I disagree completely, I also draw your attention to the similarity between your post above & the initial post I made on the thread. At no point did I lack grace or class in victory, I merely highlighted the pathetic, hypocritical, embarrassing, over-reactive, & at times racist & paedophile led views expressed by many of your posters. I've not re-visited the thread to peruse, just to copy this link, but I'm sure I didn't mention the fact we'd whipped your little arseholes & you were crying your little eyes out, spitting dummies to the floor & stamping your monkey boots like the spoilt brats of whores you are (sow, you, reap, what - right back at ya!). http://www.not606.com/threads/andre-marriner.287210/ Thank you.
I know where the link is. It's on my board, I don't need you to post it. Why don't you just say 'hears the link everyone, join in with me' I never said you were rubbing the win our faces, I meant you were over to rock the boat in the wake of your victory. Your Op was irrelevant to Andree Marriner completely, you came on to attack a Sunderland player who cheated in a different fixture under a different official. But you thought you'd talk down to us with that anyway. You were there to **** stir, no doubt in my mind.
Ben does not **** stir. I suggest you leave now Funky. In one day you hve falsely accused two of our players of diving, and probably the most honest and level headed poster on our board of **** stirring.
Because I'd say "Here's the link everyone ..." I mean why would anybody want to listen to the link? I could accuse you of the same. I commented, in a similar fashion to what you have on here, that if showing video clips of refs getting decisions wrong that go against you then it would also be a good stance to acknowledge that you also get some dodgy decisions going your way. I mean, seriously, you were accusing a ref of "taking bungs" ,"cheating", "working for the bookies", "seeing it but choosing to ignore it", "getting back handers", or further, suggesting that the conspiracies extend to "Hull surviving upon the basis that the FA give instructions to refs" or even "The FA want us in the league but not to climb to high and as we started to get up the league, we were an easy expendable picking today in favour of Hull, in order to help Hull get out of the bottom three.". Yet only a couple of weeks earlier you stole a point at West Ham because a ref was conned by cheating Johnson. Maybe the ref at the West Ham game had been instructed by the FA to make it a draw as they want you both to finish mid-table, now I think about it, that's probably right. Is this about the time you throw a hissy fit & leave the board forever .................. again?
Gary Cahill winning why? If the **** had won a penalty from his cheating then fair enough, but he didnt. In fact the **** nominee from that match should have been the ref who bottled giving Cahill the second yellow card for that dive.
How come Cahill is attracting the **** accusation for diving? It's not as though it's not happening all the time. And one or two of our players have been known to go down too easily.
Because he should of been sent off, and in turn may of given us a better chance of getting something from the game.
Most people one here are feeling the same way. Also, how the **** is Cahill winning? Yes he dived and looked a right ****, but surely it was the ref's fault he didn't get punished?
We have a nomination process so its easy to understand how it got on there. So far 90.5% of people havent voted for him so one shouldnt read to much into him being nominated in the first place.
Are votes not public any more with this new software? I can only see who I voted for. Or is that just how you've set it up Hatty?