Chat Thread

After the amazing reception I got for my first comment this week, I've decided to bless this forum with another one.

Faggot.

*Phaggot.

Vela wrote:Faggot.

Word of advice, stick to your spastic act. It's much more suited to your level of intelligence. When you try and miserably fail to post coherently as well as formulate "arguments" (loosest sense of the word), you just show how far out of your depth you are and you display the glaring ineptitude that encompasses everything you do. So please just stick to making racist duplicate accounts on every football forum on the internet and posting stuff like "zup zup say nada". Oh, and please stop stalking me, you intolerable parasite.

lol

Wow, such anger!

Ra's al Ghul wrote:

Vela wrote:Faggot.

Word of advice, stick to your spastic act. It's much more suited to your level of intelligence. When you try and miserably fail to post coherently as well as formulate "arguments" (loosest sense of the word), you just show how far out of your depth you are and you display the glaring ineptitude that encompasses everything you do. So please just stick to making racist duplicate accounts on every football forum on the internet and posting stuff like "zup zup say nada". Oh, and please stop stalking me, you intolerable parasite.

Is that really what we want, though?

FreddieQueII's argument on Giroud's shots easily exposed and demolished.

Score:
Velita - 1
FreddieQueII - 0

Ra's al Ghul wrote:After the amazing reception I got for my first comment this week, I've decided to bless this forum with another one.

Honestly, I am in awe of your selflessness. We don't deserve you.

Weird. I would have thought randomly spouting "Faggot" was spastic enough. 

Looks like these personas are getting a bit lazy in their lashing out.

Don't make yourself look even more foolish, R'as al Ghul. Heed my warning.

I warned you.

Wow.

http://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one/system/troubleshoot-system-updates#b64c47ef380b45638a4e0256d05276fc

Classic Moose.

Vela wrote:I warned you.

Lol, why were you banned?

Why does it concern you? Answer my questions.

Vela wrote:Why does it concern you? Answer my questions.

I would like to know. I'll answer them later, when I feel like it.

You'll answer it when you feel like it? Cute. It's the fourth time I have brought it up now, and yet you are still worming your way out of answering it.

Vela - 2
FreddieQueII - 0

Do you still think that:
- the spastic act is more suited to my level of intelligence?
- i tried and failed miserably to post coherently?
- i display a glaring ineptitude that encompasses everything that I do?

Let's be serious here. Even as a glory hunting Bayern fan, I am infinitely more knowledgeable when it comes to football than you.

Vela wrote:You'll answer it when you feel like it? Cute. It's the fourth time I have brought it up now, and yet you are still worming your way out of answering it.

Vela - 2
FreddieQueII - 0

Do you still think that:
- the spastic act is more suited to my level of intelligence?
- i tried and failed miserably to post coherently?
- i display a glaring ineptitude that encompasses everything that I do?

Let's be serious here. Even as a glory hunting Bayern fan, I am infinitely more knowledgeable when it comes to football than you.

You've clearly taken this whole thing very personally. I genuinely couldn't care less about any of this yet your desperation to try and get one over me has been palpable. Posting immediate responses at a variety of times throughout the day, assigning imaginary scores, fabricating things about me; it's clear that this episode has taken a heavy toll on you. God knows how you've behaved behind your computer. At the end of it all, you're a schizophrenic freak who likes to spend his days making offensive posts on football forums until he gets banned.

Oh, and I have never claimed to be any authority on football. On a good week, I watch three games with at least one of them always being an Arsenal game. I have always stated that I view football as a trivial form of entertainment for fans. If that is what you are claiming to be "infinitely more knowledgeable" than me in then you can have it. There are a variety of fields that are worth my time and when I have discussed them on EA, you've either avoided getting involved or made inane comments like "* hell man, why would anyone want to scrap the World Cup and the European Championships? Sure, * international friendlies and qualifiers, but the tournaments are fantastic. " or "FreddieQueII is getting destroyed by KING-K3VIN by the way. It's hilarious to see him argue when he is so wrong against someone who completely outsmarted him".

niggas talk shit till they get lockjaw

gg m8, next time don't talk up if you don't want me spittin fire

5th time you've wormed out of answering the question by the way

stay safe freddie, you don't want to be another blinkblues

I don't even know what the question you're talking about is.  But I wouldn't want to deprive you of this monumental victory so, you know, go nuts.

brb

They are quite clearly using an incorrect criteria for their evaluation -- the definition of a shot by Opta is "an attempt to score a goal, made with any (legal) part of the body, either on or off target" -- do you disagree with this definition? If so, please explain why, and elaborate on how the definition of a "shot" is subjective.

You have conveniently ignored my first question when you answered my query as to how a shot could be deemed subjective. I am not surprised, of course.

For some reason you keep avoiding my question. This must be the second or third time that I have to bring it up again: the Opta definition of a shot is "an attempt to score a goal, made with any (legal) part of the body, either on or off target". Do you agree or disagree with this definition in relation to Giroud's first attempt? If not, why?

Why does it concern you? Answer my questions.

4 different times you have refused to acknowledge and/or respond to  that argument

you're having a meltdown lad, if anyone is upset and agitated here it's you
i'm literally laughing out loud and showing elmo what you write and he's finding it hilarious too

Vela wrote:

They are quite clearly using an incorrect criteria for their evaluation -- the definition of a shot by Opta is "an attempt to score a goal, made with any (legal) part of the body, either on or off target" -- do you disagree with this definition? If so, please explain why, and elaborate on how the definition of a "shot" is subjective.

You have conveniently ignored my first question when you answered my query as to how a shot could be deemed subjective. I am not surprised, of course.

For some reason you keep avoiding my question. This must be the second or third time that I have to bring it up again: the Opta definition of a shot is "an attempt to score a goal, made with any (legal) part of the body, either on or off target". Do you agree or disagree with this definition in relation to Giroud's first attempt? If not, why?

Why does it concern you? Answer my questions.

4 different times you have refused to acknowledge and/or respond to  that argument

you're having a meltdown lad, if anyone is upset and agitated here it's you
i'm literally laughing out loud and showing elmo what you write and he's finding it hilarious too

Yes, I'm clearly the one who is agitated. And how will I ever live with the fact that two strangers (one of them being someone who displays clear symptoms of schizophrenia)on the internet are "laughing" at me? Your continuous attempts to make this personal are just frustrating and slightly embarrassing. Moreover, you've now resorted to a horrifically childish method of argument by employing the "I'm not angry, you're angry" method. You can celebrate even more now because you can be sure that I have no further intention of continuing this argument. Congratulations, mate, you won.

and the award for the most melodramatic faggot goes to...

> brb

Schizophrenia?  It makes sense.