOODY GAME FFS!! Or at LEAST some highlights. Prefrably you should be there. But its not really about the "boring" ole saints is it? hmmrodgerfox wrote:Surely it's safe to assume that you are aware there is no obligation to anyone to reply, or even read my posts?
Oh dear. And here they come.Mr Magic wrote:Spot on Barks, but be careful - you'll be labelled a 'bully' shortly for having the temerity to point out the inescapable truth of this situation.barks4eva wrote:Is it just a little bit bizarre, IMHO of course, that someone who does not bother going to our games, sometimes doesn't even watch our game on TV, someone who says he no longer feels the passion for AFL footy, yet somehow finds innumerable hours to post here writing about it all at great length, as if offering pearls of saintly wisdom for all the, as he puts it uninformed "morons"!
Oh Perleeeeeeeeeeze![]()
dodgy the game is up, back in your foxhole!
I just think it is amazing that we have a 3-0 start to the season playiong great footy and somehow Rodgerfox manages to move the forum focus on to himself!
He truly is the Saintsational Master Debaiter.
'...[H]e can't have played very well...' is a vague statement. It is quite reasonable to surmise, if he didn't play well, that you thought he played badly. You seem perplexed when people arrive at that logical conclusion. Your reasoning seems to be based on phantom statistics. It's no wonder you're being challenged on that opinion.rodgerfox wrote:I simply said that I don't think it's possible to play 'very well' as a backman if you make 10 errors and give away 3 frees.
What's so hard to understand about that??
As you so clearly hoped for.rodgerfox wrote:Oh dear. And here they come.Mr Magic wrote:Spot on Barks, but be careful - you'll be labelled a 'bully' shortly for having the temerity to point out the inescapable truth of this situation.barks4eva wrote:Is it just a little bit bizarre, IMHO of course, that someone who does not bother going to our games, sometimes doesn't even watch our game on TV, someone who says he no longer feels the passion for AFL footy, yet somehow finds innumerable hours to post here writing about it all at great length, as if offering pearls of saintly wisdom for all the, as he puts it uninformed "morons"!
Oh Perleeeeeeeeeeze![]()
dodgy the game is up, back in your foxhole!
I just think it is amazing that we have a 3-0 start to the season playiong great footy and somehow Rodgerfox manages to move the forum focus on to himself!
He truly is the Saintsational Master Debaiter.
Under normal circumstances, you'd be correct.vacuous space wrote:'...[H]e can't have played very well...' is a vague statement. It is quite reasonable to surmise, if he didn't play well, that you thought he played badly. You seem perplexed when people arrive at that logical conclusion. Your reasoning seems to be based on phantom statistics. It's no wonder you're being challenged on that opinion.rodgerfox wrote:I simply said that I don't think it's possible to play 'very well' as a backman if you make 10 errors and give away 3 frees.
What's so hard to understand about that??
Misunderstandings are more commonly a result of poor communication than a lack of intelligence. You need to open yourself up to the possibility that you may not be the wordsmith you fancy yourself to be. If somebody asks you your position after you've already stated it, then you've probably done a bad job of explaining youself in the first place and should try again. Referring back to the original misundertood statement doesn't seem like an intelligent way to resolve the problem.
I can only comment on what I've seen. In this instance, I misunderstood you and I don't think it was due to any inability on my part to read. I think, given what you wrote and what you refused to elaborate upon, it was perfectly understandable that everyone thought you were saying Blake played badly.rodgerfox wrote:Therefore these cretins see my name as the poster, and jump to conclusions. Don't read what I write, but assume what I meant.
Rodger said in reply to this that the stats showed he'd made errors. Cue downward spiral.Blake would just about be the first picked at the moment. His game was faultless on Saturday, and his kicking was superb. He never missed a target. He is twice the player he was two years ago.
Well, you can judge a person's performance purely on stats... you're just very, very likely to miss the context.HarveysDeciple wrote:the bottom line is you cannot judger a person's performance purely by a stat sheet.
Otherwise it well tell you Daniel Kerr had 27 touches and won 18 of them contested.
The reality is he had no impact on the game.
Blake may have in your oppinion played poorly, but I don't see how you can simply look at a stat sheet to conclude someone didn't play well.
Watch the game then decide. Surely that's reasonable?
I think we are waiting for the source of his stated 10 errors. Others have quoted sources which had a much lower number.bergholt wrote:
So if you have to have a go at Rodger, do it for the substance of his argument, not the form (which I admit is sometimes lacking).