Playmaker's Best Premier League Team - RM - Voting

Dean - you could easily have nominated him.

A suggestion for a rule could be (other than the 100 appearances, which I find to be a perfectly reasonable demand) could be that a reason needs to be given when nominating a player (referring to reasons another member has given is alright), as well as x amount of nominations needs to be given to reach the polls. I think we could avoid most joke votes this way.

Was thinking that myself Kris.

Kris wrote:Dean - you could easily have nominated him.

A suggestion for a rule could be (other than the 100 appearances, which I find to be a perfectly reasonable demand) could be that a reason needs to be given when nominating a player (referring to reasons another member has given is alright), as well as x amount of nominations needs to be given to reach the polls. I think we could avoid most joke votes this way.

James, who has nominated a lot of the joke ones, did give reasons.

This whole idea is a fucking disaster

Wouldn't it be better if you just got everyone to write their best XI and then count up which 11 players were posted the most?

I see this forum's descended into a fucking farce while I've been away. Ljunberg? Beckham? Are you shitting me? Ronaldo is on a different planet to both of them.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I see this forum's descended into a fucking farce while I've been away. Ljunberg? Beckham? Are you shitting me? Ronaldo is on a different planet to both of them.

Oh shi-

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I see this forum's descended into a fucking farce while I've been away. Ljunberg? Beckham? Are you shitting me? Ronaldo is on a different planet to both of them.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I see this forum's descended into a fucking farce while I've been away. Ljunberg? Beckham? Are you shitting me? Ronaldo is on a different planet to both of them.

You've missed worse stuff, Glen Johnson came so close to winning the right back position.

Yeah, I saw that, and Riise as well based on a nice free kick in a friendly in America. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. I'm very disappointed you've allowed this to happen.

Fantastic to see RR back, welcome back.

Thank God no Liverpool players were involved on this one this thread would of reached 10 pages by now

Thank you Pippo, I trust the forum suffered a similar decline in quality as when you were banned for telling the truth.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Yeah, I saw that, and Riise as well based on a nice free kick in a friendly in America. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. I'm very disappointed you've allowed this to happen.

http://www.the-playmaker.com/t6214-disagreeing-with-people-on-the-playmaker

ResurrectionRooney wrote:3. You have psychological problems, lack of meaning in own life

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I see this forum's descended into a fucking farce while I've been away.

I thought it had got better with you nowhere near it myself.

blackskar wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I see this forum's descended into a fucking farce while I've been away.

I thought it had got better with you nowhere near it myself.

Typical biased moderator.

Yup. Bias ol' me

It's obvious you have a vendetta against me. Stop trying to take the thread off topic.

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Yeah, I saw that, and Riise as well based on a nice free kick in a friendly in America. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. I'm very disappointed you've allowed this to happen.

http://www.the-playmaker.com/t6214-disagreeing-with-people-on-the-playmaker

ResurrectionRooney wrote:3. You have psychological problems, lack of meaning in own life

There are appropriate times, such as when people are voting Konchesky the left back of the premier league.

lulz. I have no vendetta against anyone on the forum.

Even though you closed ResurrectionRonaldo's thread for no good reason, and openly said not 10 minutes ago that the forum is better off without me. OK, I believe you.

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Yeah, I saw that, and Riise as well based on a nice free kick in a friendly in America. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. I'm very disappointed you've allowed this to happen.

http://www.the-playmaker.com/t6214-disagreeing-with-people-on-the-playmaker

ResurrectionRooney wrote:3. You have psychological problems, lack of meaning in own life

In some cases it's justified, like if you actually believe Gary Neville has had a worse Premier League career than Glen Johnson.

Zzonked wrote:

Kris wrote:Dean - you could easily have nominated him.

A suggestion for a rule could be (other than the 100 appearances, which I find to be a perfectly reasonable demand) could be that a reason needs to be given when nominating a player (referring to reasons another member has given is alright), as well as x amount of nominations needs to be given to reach the polls. I think we could avoid most joke votes this way.

James, who has nominated a lot of the joke ones, did give reasons.

Which is why I thought up the second reason, that several people must nominate the same player to make it valid. If only one person nominates a joke, and nobody else does, the joke's not on the poll. Also, people can just not vote for the damn joke.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Yeah, I saw that, and Riise as well based on a nice free kick in a friendly in America. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. I'm very disappointed you've allowed this to happen.

http://www.the-playmaker.com/t6214-disagreeing-with-people-on-the-playmaker

ResurrectionRooney wrote:3. You have psychological problems, lack of meaning in own life

In some cases it's justified, like if you actually believe Gary Neville has had a worse Premier League career than Glen Johnson.

Either it applies or it doesn't. Maybe the people who disagree with you think it applies in the situation they disagree in? It's hypocritical no matter which way you look at it. It's like me preaching peace then occasionally shooting someone because it's 'justified'.

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Yeah, I saw that, and Riise as well based on a nice free kick in a friendly in America. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. I'm very disappointed you've allowed this to happen.

http://www.the-playmaker.com/t6214-disagreeing-with-people-on-the-playmaker

ResurrectionRooney wrote:3. You have psychological problems, lack of meaning in own life

In some cases it's justified, like if you actually believe Gary Neville has had a worse Premier League career than Glen Johnson.

Either it applies or it doesn't. Maybe the people who disagree with you think it applies in the situation they disagree in? It's hypocritical no matter which way you look at it. It's like me preaching peace then occasionally shooting someone because it's 'justified'.

I take it you would scrap our armed forces then? Or scrap our murder laws?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Yeah, I saw that, and Riise as well based on a nice free kick in a friendly in America. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. I'm very disappointed you've allowed this to happen.

http://www.the-playmaker.com/t6214-disagreeing-with-people-on-the-playmaker

ResurrectionRooney wrote:3. You have psychological problems, lack of meaning in own life

In some cases it's justified, like if you actually believe Gary Neville has had a worse Premier League career than Glen Johnson.

Either it applies or it doesn't. Maybe the people who disagree with you think it applies in the situation they disagree in? It's hypocritical no matter which way you look at it. It's like me preaching peace then occasionally shooting someone because it's 'justified'.

I take it you would scrap our armed forces then? Or scrap our murder laws?

Well first off, the analogy is not that broad. Essentially it is the same as saying murder is wrong, and then murdering someone. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by scrapping murder laws and I don't think either apply very well. There are other arguments for armed forces, such as deterrent, there is no way that can be applied to disagreements. Someone who is for peace would not support any act of war, but perhaps not the removal of armed forces as a whole.

Secondly, are you saying that armed forces equates to your post? That it is so different from the other ways of disagreeing? Because I can categorically tell you, it isn't.

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

http://www.the-playmaker.com/t6214-disagreeing-with-people-on-the-playmaker

In some cases it's justified, like if you actually believe Gary Neville has had a worse Premier League career than Glen Johnson.

Either it applies or it doesn't. Maybe the people who disagree with you think it applies in the situation they disagree in? It's hypocritical no matter which way you look at it. It's like me preaching peace then occasionally shooting someone because it's 'justified'.

I take it you would scrap our armed forces then? Or scrap our murder laws?

Well first off, the analogy is not that broad. Essentially it is the same as saying murder is wrong, and then murdering someone. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by scrapping murder laws and I don't think either apply very well. There are other arguments for armed forces, such as deterrent, there is no way that can be applied to disagreements. Someone who is for peace would not support any act of war, but perhaps not the removal of armed forces as a whole.

Secondly, are you saying that armed forces equates to your post? That it is so different from the other ways of disagreeing? Because I can categorically tell you, it isn't.

No, what I'm saying is that we have laws against murder, but in some cases, when it is decided that it is justified, we allow soldiers to murder our enemies. Equally, when someone is saying something profoundly retarded, like Koncheskey is better than Ashley Cole or whatever, the only conclusion you can come to is that that person genuinely is a bit fucked up in the head, or that they're lying to get a reaction.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

In some cases it's justified, like if you actually believe Gary Neville has had a worse Premier League career than Glen Johnson.

Either it applies or it doesn't. Maybe the people who disagree with you think it applies in the situation they disagree in? It's hypocritical no matter which way you look at it. It's like me preaching peace then occasionally shooting someone because it's 'justified'.

I take it you would scrap our armed forces then? Or scrap our murder laws?

Well first off, the analogy is not that broad. Essentially it is the same as saying murder is wrong, and then murdering someone. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by scrapping murder laws and I don't think either apply very well. There are other arguments for armed forces, such as deterrent, there is no way that can be applied to disagreements. Someone who is for peace would not support any act of war, but perhaps not the removal of armed forces as a whole.

Secondly, are you saying that armed forces equates to your post? That it is so different from the other ways of disagreeing? Because I can categorically tell you, it isn't.

No, what I'm saying is that we have laws against murder, but in some cases, when it is decided that it is justified, we allow soldiers to murder our enemies. Equally, when someone is saying something profoundly retarded, like Koncheskey is better than Ashley Cole or whatever, the only conclusion you can come to is that that person genuinely is a bit fucked up in the head, or that they're lying to get a reaction.

I see where you're coming from, but don't you think people could think that exact same thing about you when they disagree with what you're saying? That you're 'fucked up in the head' or 'trying to get a reaction'? It's all subjective, so you can't exactly say 'my opinion is always right', so perhaps other peoples disagreements were justified as much as yours are now.

Ah be fair man, I wouldn't say it when someone was saying something reasonable, something that can be backed up with evidence, like Seaman is better than van der Sar or something, it's only in extraordinary cases. I've never said anything as absurd as what's been going on in the few days when I've been away.

Ronaldo isn't a proper right midfielder imo, he's a second striker/attacking midfielder who usually has the licence to roam anywhere.

Voted Beckham. Best proper right midfielder I've seen in in the PL in my life-time. In his prime he was actually brilliant.

But wtf at only 3 options, where are the likes of Nolberto Solano and Steve McManaman? Surely the likes of Nani, Antonio Valencia, Wright-Philips/Joe Cole (Yes, when they were good, they were good) and Aaron Lennon should be added too? Benayoun was great as well. There's loads of players that could have gone into this poll. What a fucking shit poll this is.

Scott wrote:Ronaldo isn't a proper right midfielder imo, he's a second striker/attacking midfielder who usually has the licence to roam anywhere.

Voted Beckham. Best proper right midfielder I've seen in in the PL in my life-time. In his prime he was actually brilliant.

But wtf at only 3 options, where are the likes of Nolberto Solano and Steve McManaman? Surely the likes of Nani, Antonio Valencia, Wright-Philips/Joe Cole (Yes, when they were good, they were good) and Aaron Lennon should be added too? Benayoun was great as well. There's loads of players that could have gone into this poll. What a fucking shit poll this is.

Why should those people be included when they're nowhere near as good as Ronaldo? Ronaldo played on the right side of a 4-4-2 in 2007/08 and scored 42 goals, I think he's quite capable of playing there.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Scott wrote:Ronaldo isn't a proper right midfielder imo, he's a second striker/attacking midfielder who usually has the licence to roam anywhere.

Voted Beckham. Best proper right midfielder I've seen in in the PL in my life-time. In his prime he was actually brilliant.

But wtf at only 3 options, where are the likes of Nolberto Solano and Steve McManaman? Surely the likes of Nani, Antonio Valencia, Wright-Philips/Joe Cole (Yes, when they were good, they were good) and Aaron Lennon should be added too? Benayoun was great as well. There's loads of players that could have gone into this poll. What a fucking shit poll this is.

Why should those people be included when they're nowhere near as good as Ronaldo? Ronaldo played on the right side of a 4-4-2 in 2007/08 and scored 42 goals, I think he's quite capable of playing there.

Some of the people I've mentioned are at least on the same level as Ljunberg.