Jump to content

Gerrard


sausagetrunks

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

You've been asked repeatedly for when SG specifically says Goldson was superhuman rather than the reality of that being how you've interpreted it.

You've done everything bar post his quotes to prove your point. But its OK, we both know you'll respond to this without doing so again. We know why too 👍

Wrong. 

And wrong again.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, The Dude said:

It absolutely is. He's already named the other three and moved on. Following that up with "Connor Goldson did everything we asked. I thought a lot of individuals, especially in the second-half, were superhuman." includes him in that grouping without explicitly stating 'Connor Goldson was also super-human'. You're choosing to interpret it that he's gone from speaking about the other three to speaking about Goldson to speaking about the other three again in the space of three sentences wwould be a very, very weird way of structuring sentences.

 

You're literally interpreting he's including Goldson in that grouping. It's not about whether I think he's including him in that group or not, or about how strange anything would be. Everyone can interpret it how they want. It would be equally stavge to suggest someone doing what is asked of them is superhuman unless he was asked to be superhuman.

What'sfactual is that he doesn't actually state he's in that group, he quite clearly names 3 who are then talks about Goldson in a different context. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

You're literally interpreting he's including Goldson in that grouping. It's not about whether I think he's including him in that group or not, or about how strange anything would be. Everyone can interpret it how they want. It would be equally stavge to suggest someone doing what is asked of them is superhuman unless he was asked to be superhuman.

What'sfactual is that he doesn't actually state he's in that group, he quite clearly names 3 who are then talks about Goldson in a different context. 

I'm interpreting it based on what he's said and the order in which he's said it.

The idea he 'talks about Goldson in a different context' when he literally says "Connor Goldson did everything we asked. I thought a lot of individuals, especially in the second-half, were superhuman." is wild.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I'm interpreting it based on what he's said and the order in which he's said it.

The idea he 'talks about Goldson in a different context' when he literally says "Connor Goldson did everything we asked. I thought a lot of individuals, especially in the second-half, were superhuman." is wild.

I agree you're interpreting it that way, and I understand why you are doing so. You may well be correct to do so. 

But he doesn't actually state it which is why you're having to interpret it 👍

And the whole superhuman thing is ridiculous, utter shite. But if folk want to criticise things being said they should be accurate re the content. It's similar to the Tav saying he's scared to play in front of crowds shite which for many is now believed to be what he said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

I agree you're interpreting it that way, and I understand why you are doing so. You may well be correct to do so. 

But he doesn't actually state it which is why you're having to interpret it 👍

And the whole superhuman thing is ridiculous, utter shite. But if folk want to criticise things being said they should be accurate re the content. It's similar to the Tav saying he's scared to play in front of crowds shite which for many is now believed to be what he said.

It's nothing like the Tav thing. Tav said something completely different that, even allowing for differences in interpretation, doesn't make a lick of sense when applied in the context mentioned re fans. Folk who claimed Tav said they couldn't play in front of fans in his programme notes are bare-faced liars. The two are nothing alike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who gives 2 fucks what he said and how it can be interpreted? The team were shite barring a few players and that's the most concerning thing.

Collectively we are dis-jointed as fuck and calling out players in press conferences may help but who knows? End of the day it's Gerrards job to get it sorted and he better be getting it sorted soon.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

It's nothing like the Tav thing. Tav said something completely different that, even allowing for differences in interpretation, doesn't make a lick of sense when applied in the context mentioned re fans. Folk who claimed Tav said they couldn't play in front of fans in his programme notes are bare-faced liars. The two are nothing alike.

It is similar in the sense that folk can be happy to be critical of comments, some even without reading / listening to the content, and jump on it for their own narrative which normally fits a critical agenda.

And all I'm saying is its being interpreted, not read.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

It is similar in the sense that folk can be happy to be critical of comments, some even without reading / listening to the content, and jump on it for their own narrative which normally fits a critical agenda.

And all I'm saying is its being interpreted, not read.

Everything is interpreted as you read it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Yep, and it makes it easier when something described as factual clearly isn't and folk are aware they're reading something a certain way not actually reading it.

What you should've said here is 'not interpreting it the same way I have'

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Dude said:

What you should've said here is 'not interpreting it the same way I have'

Gerrards words CAN be interpreted as you have said. But its not conclusive, there's ambiguity. That's why if you want to read that way then its purely interpretation not reading it as factual (like it was with the other 3 where there is zero ambiguity).

Link to post
Share on other sites

What on earth is this argument/debate about? 🥴

I just want SG to put on the correct team to start tomorrow. The players who will make the effort like the second half of this game 👍🏻

Whether they are super human or players that are hungry, passionate bears, I want them on that pitch playing their very best game! That is exactly what I want. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 03 October 2024 19:00 Until 21:00
      0  
      Rangers v Lyon
      Ibrox Stadium
      UEFA Europa League

×
×
  • Create New...