Inconsistent Norwich yet again!

[Buh 0]

Hahahahahahaha

Cherry picking the quote, what a moron you are

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Its now dishonest to suggest that a suggestion is a suggestion.......[/quote]

At the very least you were economical with the truth, NN  . You know full well that to be on a list is not the same as nailed on suggestion.

Yet more hypocrisy from you, as it''s a blatant case of ''word twisting'', which, you''d have us believe is another of your bete noires.

Classic ''do what I say, not what I do'' from the master.
[/quote]

 

So was it a list of suggestions or a suggested list, when you write a list what is it for?

And who said ''nailed on''?

 

 

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="TCCANARY"]

So was it a list of suggestions or a suggested list, when you write a list what is it for?

And who said ''nailed on''?

 

 

[/quote]If Nige had wanted to be accurate and honest, TCC, he''d have said that Slade was ''one of Reggie''s suggestions for manager''Which would have been true.But, as we all know, accuracy and honesty are qualities that do not figure much in NN''s agenda.Nailed on ?  I said it. Do you have a problem with that ?

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Buh"]Hahahahahahaha

Cherry picking the quote, what a moron you are[/quote]Surefire signs that Buh is losing the plot/argument.He starts the puerile insults.

[nutty nigel 7,566]

I would suggest that "nailed on" quote is the most dishonest thing posted on here today...

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="TCCANARY"]

So was it a list of suggestions or a suggested list, when you write a list what is it for?

And who said ''nailed on''?

 

 

[/quote]

If Nige had wanted to be accurate and honest, TCC, he''d have said that Slade was ''one of Reggie''s suggestions for manager''

Which would have been true.

But, as we all know, accuracy and honesty are qualities that do not figure much in NN''s agenda.

Nailed on ?  I said it. Do you have a problem with that ?
[/quote]

 

So you want people to accurately quote you but you''re prepared to embellish what others have said, there''s a word for what you are.

 

 

 

 

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="TCCANARY"]

 

So you want people to accurately quote you but you''re prepared to embellish what others have said, there''s a word for what you are.

 

 

 

 

[/quote]OK. If it makes you feel any better, I unreservedly withdraw the words ''nailed'' and ''on'' from my earlier posting . They were surplus to requirements. But their removal does not make my point about NN''s dishonesty any less relevant or accurate. He''s still given a false statement re Slade.Better now ?

[Buh 0]

Are you going to unreservedly admit you deliberately doctored a quote to make it fit your anti-club agenda?

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="TCCANARY"]

 

So you want people to accurately quote you but you''re prepared to embellish what others have said, there''s a word for what you are.

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

OK. If it makes you feel any better, I unreservedly withdraw the words ''nailed'' and ''on'' from my earlier posting .

They were surplus to requirements. But their removal does not make my point about NN''s dishonesty any less relevant or accurate. He''s still given a false statement re Slade.

Better now ?
[/quote]

 

They weren''t ''surplus to requirements'' they were a deliberate attempt at misleading people (that''s what you do) and that ridiculous attempt at back tracking doesn''t regain any semblance of credibility you hoped to have.

 

 

 

 

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Interesting, isn''t it that I have clarified my position and removed any words that might have led to a false impression, yet Nige has not taken the opportunity to do likewise and clarify that what he meant to say (and what would have been accurate and honest) was that Slade was one of my suggestions (as opposed to my suggestion...singular) ?  I would regard it as clarification rather than the backtracking you suggest, but, each to his own I guess.Quite why you''ve felt the need to get involved  TCC is anyone''s guess, but if there''s been any misleading going on here , it''s been by Nigel.Perhaps, as I say, he might care to qualify what he meant to avoid any misunderstandings?  We''ll see over the next few minutes, I suppose.

[nutty nigel 7,566]

I don''t think I could make my post any clearer Reg. I think you''ve been found out and about time too...

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"] Then moaning about a 3-2 away win assumedly because it wasn''t 4-0. What can the team do to satisfy the never satisfied negativeNancies?[/quote]....oh and while we''re about it Nige, perhaps , in the spirit of accuracy, you understand, you can point us all to the post where as above , you claim that people have moaned that our 3-2 success  v Charlton was not 4-0 ?

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]I don''t think I could make my post any clearer Reg. I think you''ve been found out and about time too...[/quote]Well, you could have made it clearer Nige. In the simple manner I suggested . By the basic addition of the addition of the words ''one of''''.  Which would make for an accurate statement, as opposed to the misleading one you''ve made. Will you do that Nigel ?Or have you been ''found out '' too ?

[nutty nigel 7,566]

Really? LOL

[Buh 0]

Is reg a politician? Because he posts like one.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Really? LOL[/quote]I''ll take that as a ''no'' on both requests then .

[morty 0]

[quote user="Buh"]Is reg a politician? Because he posts like one.[/quote]I was going to say "Throbbing veined member" but politician fits I guess.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Buh"]Is reg a politician? Because he posts like one.[/quote]Ha ha, Buh. Definitely not.Come to think of it, Nige (and to a lesser extent your good self) would make excellent politicians.Make wild extravagant and often inaccurate statements that look good at first glance, but, when challenged ,either can''t or won''t substantiate them.Quick lads, there''s still time to put your names  forward for a constituency before May''s Gen election.

[chicken 0]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Oh, and wasn''t Slade Reggie''s suggestion for our manager?[/quote]Yes, Slade was indeed on a list of people who I suggested for consideration, Nige . Not the same as out and out suggestion for manager.So, not for the first time, NN, that''s something you''ve made up.I do dislike these dishonest posters like you........[/quote]If this is what the stink is over then I''m afraid the only person to be wild and over-reacting in their responses is you Reggie.For starters, NN doesn''t say that he was your "only" suggestion or your "main" suggestion. In fact he simply asks if he was your suggestion. Which you could have said, yes, no or like you did but without the stinking attitude to be quite honest.Not sure why people think you would be a politician, you''d be carp at it! Well unless you were UKIP I guess.I suggest that your answer should have been:"Yes, NN, I did suggest Slade as a possible managerial candidate, but he was one of a list I gave and so not ''the'' one as your post may imply."But he clearly hasn''t made it up because he remembered you suggested his name. So it''s not dishonest. You are for suggesting he is.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="chicken"][I suggest that your answer should have been:"Yes, NN, I did suggest Slade as a possible managerial candidate, but he was one of a list I gave and so not ''the'' one as your post may imply."But he clearly hasn''t made it up because he remembered you suggested his name. So it''s not dishonest. You are for suggesting he is.[/quote]Well, OK, Chicken. that is your take on it, and that''s fair enough.I could indeed have answered that way. It is Nige that goes on about this inaccurate/dishonest'' thing, tbh. When what he means when he says it is ''not my opinion''. If he was just straight about it there''d be a lot less aggro.Ironic, as he himself makes all sorts of wild statements (eg the 4-0 vs 3-2 one earlier) . Completely false, yet when challenged about it, he never clarifies it nor accepts he is wrong. I (in TCC''s words) was prepared to backtrack, by deleting some unneccessary words, but he has not reciprocated. Instead he reverts to the silly name calling.So, sometimes you have to look a little beneath the surface to understand why there is so much strife on this board. As so often this thread is now going round in circles ( at best), so I''ll leave it at that.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

PS, Chicken. To be fair, I''ve already dismissed Buh''s idea that I''d be a politician.You are right, I''d be no good at it. Lose patience too easily !

[nutty nigel 7,566]

Unless "Really" or "LOL" is the silly name calling then you''ve made something else up.

[lake district canary 4,541]

Reggie, I''d give up trying to tame Nigel if I were you.  He''s a past master at saying something that is loaded towards a particular poster, designed to catch you out,  that when analysed more closely looks quite innocuous and innocent.  Its called being savvy and you are not the only one that gets caught out by it.  Mind you, you don''t help it sometimes by not being strictly accurate with your quoting, so I''d say your both as bad as each other judging by this thread. Just my pennyworth - but Nutty is hard to catch out - I gave up quite a while ago!  I bet he''s good at cryptic crosswords......

[morty 0]

ME ME MEEEEEE, MAKE THE THREAD ABOUT MEEEEEE.

[lake district canary 4,541]

[quote user="morty"]ME ME MEEEEEE, MAKE THE THREAD ABOUT MEEEEEE.[/quote]

Ahhh, feeling left out again Morty, never mind eh.....

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"]Reggie, I''d give up trying to tame Nigel if I were you.  He''s a past master at saying something that is loaded towards a particular poster, designed to catch you out,  that when analysed more closely looks quite innocuous and innocent.  Its called being savvy and you are not the only one that gets caught out by it.  Mind you, you don''t help it sometimes by not being strictly accurate with your quoting, so I''d say your both as bad as each other judging by this thread. Just my pennyworth - but Nutty is hard to catch out - I gave up quite a while ago!  I bet he''s good at cryptic crosswords......

[/quote]Oh I know that, LDC. Never try to ''tame'' him .Just like to catch him out from time to time, which more and more people do, seemingly. Not as difficult as you are suggesting ! Not as easy as Morty, I''ll agree, but not too difficult, nontheless.Re quoting......you may have been right about me in the past, which is why I now invariably use the quote facility in ALL cases. so there cannot be any argument as to what was said, by whom and when.

[Mr Angry 1,570]

Despite the fact that the OP posted before the fat lady had sung, we WERE inconsistent. The first half was excellent, great passing, great pressing, creating chances and converting two-Charlton were made to look really poor.

The second half was totally different-maybe Charlton got a rocket at half-time, or maybe the booing had an effect-but we looked hesitant and also at times too casual and it was a great relief that CJ scored the winner that our overall performance deserved.

I think AN recognised what occurred yesterday and hope that he can encourage/discipline the players to give us more of the first half performance and less of the Second.

[Katie Borkins 1]

Pleased to see AN isn''t of the "shut up, we won" approach:

Tony Watt and Igor Vetokele pounced in the space of eight second half minutes to set up a needlessly tense finale for the Scot.

“I have told them I wasn’t happy at all with the slackness that nearly cost us,” said Neil. “Certainly against the better teams we are not going to get away with that. We knocked the ball about really well and created plenty of good opportunities so from that aspect I was really pleased but we need to cut out the sloppy goals.

“I thought we thoroughly deserved the three points but we made it harder than it had to be. I didn’t think they had any sustained pressure. The goals we conceded were from us playing square balls into the middle of the park and that was something we spoke about at half-time. I didn’t want us to play in dangerous areas and it was comfortable for us in the first half. Defensively for the two goals it starts with us giving the ball away and then not switching on. When you look at the amount of chances we had being 2-2 at that stage was a travesty, but thankfully Cameron came on and got the winner.”

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="Mr Angry"]Despite the fact that the OP posted before the fat lady had sung, we WERE inconsistent. The first half was excellent, great passing, great pressing, creating chances and converting two-Charlton were made to look really poor.

The second half was totally different-maybe Charlton got a rocket at half-time, or maybe the booing had an effect-but we looked hesitant and also at times too casual and it was a great relief that CJ scored the winner that our overall performance deserved.

I think AN recognised what occurred yesterday and hope that he can encourage/discipline the players to give us more of the first half performance and less of the Second.[/quote]Surely notAccording to many it never has any positive effect.perhaps things are different up that London.

[nutty nigel 7,566]

First mention of a boo and sure as night follows day.....

;)