Your consultation with the Oxford English in the drafting your long thought out response is duly noted
I think Freud called that projection. You realise, surely, that the internet is awash with people who like to see themselves as some sort of intellectual heavyweight and rely upon bluster and insults to detract from their failure to win an argument? It's just that you're acting like this is the first time anybody has come onto a forum with the "look at me I'm all clever and stuff" facade.
although the only person trying to talk up the abuse was you ("ascribe value" is the definition of the word you used and I didn't need a dictionary to tell you that - the wonders of classical education). Regretfully, as you have pointed out already, the benifits of that education stop at the knowledge but, I can learn manners, you'll struggle to improve your IQ.
Aw bless, you're trying to insult me.
Another thing, which do you think does the game more harm - a bunch of morons booing a player or the same player abusing a group of fans for their percieved part in that wrong on national TV? Now think very carefuilly now because, I feel that you may get there in the end.
I see where you're going with this. The fans who abused Tomkins are vindicated by his having done something more harmful (in your opinion); thus if I agree that what Tomkins did was the most harmful of the two then any point I make or have made to the effect that fans who are worried about harm being done to the game should not merely be concerned with this particular harm and that being so might suggest their real motive was the further vilification of Sam Tomkins rather than the "good of the game" would somehow be moot. Is that it?
I can tell you're having difficulty so, perhaps you would like to join me at school tomorrow? Oh, its the still the school holidays, so there'll be no bggery (inset the U where you see fit) for you this time.
I think Freud called that projection. You realise, surely, that the internet is awash with people who like to see themselves as some sort of intellectual heavyweight and rely upon bluster and insults to detract from their failure to win an argument? It's just that you're acting like this is the first time anybody has come onto a forum with the "look at me I'm all clever and stuff" facade.
Aw bless, you're trying to insult me.
I see where you're going with this. The fans who abused Tomkins are vindicated by his having done something more harmful (in your opinion). Thus if I agree that what Tomkins did was the most harmful of the two then any point I make or have made to the effect that fans worried about harm being done to the game should not merely be concerned with this particular harm and that being so might suggest their real motive was the further vilification of Sam Tomkins rather than the "good of the game" would somehow be moot. Is that it?
Ooookay...
Ha, alluding to faux intellectualism, whilst making random and irrelevant references to Freud. Now, whilst we're having lessons that is irony.
No, I wasn't trying, I actually did insult you. Do try and keep up now.
In short .......................No..................He simply committed an act that was highly damaging to his own and the games reputation. Far more damaging than a bit of booing. Christ, Shaun Edwards and Andy Gregory got far worse than that at Headingley and I never saw them flip the Southstand the finger. More importantly, they knew it was the Leeds fans doing it because, they were playing Leeds at home. Tomkins has no idea who was booing him.
I note that you are now ignoring the fact that you tried to justify his actions, which why this little spat started. Consequently, I can't really be arsed any more. Tudaluh, kn0b jockey.
Ha, alluding to faux intellectualism, whilst making random and irrelevant references to Freud. Now, whilst we're having lessons that is irony.
No, I wasn't trying, I actually did insult you. Do try and keep up now.
In short .......................No..................He simply committed an act that was highly damaging to his own and the games reputation. Far more damaging than a bit of booing. Christ, Shaun Edwards and Andy Gregory got far worse than that at Headingley and I never saw them flip the Southstand the finger. More importantly, they knew it was the Leeds fans doing it because, they were playing Leeds at home. Tomkins has no idea who was booing him.
I note that you are now ignoring the fact that you tried to justify his actions, which why this little spat started. Consequently, I can't really be arsed any more. Tudaluh, kn0b jockey.
Translation: "you've found me out and I shall now scuttle off."
Fat Boy wrote: Bradford are now officially the RFL's biatches. Seventies red wrote: Whats a biatch?. gulfcoast_highwayman wrote: They wear red and white and cry a lot in October.
Strangely enough I watched the game with two new spectators of the game and they thoroughly enjoyed it. They didn't notice any V signs or the linesman abuse. They both enjoyed a good competitive final.
My own feelings notwithstanding I would suggest that most viewers who watched the game without an anti ST agenda from the outset would have enjoyed it go the same vein.
Nobody died. Nobody got pregnant and everyone gets to go to work on Tuesday. Except McF.
The cup has red and white ribbons on it. Suck it up and move on.
I'd like to ask Sam to explain to my little boy what it means.............
Am sure you can find one somewhere.
How did you get round the problem of him see Keith Senior kick Joel Tomkins in the head the last time we met in the 2010 Challenge Cup tie, or, did you merely produce the rose tinted spectacles for such an act of violence?
How did you get round the problem of him see Keith Senior kick Joel Tomkins in the head the last time we met in the 2010 Challenge Cup tie, or, did you merely produce the rose tinted spectacles for such an act of violence?
You simply explain the meaning of the words accidental and careless.
We could do the same for you as well, or possibly even highlight the gormlessness of using as an example the most penalised player of last season, who himself toe ended a grounded player......
How did you get round the problem of him see Keith Senior kick Joel Tomkins in the head the last time we met in the 2010 Challenge Cup tie, or, did you merely produce the rose tinted spectacles for such an act of violence?
Once again; you are trying to compare an on-field misdemeanour aimed towards a fellow player to an act of complete disrespect aimed towards the opposition support.
The two fall into two separate categories and as such it should be treated differently. It's people like that are either deliberately trying to confuse these two categories of incidents in some vain attempt to defend Rat Boy or you haven’t the intelligence to tell the difference yourself.
I actually think using the booing as an excuse for his behaviour is a bit of a red herring.
Anyone who takes to the field as a professional sportsperson - especially a player who engages in such on-field antics as ST - in an arena where there are paying fans runs the risk of being booed. If a player cannot deal with it I would hazard a suggestion that he's maybe not in the correct profession.
What the Wigan club need to do is take a long, hard look at the attitude of their best player and ask themselves whether this is the kind of behaviour they want a representative of their club to be partaking in.
The thing is, the fact that ST is an exceptional player is never made without the caveat of "but he's a prat" or "his attitude sucks" and that is not good for the game at all.
Sticking fingers up at the fans is stupid and arrogant and warrants a fine. Abuse of referees and touch judges does warrant a ban and I would hope the RFL would at least have the gumption to make an example of ST given his behaviour was in one of the largest matches in the RL calendar
Strangely enough I watched the game with two new spectators of the game and they thoroughly enjoyed it. They didn't notice any V signs or the linesman abuse. They both enjoyed a good competitive final.
My own feelings notwithstanding I would suggest that most viewers who watched the game without an anti ST agenda from the outset would have enjoyed it go the same vein.
Nobody died. Nobody got pregnant and everyone gets to go to work on Tuesday. Except McF.
The cup has red and white ribbons on it. Suck it up and move on.
Gs hard not to be anti Tomkins. The little runt is a horrible person. He's a cheat and shows lack of respect towards opposition players and fans.
Every play the ball he's involved in is a mess( even when he has the ball) because if his holding down of the attacker or when he's trying to win a Lin by holding the defensive player in order to win a pen.
Wigan fans have this silly notion that everyone boos and hates him because he's a good player ( which is) but most hate him ashes horrible little runt on the pitch.
Fat Boy wrote: Bradford are now officially the RFL's biatches. Seventies red wrote: Whats a biatch?. gulfcoast_highwayman wrote: They wear red and white and cry a lot in October.
Ok. One last time. My friend Christian was killed in the Bali nightclub bombing. Do I hate the man responsible for that attack? Friends of mine were killed in Northern Ireland and Iraq. Do I carry hate for them. No I do not. Because hate destroys only the person who carries it. Hate makes you blind to reason, blind to the good that men do.
I don't mean to lecture but some people really do carry hate for this man. And it shows. The thing is. He is immune to it. But it's poisoning you. And that is sad. It's a game.