Who Is The Greatest Dribbler Ever

Dunno, looks like it..

 

the road?

Thought this business was already down the highway.

 

that was a bit too harsh

why keep banning Leadleader and the others get away with it

Both sides were being confrontational, yet only @leadleader gets banned?

 

Oh, I thought the old incidents in this case had been brought back in order to address a discrepancy in statements as well (as in someone stated you were or did somenthing, you stated you were or did not, hence the old incident gets brought up). Whatever.

 

Thing is @leadleader did not do anything worthy of a ban this time around

It was a bid too harsh a punishment

The mods should have issued a warning, not a ban

 

If that is the case, it sucks.

 

I think you missed one post I made with this text:
"People might now be more inclined to think your avatar is Luis Figo than to think mine actually is (and it actually is) Andriy Shevchenko now anyway!"

You can try the trick he did against Schmeichel when you next play 5-a-side! But if you ever sign for Barca, make sure not to go to Real Madrid otherwise you might need the hat to cushion the blow of pigs heads (that did verge on proper hatred I suppose if we want an example!).

 

Perhaps, but I do wonder how many other posters here have gone as far as demanding explanations of reps via PM.. You must admit that is a bit extreme, Puck. I think nobody else but you gives so much importance to reps (and is often so troubled by them...).

 

Luis figo !!! Now that is an insult !

 

I am not going to mention names cause dont want to drag on this and the guy is a good friend and did not give me consent to bring it up on his behalf

But a poster PM's me this noon telling me i am not the only one being criticized by Puck for repping

Puck send this poster a PM critizing him too for repping others.

so there you have it. It sums Puck character quite nicely

Since when has bigsoccer become sort of a "police state" where people are intimidated for repping posts?

Hell, I am even afraid to rep your post now I think about it

Big brother is watching!

 

Figo is quite successful in the ladies department mate

he is a chick magnet

 

To be honest, I think most of the criticism directed at me, as of late, is accurate enough. That being said, I feel compelled to tell my side of the story, as I'm quite tired (which is half the reason why I've been, as of late, quite inactive in this forum) of how certain posters actively try to paint me as the instigator when I'm actually going by a dynamic that wasn't established by me.

Estel's first post, the first one he directed at me, was a simple "LOL". And truth be told, I'm not really bothered by such insults, what bothers me is that Estel then (after throwing the first stone, essentially) explains that he "will respond in kind" -- but how does that qualify as "responding in kind" when, before the "LOL" bit, I had not directed any comments at him?

Estel threw the first rock, and then claimed that he was responding in kind. That's the sort of hypocrisy that does irritate me enough for me to respond with a fitting reply. It was abundantly obvious (if the "LOL" opening line by Estel wasn't enough of a clue about his real intentions) that Estel had zero interest in discussing Zidane in an honest and transparent manner. From his first lengthy contribution, it was easy to read the real intent that was lazily hidden underneath the surface civility -- Estel's usual contempt for ridiculing or at least "attacking" any detractors Zidane may have.

The example below...

...being one clear attempt, by myself, to end the discussion with a civil "agree to disagree" tone. Instead, Estel preferred to continue with the tone he had intended to use before he ever replied to one of my comments.

Of course, I made the mistake of allowing said dynamic (that Estel established) to flow into the discussion I was having Puck (my discussion with Puck started before Estel's "LOL" opening line). That's the main reason why I offered a sincere apology to Puck (who not only failed to recognize the apology but also chose to use it as an excuse by which to justify his subsequent jabs, but that's besides the point anyways...) -- he, although in my opinion biased throughout, remained fairly civil throughout the exchange.

It was after being irritated by Estel's usual tactic, that I made the mistake of allowing the same combative dynamic to flow into whatever I'd been discussing with Puck. Although, of course, considering the fact that Puck knowingly "teamed up" with Estel, it was very unlikely that said dynamic wouldn't follow the stream of the river.

And of course, when the stream of the river is flowing in that direction, you can always expect @SayWhatIWant to take a gentle piss on you on your way down (which, by the way, reminds me of the fact that said poster attacks me 99% of the time that he bothers to say anything to me or about me). Meanwhile, I'm still supposed to be viewed as the instigator of all the confrontation -- the example below...

...being an unbeatable example of said dishonest strategy. @SayWhatIWant basically says that ridiculous assertions are common place with me (insulting not only my opinion but also, and most importantly, my persona; therefore, making it a clear, and a calculated, personal insult), instead of agreeing to disagree, he just prefers to take a shit on my opinion and my persona, but at the same time, he still is enough of a hypocrite to write bullshit such as the statement quoted above. Classic.

Talk about credibility. This guy is the type who prefers to use and abuse an easy "scapegoat" before actually taking responsibility for his own classless act. In his own words, "disagreeing and arguing is kind of the point of this place... but that particular member is the source of all your problems". As dishonest as any outrageous claim he's made about Zidane.

 

Since everybody is telling their side of the story ...

This was my first post ...

Thus, I didn't just say LOL as is being dishonestly insinuated, I in fact posted a link supporting it.

For me, the fact that Djorkaeff's performance was being called as good as Zidane's, when as per kicker (from the link) Zidane was the joint 1st in player ratings while Djorkaeff was the joint 11th on the pitch, made it LOL worthy.

Furthermore, a LOL is not ad hominem IMHO. The following part is though ... which basically started it all and in response to which I ended it all in my immediate post after this gem. Since then I have only been intermittently posting, for obvious reasons.

In any case, good day y'all.

 

Yeah. No. Maybe. I mean, according to Puck, "using" an old incident to point out (and hopefully discredit) Person X's sudden change of opinion (Puck calls that a "discrepancy" because it sounds better than telling the truth) is not really using per se.

Yep. That sums up Puck. He thinks that fancy words actually do enough to properly hide his bias.

 

I think I'm safe in assuming that's a joke too lol! (Like me being a pick-pocket!).

 

No, it is primarily a diversion and smearing tactic, to bring up old cases. Cases from before the ban and outside the thread. Tell me exactly, what is the discrepancy brought up here? Please don't evade the question.
http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/who-is-the-greatest-dribbler-ever.1429954/page-228#post-32161434

First of all, in 99% of the cases I let it go. What you say is that it should be 100%, but JamesBH11 shows where that can leads to. As I said: "'Danger' is however a sleeping fire and a lock-in of positions, a natural state of affairs, an automatic disposition." An automatism of repping abrasive posts isn't necessarily without consequences.

That guy was gilesvarley. I asked: "You are repping all those raging insults by leadleader?" Then it turned out he did, but not because of the insults. I did not ask further or insult/bully him.

It certainly looks like it now. That you are teaming up and conspiring behind someone's back. You're fed by a certain guy and throwing fire at will.

No, both sides were not (committing insults and others calling for imbecile). This is exactly that diversion tactic that you guys have set out.. Again, look at this:
http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/who-is-the-greatest-dribbler-ever.1429954/page-225#post-32133375

Whatever you want to believe. You're free to believe that others were calling people 'imbecile' too, fine. If it feels good for you to jump the bandwagon and join the group, good luck.

Greatstriker11 and co tried to play the 'Europe vs South America' card. Rally around the flag... Let the allegiances and not facts decide...But against who was said, in this very same thread: ""Yes, you can say just about anything on the internet, just be sure not to be as hypocritical, borderline imbecile, as you so effortlessly are" ?? --- yes, against a poster who has a South American player as idol.

 

You're welcomed to tell your side of the story.

And with that thought in mind, I have to ask -- how does some link make the "LOL" any less offensive?

How does a link, which can't offer anything more than some guy's opinion or some conglomerate of opinions, make the "LOL" any easier to digest? Particularly when, at the time, I had not aimed one single comment at you?

I am "dishonestly insinuating" that an "LOL" (with or without the additional link) remark did what it is supposed to do?

That's the thing though... I never stated that "Djorkaeff's performance was as good as Zidane's" did I? I clearly stated that, in the first half and from open play, Djorkaeff was arguably as good as Zidane.

Those two factors: (a) first half and (b) open play. Two factors that neither your link nor yourself, cared for. Although, again, if you want to "dishonestly insinuate" a point that would make me look ridiculous, you can always go ahead and do what you just did in the quote above, which was to present a completely inaccurate (and dishonest) claim in order to justify your insult.

Have I ever quoted one of your comments, after weeks of not discussing anything with you, and replied with a simple "LOL" remark plus an added link to soften it down?

So if you were debating politics in a serious manner, and your opponent just laughed at your face -- that wouldn't be an ad hominem? Laughing at you when you think you're being taken seriously, is not an ad hominem? Just an insult then? That's "ok" I guess... Just as long as no "ad hominems" are thrown about, nothing should or could be considered offensive nor inappropriate.

Classic Estel... Since then you have only been intermittently posting -- by which you mean, that after writing the many walls of text worth of trying to discredit me, you decided you did enough for your cause. How curious that you are never able to not write so many walls of text before deciding you had your say (because your intention was never to have an open dialogue, but merely to discredit me; making the "walls of text" a necessity, before you get to stop and then claim that "some gen" inspired you to stop).

I'm guessing that your "LOL" remark was inspired by your lack of appreciation for massive details, details that you would no doubt appreciate if you weren't so busy hating on every single critique I've aimed at Zidane.

In any case, thank you for proving my point.

 

I think when people express views that other people favourites (be it Zidane, Riquelme or whoever) are over-rated that can end up leading to tensions and it's not unpredictable that it would. But it's not easy to resolve I suppose as we can't have a blanket ban on posts saying players are over-rated!

For example, I have no problem with schwuppe (hasn't posted in a while but might be back sometime I guess) as a poster but I myself did find myself 'defending' Michael Laudrup after one of his posts. Sometimes when I think some of the players I pick in a 'draft' team are under-valued by others I feel like arguing in their favour. If I see a post that says Nottingham Forest were a boring team in a certain time I feel like I have to correct that perception.

I just think the more definitive the opinions get on both sides, the more tense things become and then one person/side ends up thinking the other one was disrespectful because of a comment, a view, a rep or whatever. Then the other person thinks the other side/person is disrespectful and it goes on. That's why Moishe's idea of drawing a clean slate is good and I think if everyone takes reasonable care (with personal comments, but also comments about cultures from either side) that should improve things. We shouldn't have a Police state set-up but not a free-for-all in terms of comments either I think.


I don't think people need to have any worries about Puck having 'white supremicist' views though, or being inherently anti-South American (like I say arguments can start and people can end up thinking/arguing that Jose Manuel Moreno is forgotten while others can think he's getting more credit than Matthias Sindelar and wonder why....but I don't think it's anything to do with racism even if people often argue for players from their homeland or nearby) - I could find positive comments of his on threads or PM's about these players for example:
- Patrick Kluivert
- Teofilo Cubillas
- Enzo Francescoli
- Pedro Rocha
- Osvaldo Ardiles
- Frank Rijkaard
- Bryan Roy
- Clarence Seedorf
(That's just a few ofc off the top of my head).