Quote:
Originally Posted by pbag
You did not? Then say so. This is wher i have a problem with you. You get in trouble but has to await a few replies to decide which answer is the most convenient. It took you like 20 posts to clarify what you meant in your first post... which i have a hard time to believe.
Whitout the post, no question. This has nothing to do with the issue at hand, wheter i quoted your or my post. You kept on ducking my question. Actually it was two when i think about it.
Actually, i claimed sarcasm in my second post, i even pointed out which part i was talking about. Nice try but failure. It's all there and has been since i posted it, don't even try.
You lacking reading comprehension is not my fault.
The part about critizism was not sarcasm, just to clear things up. That was a legit question. And yes i came to a conclution by what you said in that post of yours.. After that you had trouble keeping your composure and went on about Georges fighting skills. Now you are just backpeddling.
Btw, i don't think Georges would give a sh1t if a fat greasy slob like you would share your inner thoughts face to face. Unless they are positive. And right there is where you victimized him. He wouldn't mind, i'm sure.
|
Sorry, I guess i just cannot leave well enough alone.
Please tell me how I got in trouble? What from you interpreting what i wrote as something which it was not? You my friend have a reading problem. You assumed what I wrote was one thing while it was another. Hence why I should never have had to explain myself to you. You can imagine what you like on this issue, as long as it suits what you think, then you'll feel vindicated.
So here's what I said--- "I'd love to see some of you people go up to him and tell him what you think". And you my friend interpreted it as ---"You mean every opinion shared on this board should be presented to the object it was aimed to by the bystander who coined it? That would be alot of awkward confrontations, especially for the poor victim, the defenceless athlete".
I never said that did I? ( or did you assume this is what i meant?)
"So, when did giving
Georges Laraque negative critique turn taboo?"
I never said it was. (but you assumed this is what I meant?) Your expectation was for me to answer this, yes? But why should I have since I never claimed this in the first place. You just decided that this is what i was thinking. Great like 1984. You control my thoughts.
"You clearly stated that people that have the nerve to critizise your god, shouldn't unless they'd would walk straight up to him and tell it face to face".
Did i state this? Did I also mention he was my god too? (I suppose this was sarcasm too)
"So finally, who are we free to critizise on this message board?
And give me one reason as to why think you are more suitable than anyone else to make that decision".
__________________
I never said anyone couldn't crticize him or anyone else. Did i say this in my original post?
Seriously, I can quote forever here... You took one sentence I wrote, and made it out to be something much larger. You know, perhaps being ignorant serves you well in Sweden, but maybe next time, you could ask me or anyone else to clarify what me/they meant. You'd probably find that you'd get a better straight up answer, with out all the insults thrown around.