WOW
I cannot fucking believe this, but it made a whole lot of sense.
Today, Dragonlord posted the following on bigsoccer forum. (click on the title to go to the actual page).
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Pints  Even Forlan was quoted as saying Roman has no right to bash his team and coach. And they were friends. I think your allegiance to Roman is blinding other sides of this story for you. |
He went as far as he telling the rest of the team to NOT PASS Forlan the ball!! Can you imagine that? Your playmaker telling the team to not give the ball to your top striker, just because you dont like him??????? That's absurd, and unfortunately, is vintage riquelme-style.
Eventually a player "ratted him" out to Pellegrini, and that was the begining of the end. Also, a lot of the argentines in the team that were conspiring in this affair were also shown the door.
This is the reason Forlan was sold. He was still a point of contention in the dressing room. This is also the reason why Atletico Madrid chose not to buy Riquelme. Apparently someone found out at the last minute about the 'history' behind these players, and Atletico duly stopped the transfer.
anyway, more money and talent wasted
I'm not convinced by Villar's win over Barza this past weekend. Many of the connections were shaky but luckily went through, and Barza showed nothing more than some individualities. Not to mention 2 of the Villar goals were PK. I'm not saying those shouldn't of been called, but they were calls could or could not had been made.
Torrent for Villarreal Vs. Barcelona match.
Dragonlord posted the following on BS last night:
I will get the name of the guys discussing the topic on spanish radio, but anyone that was listening to the first half between Villareal v Barcelona last weekend should have heard.
32 comments:
why did Forlan make a statement to the Spanish press in July then, which said that he hopes Riquelme also joins Atlético. He even said that they still talk a lot to each other about the Copa America... If they really didn't like each other then you'd expect Forlan to keep his mouth shut and just be happy that he finally got rid of him.
Some things just don't add up to me...
first, things like that happenes every where!! but i can't belive that it will lead riquelme to ask other teammates to ignore forlan...he is talented but not a leader that can control the locker room!!!!
but i can imagine riquelme doing this to a teammate...remeber he did it to crespo against germany...and there was a rumor that he is not ok with crespo......
that's why i hate the enganche role...it makes you under the mercy of the mood swings, personal flaws and the PMS of an individual!!!!
whether it is true or not, a team should not be built around one person.....
pelligrini woke up and decided i can live without riquelme and forlan.....so far he is doing good!!
Please show a news link that verifies your claim that Riquelme was not signed because of his rift with Forlán.
There have been quite a few interviews from the higher-ups at Atleti with mention to the Riquelme situation and NONE of them even mention Forlán as a reason. I would like to know where you are getting this information.
Un saludo.
As noted in the report, Dragonlord heard about it during a match yesterday from Spanish commentator.
I'm waiting for further confirmation also, but I've been reading his posts since 3 or 4 years ago and IMO he's very reliable.
As explained by his post, the logic behind both players and the club trying to cover this up is simple, so both players could get out of villar and land in another club. Not to mention Atletico's intention was to acquire both of them in 1 deal. The fact Atletico dropped request for Riquelme in last minute was hard to interpret, and this offered a reasonable explanation.
and stop asking retarded question before you read. all the stuff I put on here have sources cited. Read and you'll know where it came from.
Rio,
You have a great analytical mind.But the A-man is just asking a legitimate
question. That is a low blow
to name calling his question as
"retarded". Please write FACTS, not speculation. In that way you will continue to be referenced and looked up to. thanks
I never expected a response like that. I was just curious.
Unless I see this 'explanation' stated from a reliable news source, I just can't consider it valid at all.
Sorry, I offended you. I won't comment here again.
Un saludo.
It was not about the quality of the question, but rather the fact it was asked.
If something worth mentioning and is of what I considered reliable source, I will post it with citation. These things takes time to confirm, whether to believe it or not is completely at reader's discretion.
IMO, if someone had to ask question like that, he certainly have not paid attention or READ before speaking. That kind of "reader" are not worthy of my time. Sorry to disappoint you.
Rio,
Humility is a better human quality
than arrogance. Your reader's
time is equally important as your
time. You should apologize to
the A-man. Thanks
pp blasting off soon
2 words:
Critical Thinking
Rio,
With all due respect to you,
are you saying that you have
critical thinking and your audience
don't have it. I am just curious.
I love how the "all" got in there.
On what foundation did you make that generalization?
Look, in a court of law, you cannot appeal unless new evidence had come to light.
Let's call Dragonlord's claim a theory. This theory is there to disprove the popular belief. It could do that because it's more logical and fits the surface elements (the facts such as transfer deals, not opinions) better than the official claim from Villarreal.
For Villarreal's claim to successfully counter this theory, it must find logical flaws in the theory that is explainable by Villar's claim. That would service as new evidence for the appeals.
That wasn't the case. -a tried to use the more orthodoxy background of the Villarreal claim as an evidence, which would have no stand in a court of law, nor here.
In a court of law, such appeal would be rejected on the basis that it has no foundation. Here, I called it retarded.
Rio,
The "all" simply means that you receive all the respects that you are entitled to.
Don't you think we should not evoke a court of law here because the main protagonist here JRR has never had an EQUAL opportunity to respond. In a court of law that would have been the case. Once we agree on that point, the rest of your arguments though intelligent does not apply.
So Rio, again with all due respect to you, do you believe that the A-man deserve an apology from you? Else do you believe that you have critical thinking and the A-man lacks that and hence does not deserve an apology from you. I am curious simply because I respect your opinion and analytical mind. In fact one of the thing I respect with you is that you call it the way you see it without being politically correct. Thanks
I said "retarded question".
=! calling him a name.
Metaphor is language that directly compares seemingly unrelated subjects. In the simplest case, this takes the form: "The [first subject] is a [second subject]." More generally, a metaphor is a rhetorical trope that describes a first subject as being or equal to a second subject in some way. Thus, the first subject can be economically described because implicit and explicit attributes from the second subject are used to enhance the description of the first.
Rio,
by calling the question retarded, were you flattering him? I doubt so. You basically were reminding him of his state of mind from your point of view. Is that right Rio? You were in fact judging him. Right Rio?
That's the second time tonight you established conclusion first then force your way there by altering the original content to suit the argument. That's not the correct approach to debates.
First was overlooking the property of a metaphor and tried to force such conclusion that I've made the 2 matters into 1, which was not the case.
Second here you tried to force such conclusion that "calling the question retarded" = "flattering him".
Please explain the logic behind those before going any further.
Rio,
First there is no "force" involved here.
The "flattering him" is a question being asked of you which you apparently would not answer.
There is no logic involved here. It is a mere attempt to understand your state of mind as you responded to the A-man's question.
This is just a casual conversation. There is no debate going on. Thanks for your insight Rio.
just explain how does "retarded question" get to "flattering him".
Rio,
I was just asking you a simple question. That is in calling the question "retarded", were you flattering the A-man? You did not answer the question. So I cannot understand your state of mind.
But if you stated that you did not intend to flatter him, it is then obvious that you were judging him in a negative way.
If you admitted to flattering him, then you were not judging him but rather complimenting him, which is more positive relatively speaking.
Does that make sense Rio?
The question is simply meant to elicit what was your state of mind when you used the word "retarded question"
But since you did not answer the question, I cannot understand your state of mind. Of course you know exactly what you did through your "critical thinking". But I don't know because you would not let me. That is fine by me Rio. Thanks for insight anyway.
P.S the approach I use is based on a concept called the "Gedanken" approach. You ask a hypothetical question and through the answer obtained, one may arrive at some important inference without actually performing any experiment. Sine you are an electrical engineer I am sure you know of that approach already.
what does "flatter" mean?
how do you flatter somebody by pissing him off?
LOL
have fun. I gotta go to work in a bit.
I can see Riquelme not going anywhere in december and sitting out his contract with Villareal for the next season and a half. Because let's face it here, he won't go to England. Italy maybe: I could see him joining Napoli if he'd be willing for a significant loss in wages but that's just some fancy daydreaming of mine.
It's obvious however that his club of preferred choice would be Boca, but they don't have the money. Such a shame too...
Sigh.
I think Roman will sell. He worths too much money for Villar to keeping paying while sitting him on the bench.
Boca only wins 1/2 the games they played without Riquelme :D
I do not want to sound like a rewinding tape. I will answer this last question and then move on. The effect you had on the A-man cannot be tested unless the A-man volunteers to respond to questions. For example he may have some personal issues or matters that may be affecting him at that time, which we may never know. We are only interested in your state of mind as you mentioned the appropriate word to answer him. Thanks for allowing me to share this concept.
Please keep writing about our NT. I believe with the current AFA and Basile in place, even with our stars, we will not win wc2010. Take care and all the best to you.
how does that explain "flattering"?
1. to try to please by complimentary remarks or attention.
2. to praise or compliment insincerely, effusively, or excessively: She flatters him by constantly praising his books.
3. to represent favorably; gratify by falsification: The portrait flatters her.
4. to show to advantage: a hairstyle that flatters the face.
5. to play upon the vanity or susceptibilities of; cajole, wheedle, or beguile: They flattered him into contributing heavily to the foundation.
6. to please or gratify by compliments or attentions: I was flattered by their invitation.
7. to feel satisfaction with (oneself), esp. with reference to an accomplishment, act, or occasion: He flattered himself that the dinner had gone well.
8. to beguile with hope; encourage prematurely, falsely, etc.
–verb (used without object)
9. to use flattery.
do you felt encouraged when people called your "point" retarded?
because if a person does that, I wouldn't call what he did retarded. I'd just call him a retard LOL.
please use a name when you post in the future.
what is going on with this site...stop arguing over stupid shit and just be thankful that Rio keeps us updated with the NT
Rio,
Hind sight is always 20/20!
Any kind of discussion is welcome here. Even arguing just so there's a topic to debate is fine as long as there's points made and there are interests to counter that.
2 random guys on Spanish radio? Valid and unbiased souces for the win!
I didn't listen to the radio show, did you?
Drawing conclusions without in-depth knowledge of the matter is quite acceptable obviously.
Try harder next time.
Post a Comment