EE: Our kids will save Aberdeen a fortune

[BobbyBiscuit]

BobbyBiscuit

? ? ?

 

Couplapricks.

 

 

[glasgowdon]

Couplapricks.

 

 

 

The LaLiLuLeLo?

[stoney]

Thanks for telling me what I already know, but I wouldn't have quoted you and posted the  smiley if you'd referenced a dictionary in the first place.  Wiki is gash. 

 

Anyhow, do you think that when stoney made the following quote;

 

He reckons that Mair/Duff/Young/Foster are 'experienced and competent'? 

 

i thought we were a great team - thats the core of our current first team squad is it not?

 

Cant have it both ways cant be a good steady team in one argument then change your viewpoint in a differant thread

[bilbobaggins]

Stoney, your journeyman takes two sugars.

[TENEMENTFUNSTER]

i thought we were a great team - thats the core of our current first team squad is it not?

 

You are right Stoney. It's not.

[stoney]

so we play with 7 players now do we  :thumbsup:

[RDU_64]

so we play with 7 players now do we  :thumbsup:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/core

 

2. the central, innermost, or most essential part of anything.

 

As Jager says, this would probably consist of Severin, Kerr, McDonald and Miller. Possibly Smith (if fit) and Aluko could be included also.

[???]

i thought we were a great team - thats the core of our current first team squad is it not?

 

Cant have it both ways cant be a good steady team in one argument then change your viewpoint in a differant thread

 

I have no idea what you're on about, as it's your viewpoint that's being discussed here, not mine. 

 

Your opinion that the four players you mentioned are journeymen doesn't fit with what it actually means.  Jog on.

[baggy89]

I have no idea what you're on about, as it's your viewpoint that's being discussed here, not mine. 

 

Your opinion that the four players you mentioned are journeymen doesn't fit with what it actually means.  Jog on.

 

However in fairness to Stoney, your established viewpoint on Foster (in particular) seems to have altered in order to discredit Stoneys viewpoint in this instance. While you may not agree with what Stoney is saying at least he is consistent. Perhaps you are a band-waggoner, after all  .

[???]

However in fairness to Stoney, your established viewpoint on Foster (in particular) seems to have altered in order to discredit Stoneys viewpoint in this instance.

 

I ask again, where did I state my opinion on those players in this thread?

 

In your own time...

[manc_don]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/core

 

As Jager says, this would probably consist of Severin, Kerr, McDonald and Miller. Possibly Smith (if fit) and Aluko could be included also.

 

This is one of the few things in this thread that makes sense! Foster and Duffers certainly are no Journeymen!

[glasgowdon]

A core is what the team is built around, it's not all core!

 

I would say the core is Severin, Diamond, Kerrso, Macdonald, Aluko & Miller

 

Add in Langfield and I reckon you've got the linchpin of our squad.

[TENEMENTFUNSTER]

Add in Langfield and I reckon you've got the linchpin of our squad.

 

That is the core or spine of the team.

[???]

However in fairness to Stoney, your established viewpoint on Foster (in particular) seems to have altered in order to discredit Stoneys viewpoint in this instance.

 

Stoney states that they're not good enough, then says they are journeymen, which would make them experienced and competent.  That is contradictory don't you think?

 

I, on the other-hand, have not passed judgement on those players in this thread. 

[baggy89]

Stoney states that they're not good enough, then says they are journeymen, which would make them experienced and competent.  That is contradictory don't you think?

 

I, on the other-hand, have not passed judgement on those players in this thread. 

 

Ah I see one's internet persona is allowed to have multiple opinions on a single subject, as long you keep to the same opinion on each individual thread.

 

BTW, I have no problem with your argument over the incorrect use of the term Journeyman, just pointing out the contradictory nature of it .

[TENEMENTFUNSTER]

However in fairness to Stoney, your established viewpoint on Foster (in particular) seems to have altered in order to discredit Stoneys viewpoint in this instance. While you may not agree with what Stoney is saying at least he is consistent. Perhaps you are a band-waggoner, after all  .

 

Don't believe I'm saying this, but in fairness to Adam, his opinion of those players is totally irrelevant.

 

 

[???]

Don't believe I'm saying this, but in fairness to Adam, his opinion of those players is totally irrelevant.

 

 

 

Stoney says they're not good enough and are journeymen.  Adam says that makes no sense as it's contradictory.  Baggy talks sh*te... 

[baggy89]

Don't believe I'm saying this, but in fairness to Adam, his opinion of those players is totally irrelevant.

 

 

 

Not if his arguement is that Foster cannot be a journeyman (meaning: experienced and competent) because his opinion is that Foster is not competent. While, on another (albeit deleted thread) he was defending Fosters competence in order to discredit another poster.

[TENEMENTFUNSTER]

Not if his arguement is that Foster cannot be a journeyman (meaning: experienced and competent) because his opinion is that Foster is not competent. While, on another (albeit deleted thread) he was defending Fosters competence in order to discredit another poster.

 

It still isn't HIS opinion. Stoney used a term to describe a player. That term is contradictory based on what he has already said about said player.

 

Adam simply pointed that out. It doesn't seem to contradict what he has said about that player, merely serves to point out that stoney made a cunt of it and Adam is a pedant.

[???]

Not if his arguement is that Foster cannot be a journeyman (meaning: experienced and competent) because his opinion is that Foster is not competent. While, on another (albeit deleted thread) he was defending Fosters competence in order to discredit another poster.

 

Are you retarded?  You've totally lost me.  My opinion of Foster is irrelevant with regards what's being spoken about in this thread.  I really don't understand what you don't get about that, as I've not once stated an opinion of any player in this thread, and even if I had it's still irrelevant as it's stoney that's using a term - journeyman - in the wrong way.

 

Here, we'll go through it step by step...

 

A. Stoney says that Foster is not good enough and is a journeyman.  

 

...which makes no sense to me as the term journeyman means that he'd be experienced and competent.  So he can't be both not good enough as well as experienced and competent.  That's contradiction in my book.

B. This makes me wonder if Stoney knows what journeyman means, so I ask him, "Do you know what journeymen means?"

 

C. Stoney replies, "Yes. Do you?"

 

D. I've come to the conclusion he doesn't, so retort, "I do, yes, I really don't think you do though.  Go and get a dictionary..."

 

E. Stoney then replied with some nonsense which I still don't understand, "i thought we were a great team - thats the core of our current first team squad is it not?  Cant have it both ways  cant be a good steady team in one argument then change your viewpoint in a differant thread"

 

F. At this point you butted in with a rather bizarre rant which made no sense whatsoever to the point in hand, that Stoney made a contradictory statement.

 

Comprende.

 

 

[stoney]

you can be competitant and not good enough

 

 

[baggy89]

He reckons that Mair/Duff/Young/Foster are 'experienced and competent'? 

 

Perhaps you should make yourself clearer then because this (^) reads to me as if YOU are suggesting that these players are not[quote author= link=topic=7976.msg125983#msg125983 date=1236794000] 'experienced and competent'

. I ruled out you considering them inexperienced, given their experience, and assumed you were suggesting they were incompetent. I assumed that this was the basis of your arguement with Stoney as to why they should not be described as journeymen.

 

The opinion of them being incompetent is different to that which you expressed in another (now deleted thread) where you were extolling the virtues of Messrs Foster and Mackie. Thus you were contradicting yourself.

 

Comprendes.

[mizer]

...which makes no sense to me as the term journeyman means that he'd be experienced and competent. 

 

That is just one persons definition of journeyman, and that has been shortened to try and describe it in a neat way. Over the years I have heard several football pundits describe players as journeymen and the definition of 'experienced and competent' is no where near to covering the multitude of players which fall within that category.

 

For instance - Mark Yardley

 

Is experienced and competent the first words that spring to mind?

[boboisared]

That is just one persons definition of journeyman, and that has been shortened to try and describe it in a neat way. Over the years I have heard several football pundits describe players as journeymen and the definition of 'experienced and competent' is no where near to covering the multitude of players which fall within that category.

 

For instance - Mark Yardley

 

Is experienced and competent the first words that spring to mind?

Ever see Gordon Smith 'explaining' the silver goal rule?

 

Don't take what these 'experts' says as gospel.

[mizer]

Ever see Gordon Smith 'explaining' the silver goal rule?

 

Don't take what these 'experts' says as gospel.

 

Yeah, but pundits dont even try and explain a journeyman they just call them that as they know that the player in question is one.

 

Can anyone coherently explain any of the dictated FIFA committee football rules (especially the current guise of the offside rule)?