Westy

[Guest LondonOwl313]

7 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

Word of advice, when you have a point to make about a player, you weaken it as soon as you resort to using needlessly childish nicknames for them. It just makes it seem inexplicably personal for you.

 

I say this for your own sake because obviously gobbing off about Westwood is something you feel a great need to do.

I just thought he might be dyslexic or something rather than calling him a childish name. He means KW rather than WW and uses initials for the other players no problems 

[parajack]

2 hours ago, cowl said:

 

Word of advice, when you have a point to make about a player, you weaken it as soon as you resort to using needlessly childish nicknames for them. It just makes it seem inexplicably personal for you.

 

I say this for your own sake because obviously gobbing off about Westwood is something you feel a great need to do.

I have made it quite clear i dont want,or need your pearls of wisdom,i will decide what(and how i post) not you,end of..your not admin or a moderator,you dont like what i post,dont reply simple

Heres a word of 'advice' for you debate the post and its content,not its style....or the person posting it,see when you do that you weaken your debate..Verstehe?   

[parajack]

2 hours ago, LondonOwl313 said:

I just thought he might be dyslexic or something rather than calling him a childish name. He means KW rather than WW and uses initials for the other players no problems 

As it happens mate i am dyslexic,but actually i just saw someone else doing it,and carried on........as everyone it seems understood i cant see the issue,apart from one person who thinks they can control what another person posts.....

Not even worth arguig the throw but it seems i have hit a sore spot....WW...

[parajack]

5 hours ago, CourteenerOwl said:

Whose WW? 

You a mate of Cowl?...which Wednesday player do you imagine it might be?

[cowl]

30 minutes ago, parajack said:

I have made it quite clear i dont want,or need your pearls of wisdom,i will decide what(and how i post) not you,end of..your not admin or a moderator,you dont like what i post,dont reply simple

Heres a word of 'advice' for you debate the post and its content,not its style....or the person posting it,see when you do that you weaken your debate..Verstehe?   

 

It's not even a debate when the person you would be debating with can't even get past calling the subject of discussion childish names though. If you can't even see how it weakens your position then that's your lookout. (I suspect you know that though and just don't want to be seen taking one on the chin.)

 

In the meantime, I suppose you could just keep getting touchy about it and going off on some weird tangent about your freedom to post pathetic arguments being violated (it hasn't, of course; you, knock yourself out there...)

 

In any case, I'm also clearly not the only one that finds it weird that you insist on using an obscure reference for him. At the very least it's just confusing—or is that what you're calling ‘style’ here.

[Guest LondonOwl313]

6 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

It's not even a debate when the person you would be debating with can't even get past calling the subject of discussion childish names though. If you can't even see how it weakens your position then that's your lookout. (I suspect you know that though and just don't want to be seen taking one on the chin.)

 

In the meantime, I suppose you could just keep getting touchy about it and going off on some weird tangent about your freedom to post pathetic arguments being violated (it hasn't, of course; you, knock yourself out there...)

 

In any case, I'm also clearly not the only one that finds it weird that you insist on using an obscure reference for him. At the very least it's just confusing—or is that what you're calling ‘style’ here.

Why is it a childish name though? It’s just his initials.. or what someone with dyslexia, which he’s just confirmed he has got, might perceive his initials to be. He criticises Westwood maybe unfairly but I’ve not actually seen childish name calling from him 

[cowl]

48 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Why is it a childish name though? It’s just his initials.. or what someone with dyslexia, which he’s just confirmed he has got, might perceive his initials to be. He criticises Westwood maybe unfairly but I’ve not actually seen childish name calling from him 

 

Why do you think this has got something do with dyslexia? He's said himself that it's unrelated.

[Guest LondonOwl313]

34 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

Why do you think this has got something do with dyslexia? He's said himself that it's unrelated.

I just don’t get why putting WW instead of KW is such a big deal.. it’s hardly insulting is it. And we all know who he means. It’s just the kind of thing that people with dyslexia do, was obvious to me before he said that he has it.. like if someone is dyslexic I think the last thing they need is someone nitpicking over their grammar and things. It’s easy enough to just target the content of the post when disagreeing rather than focusing on that

[cowl]

5 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

I just don’t get why putting WW instead of KW is such a big deal.. it’s hardly insulting is it. And we all know who he means. It’s just the kind of thing that people with dyslexia do, was obvious to me before he said that he has it.. like if someone is dyslexic I think the last thing they need is someone nitpicking over their grammar and things. It’s easy enough to just target the content of the post when disagreeing rather than focusing on that

 

Why are you banging on about dyslexia?

[Guest LondonOwl313]

19 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

Why are you banging on about dyslexia?

Because you’re banging on about ‘childish name calling’ and ‘obscure references’. Just nonsense really. There’s no name calling and it’s so obscure that everyone knows which player he means 

[cowl]

10 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Because you’re banging on about ‘childish name calling’ and ‘obscure references’. Just nonsense really. There’s no name calling and it’s so obscure that everyone knows which player he means

 

Apart from those that have specifically asked him who he's referring to, of course—and considering we're all Wednesday fans, you'd think references to players would generally be readily understandable as an absolute given.

[Guest mrbluesky]

12 hours ago, CourteenerOwl said:

Whose WW? 

Woderick & Wupert

[OWLERTON GHOST]

On 02/04/2021 at 20:26, Ronnie Starling said:

Maybe Westwood is religious and doesn't like working over the Christmas and Easter periods.

Bless you my son ........

[Ian]

6 hours ago, cowl said:

 

Apart from those that have specifically asked him who he's referring to, of course—and considering we're all Wednesday fans, you'd think references to players would generally be readily understandable as an absolute given.

If you cant work out for yourself in a thread called “Westy” that WW clearly stands for West Wood then I pity you....of course that’s if we believe that was the case and not that you were just looking to score cheap points against that poster

[parajack]

10 hours ago, cowl said:

 

It's not even a debate when the person you would be debating with can't even get past calling the subject of discussion childish names though. If you can't even see how it weakens your position then that's your lookout. (I suspect you know that though and just don't want to be seen taking one on the chin.)

 

In the meantime, I suppose you could just keep getting touchy about it and going off on some weird tangent about your freedom to post pathetic arguments being violated (it hasn't, of course; you, knock yourself out there...)

 

In any case, I'm also clearly not the only one that finds it weird that you insist on using an obscure reference for him. At the very least it's just confusing—or is that what you're calling ‘style’ here.

Lets make it simple,stop feeling sorry for your self and posting long,boring,rambling replys.....no one is interested   least of all me......You dont like my posts,dont reply to them.