• Arsenal Message Board

  • A Yahoo! User Feb 23, 2009 20:23 Flag

    Fergie Echoes MY Sentiments: You Lack BALANCE!!!

    This could be an article on every one of my EXPERT posts analyzing the problems within your TINY 5th place club....PROVING once and for all I am the LEADING poster of the boards and most ASTUTE footballing mind....

    As Arsenal battle to avoid finishing outside the top four for the first time since the 1995/96 season, Ferguson has called into question why Wenger has not sought out players to fill to gaps left by last summer's departures.

    He also queries why the Frenchman pursued Andrey Arshavin so resolutely when bolstering his midfield and defence appears more of a priority.

    "He believes profoundly in his youngsters, he doesn’t like to blend them too much with older players," Ferguson says in the Independent.

    "What astonishes me is that he always buys attacking players, like [Andrei] Arshavin. He is a good player but [Wenger] already has [Samir] Nasri, [Emmanuel] Adebayor, [Robin] Van Persie, [Nicklas] Bendtner, Eduardo and [Theo] Walcott.

    "I don’t think he likes buying defenders. That lacks balance."

    Wenger meanwhile has said quite the opposite ahead of Arsenal's Champions League clash with Roma. With five of their more attacking players – Adebayor, Eduardo, Walcott, Van Persie and Rosicky all ruled out with injuries and Arshavin cup-tied, he is feeling the pressure up front and said Arsenal will play a largely defensive game.

    With just one goal in their last four games, Wenger said: “It’s difficult to be bolder because I don’t see what more gambles I can take.”

    Well we know Wenger always says the opposite of what he really intends, so thats b*llocks as usual!

    Class DISMISSED!!!

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Under that view, each message has a reply button. When you switch to thread view, you'll see that your message is threaded under John's post. That happens if you clicked the Reply button in John's message, so fair enough, as John's message was the top one when you posted, but still shows you read that message and then posted yours..

      Great example of ppl getting different perspectives on a situation depending on their view.. Like some people 'watching' a match on Yahoo website, then arguing on the board over ref's decisions with others who actually were at the stadium or watched on TV

    • I've never had a problem discussing football with you before butch, but on this one you're showing yourself up.

      Your reply is linked in the thread right under John's with his question. The only way that happens is if you read his post, then click the Reply button from that very same screen. So tell us, why would we assume that your post was completely random and unrelated to John's question (out of 'thin air' as you put it)?

    • Common sense to me.

      Anyone still think Song is world class?

      I'm looking at you Fred.

      • 1 Reply to Swerve
      • Thats the problem, there are about 4 people on this board with common sense, the rest are completely nuts!

        Xavier was expecting you lot to thrash Roma 3-0, theres just no helping these people, they need committing urgently for the sake of the general public, someones going to get hurt one of these days!

        Check this slayer, just the 47 posts on one of my CLASSICS!

        And I could have responded ALOT more to elicit one of my FAMOUS reactions from these PUPPETS - You KNOWS it son!!!

        HE'S STILL GOT IT!!! What a WINNER!!!

    • "John, my post had nothing to do with Descartes, and it had nothing to do with yours either, I was not answering your question to Chris.

      My post came from mid-air, it was from a signature I once used on another forum."

      Hi Butch, I have to call you out on this one.. the thread clearly shows that your post was in reply to John's post where he asked the question. So any rational reader would think that you were answering his question with your quote...

    • I am reminded of the professor who, in his declining hours, was asked by his devoted pupils for his final counsel. He replied, 'Verify your quotations.'
      - Winston Churchill.


    • That's like saying

      Vini, vici, veni - I saw, I conquered, I came

      Funny if it was said after a hot date, but it's out of context. Everyone however knows the original, and who said it.

      Like your quote.

    • Rene Descartes was the one who first founded the 'cogito' theory. So his statement is the only true one, which was "Cogito ergo sum" As has been said, it has been mis-quoted as "Dubito,ergo cogito, ergo sum", but this is not the original statement. In fact the original was in French before it was translated at that was "Je pense donc je suis".

      I originally asked Chris if there was a phrase for "I play, therefore I am"

      Your answer to this was "Dubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum". So when I said 'that ain't right' what I meant was, that does not say 'I play, therefore I am'. I asked the question, you gave the answer and it was wrong.

      I accept that your translation is correct, but it's not what was asked for, or indeed what was originally said by Descartes.

      Maybe now you can see that by reading back over the post history, that your original answer was wrong and in fact it is you that owes me an apology.

      I wont hold my breath though. :-)

    • Cogito, ergo sum. Always has been, always will be. Ok?

      Now will you two couple of latin-loving despots stop waving your little willies about, the contest is over.

    • "Cogito, ergo sum" (English: "I think, therefore I am"), sometimes misquoted as Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (English: "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am")[1], is a philosophical statement in Latin used by René Descartes

      Courtesy of Wikipedia

      No second 'cogito'

    • To be honest, I didn't like the way Brother Seamus looked at me ;-)

      (For the benefit of those who don't know a tongue in cheek comment when you see one, this was one)

    • View More Messages