Rumours and Stuff

[the phantom menace]

However, I find it curious that you mercilessly shit-canned Hands last year to bolster your defence of the clubs signing of Hodgson, but now it suits your argument to defend Hands.

You are simply a contrarian who will argue anything.

#Poulogic caught out yet again.

It would make for an intriguing psychological case study, if anyone could get to the bottom of what subconscious motivation drives the behaviours.

 

[emjaycee]

#Poulogic caught out yet again.

It would make for an intriguing psychological case study, if anyone could get to the bottom of what subconscious motivation drives the behaviours.

Probably not the only poster on here whose subconscious motivation could benefit from a close study, eh?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

That was exactly what my post indicated.

No it's not. It's up to me to point out that choice of stats can be selective.

But we all already know this. Pointing it out just comes across as a dishonest attempt to assert that all evidence is worthless. Which makes sense given your inability to present any evidence in support of your frequent assertions. You assert a position, give zero evidence, and then attack anyone else's evidence with irrelevant truisms like you have here: "choice of stats can be selective". A choice can be selective can it? What a f**king genius you are. All choices are selective you imbecile. And you accuse me (with zero evidence) of circular reasoning. I think your obsession with attacking me is really about your own inadequacies.

Pou's post implied that his point of view was the only one that was supported by (his selective) stats

If the stats support a different analysis, I'm happy to hear it. Until then you can go back to embarrassing yourself with useless personal attacks.

 

[84 Baby]

In this housing crisis I just feel sorry for Suity being evicted from living rent free in Pharty’s head in favour of Pou

 

[Twizzle]

there aint much room in there

 

[strider]

I think its a 50 story high rise. Seems to be quite a few occupants

 

[hindy111]

I think its a 50 story high rise. Seems to be quite a few occupants

U r a mean girl

 

[emjaycee]

I think its a 50 story high rise. Seems to be quite a few occupants

If there wasn't a few occupants, a 50 storey high rise would be labelled a ghetto, wouldn't it... oh, hang on...

 

[oldmancraigy]

Probably not the only poster on here whose subconscious motivation could benefit from a close study, eh?

Maybe we could petition the mods for a poucentric subforum - he can post whatever argument he wants (preferably replying to himself and taking the contrarian position) and a select few posters can needlessly reply with memes or gifs as they please.

 

[TheCrowe]

If its about footy as far as Im concerned people can post whatever they want.
Just need to keep all the other BS out.

 

[Suitman]

If its about footy as far as Im concerned people can post whatever they want.
Just need to keep all the other BS out.

Agreed.
Too many threads get hijacked with petty, immature shite, as well as "I said, she said" rubbish.

 

[the phantom menace]

But we all already know this. Pointing it out just comes across as a dishonest attempt to assert that all evidence is worthless. Which makes sense given your inability to present any evidence in support of your frequent assertions.

Not dishonest. Just making sure that your claims such as "The difference is that stats support my point of view" are shown for what they are - assertions that your chosen (selective) evidence is better than someone else's chosen evidence. Which surely, you now to be nonsense...

You assert a position, give zero evidence, and then attack anyone else's evidence with irrelevant truisms like you have here: "choice of stats can be selective". A choice can be selective can it? What a f**king genius you are.

You'll find I don't assert much about my views on players, just give my opinions on what I see in and from the games - and unlike some do not present them as if they are fact (backed by selective stats) or better than anyone else's differing opinions. You should try it - and maybe then you could be a genius too!!!

And you accuse me (with zero evidence) of circular reasoning.

Your honour, to support the claim of circular reasoning I tender evidence in the form of pretty much all of your flip flopping posts throughout post-game match day threads last season (and seasons prior). QED.

I think your obsession with attacking me is really about your own inadequacies.

You can think what you like - whatever helps you continue to fail to admit any of your posts here are empty, circular or (as others also point out) contrarian for the sake of trolling other Eels fans... and to avoid considering what inadequacies that history of posting might be linked to.

 

[the phantom menace]

Maybe we could petition the mods for a poucentric subforum - he can post whatever argument he wants (preferably replying to himself and taking the contrarian position) and a select few posters can needlessly reply with memes or gifs as they please.

Agree. Like The Swamp thread for opposition fan trolls, where some people enjoy engaging in the banter (and everyone else can avoid)? But a specific thread for the Eels fan who tries to troll his fellow fans - so some people can enjoy "replying" to him (and everyone else can avoid).

 

[Obscene Assassin]

Maybe we could petition the mods for a poucentric subforum - he can post whatever argument he wants (preferably replying to himself and taking the contrarian position) and a select few posters can needlessly reply with memes or gifs as they please.

Or you could be the big man and just put him on ignore? It's very easy.

 

[TheCrowe]

Longest off season ever.......

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Not dishonest. Just making sure that your claims such as "The difference is that stats support my point of view" are shown for what they are - assertions that your chosen (selective) evidence is better than someone else's chosen evidence.

Observations aren't evidence at all. Evidence is things like statistics and video. Opinions supported by these objective facts are absolutely worth more than opinions unsupported by anything other than subjective observation. You don't need to feel inadequate if you can't be bothered backing up your opinions. Sometimes I can't either. There's no need to constantly attack others who do. It just makes you look petty.

As for your criticism of 'selective' evidence, you are again showing your ignorance. There is no evidence that isn't selective. Evidence is by its nature selective:

"Evidence is factual information used to support a claim or belief. It is information and research selected from the best available sources to support a decision."

What is evidence?

Evidence is used to inform decision making to achieve the most effective outcomes.

evidenceportal.dcj.nsw.gov.au

 

[the phantom menace]

Observations aren't evidence at all. Evidence is things like statistics and video. Opinions supported by these objective facts are absolutely worth more than opinions unsupported by anything other than subjective observation.

In your opinion. Let's go back to the assertion I called you out on with a picture, which seems to have rankled you somewhat...

I go on what I see as well. The difference is that the stats support what I see. If they didn’t then I would consider my perceptions to be flawed by emotion, as is often the case when watching players/teams you love (or hate).

You are trying to set your opinion on players (based on what you see) above others opinions on players (of what they see) based on - self-admitted - selective choice/use of statistics.

As for your criticism of 'selective' evidence, you are again showing your ignorance. There is no evidence that isn't selective. Evidence is by its nature selective:

Yep, we seem in agreeance on that, as above

Where we don't agree is where you think that any "selected" evidence makes your opinion better than that of others, whether they also select evidence to support their opinions (which you then spectacularly fail when trying and flip-flop/circular logic your way around to "prove you are right") or whether - like me - they wised up to you ages ago, and simply call you out for sport whenever you try trolling your fellow fans here (for what purpose only the psychologist and yourself might know).

 

[Poupou Escobar]

In your opinion.

Yes, I believe that opinions supported by objective facts are more valid than opinions without the same level of factual support. Do you really disagree?

 

[the phantom menace]

I disagree that your (self-admittedly) selected stats chosen specifically to support an already formed opinion are somehow objective evidence and better than anything else anyone offers, yes indeed.

If you just offered up your opinion on players and your version of evidence for your opinion, and left it at that - without constantly trying to prove your opinion on players etc is somehow better than anyone else's here - then I wouldn't have to show you up so much with gifs and pictures in reply to when you post nonsense.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I disagree that your (self-admittedly) selected stats chosen specifically to support an already formed opinion are somehow objective evidence and better than anything else anyone offers, yes indeed.

If you just offered up your opinion on players and your version of evidence for your opinion, and left it at that - without constantly trying to prove your opinion on players etc is somehow better than anyone else's here - then I wouldn't have to show you up so much with gifs and pictures in reply to when you post nonsense.

So you’re saying it’s only wrong when I do it? I hope you understand now why merkins say I’m living rent free in your head.