Paul
Jeff Moxshi
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 10,841
- Reaction score
- 2,740
It's surprising !How many is it?
It's surprising !How many is it?
Is it as surprising as the number he won to save us points/score?It's surprising !
It depends what certain peoples agendas are I love the guy but unfortunately he's on the acceptable targets listIs it as surprising as the number he won to save us points/score?
Whereas Dino liked a post that said Donck is everything that's wrong with the club and should never play again. Agendas eh?It depends what certain peoples agendas are I love the guy but unfortunately he's on the acceptable targets list
We seem to have had a lot of posts recently with Donck, Coady Saiss are worse than Hitler, there is no middle ground, people go straight to the 'Dire Wolf' reactionary bollox as above, there simply cannot be a "he had a poor game" or "that's an unfortunate error" we accelerate straight to "should never play again", but there is only certain players you can do that to, Semedo and Fabio because they had the unfortunate luck that someone else decided and agreed on their value, and the afore mentioned trio who some divot decided are the worst defensive partnership in the league, a statement not backed up by any evidence whatsoever, a fate that will no doubt befall a bargain basement Rico Henry when he rocks up, so yes there are agendasWhereas Dino liked a post that said Donck is everything that's wrong with the club and should never play again. Agendas eh?
Whereas Dino liked a post that said Donck is everything that's wrong with the club and should never play again. Agendas eh?
Paul introduced the word, I just continued, I don't really care what label you attach to it. When someone's opinion can't be reasoned with, they can only see the bad and make or agree with statements like he should never pull the shirt on again or give them childish nicknames then that opinion has strayed into another area. You can call it bias, an agenda or just bollocks I don't mind.It's rather grandiose to label other people's opinions as 'agendas', like this is some kind of 1950s Soviet Central Committee power struggle, rather than a website for middle-aged Wolverhampton Wanderers fans.
Is DW bad for having an 'agenda' against Doc and Jose, or is it just his opinion, and does it even matter?
Paul introduced the word, I just continued, I don't really care what label you attach to it. When someone's opinion can't be reasoned with, they can only see the bad and make or agree with statements like he should never pull the shirt on again or give them childish nicknames then that opinion has strayed into another area. You can call it bias, an agenda or just bollocks I don't mind.
I wouldn't say DW is "bad"for his comments on WJ, in the same way I didn't say Dino was bad, but equally they similarly hyperbolic and exaggerated
Coming up with amazing nicknames like Willian Joke takes talent, you know.
He is fucking shit, mind.