Undisputedtruth

busybee1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Going back maybe further than 94, the sports shop, > FSL, fashion sports and lesuire!! No one remember > that? Is that the sport shop on Lordship Lane that had a good selection of football boots, busybee1?

I'm quite happy to show off my football skills in real life. http://codex.wordpress.org/images/4/4b/icon_wink.gif

Congratulations Comcast; You're The Worst Company In America! Hugo defending greedy big businesses. No surprise there.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So far I?ve been insulted by the following on this > thread. > > The trolling crew??. > monniemae RosieH El Pibe Otta Jeremy > > Will any of you appologise or retract your pointed > comments and insults directed at me? Some of the names are very familiar.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh, if we're going to be like this I played a > couple of times for south London schoolboys. Went > training at Crystal Palace and for a very short > while was a junior at Spurs and was offered a > trial at Everton but by then I'd discovered sex > and drugs and rock n'roll. Played Sunday pub > football too. Doesn't make me Glenn Hoddle or even > Alan Hansen come to think of it. > > Anyway, @UDT - to answer your question about > Gerrard turning his back on Nasri's shot I would > say he should never have been allowed to shoot in > the first place and should have been closed down > before he got the chance to do so. But you're > right he shouldn't have turned his back. You stand > firm and try and block or tackle, neither of which > he did. Thanks JL. I also agree with you on Gerrard's positional sense.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does that include the year or so before you > cottoned-on..? You know.. Before I started making > it really, really obvious? > > Guess not. > > > I think I should leave it now though. Deep down I > have a nagging feeling it's not really fair. I cottoned on quite some time ago when you mentioned the soldering iron on a Apple thread.

I thought Harry's days was numbered when Levy questioned why Steven Piennar suddeny played well for Everton. Also, Redknapp attempt to play the media to secure larger transfer fund didn't bode well for him.

With you, *Bob*, it's very easy. I can't recall a single post where you've said anything of notable substance.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ooh, I had a trial once. It was me knees. If it > weren't fer me knees.. Ooh.. I suspect you're making this up. Anyway, I knew one boy who had a trial. He wasn't very good.

Parker showed how to block a shot, without having to turn his back, in the last game.

*Bob* never played football so doesn't understand how the game works. Nor is he in a position to judge others. Even in amateur football you are coached never to turn your back to a shot. eta: he

This video certainly blows Hugo's argument away. Interesting to hear Comcast's 40 per cent profit margin and the low cost of data bandwidth.

Otta, you really should watch your tone. Gerrard should never have turned his back to a shot bearing in mind that he is playing in a major tournament. It has nothing to do with him being a Liverpool player. eta: another Otta's comment designed to caused difficulties for myself. @bon3yard You're absolutey right.

@Jah Lush England should have got a clean sheet against France. I blame Gerrard for turning his back to Nazri's shot.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As Roy Walker used to say, "just say what you > see". Absolutely, but as you don't say anything useful it's pretty pointless, ain't it? Like I said before, what you know is not worth knowing.

I've worked with enough consultants to realise they spout rubbish most of the time. Anyone still remembers Arthur Andersen.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's nothing to do with how you treat me (I > honestly couldn't care less), it's just the rude > way you talk to everyone. I disagree and I know that El Pibe haved defended you in the past. You've just taken this opportunity to give a punch under the guise of the blame game. No doubt, *Bob* has done the same thing too.

Jah Lush gets it. Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > God UDT, you really do have the social skills / > manners of an autistic 15 year old! It insults like this that makes me treat people like you with contempt.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > I might have taken you seriously until you wrote > this. TBF is his view any different to the Irish who chants "you'll never beat the Irish" in Euro 2012. Perhaps a new song is in order like "we'll be lucky to win a game".

99 per cent of users do not exceed their bandwidth yet you feel it's right, El Pibe, that they should be charged more for the actions of the 1 per cent seems very unfair to me. But since many ISPs throttles P2Ps to mitigate the actions of the minority then there's no justification for ending net neutrality. Bandwidth isn't that expensive and over in the states users now get 300gb bandwidth as part of their subscription. For an extra $7 buys you a further 50GB if you need more than 300GB. Infrastructure follows Moore's Law and your internet subscriptions more than covers the costs of infrastructure. Each year, bandwidth gets cheaper, your allowance also increases. What H is arguing is not of continued investments in infrastructure but actually satisfying the needs of greedy bastards like Murdoch looking to stake a claim in the internet gold rush. Rupert Murdoch is the face of H. Sorry El Pibe, I reject your arguments.

No confusion on my part, El Pibe. Just understand the game far better than someone who get their analysis from journalists.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's hard to tell with the French, they seemed a > little disorganised, but whether they will improve > or implode is anyone's guess. France had the greater possession so I'm not quite sure why you thought they were a little disorganised. Perhaps you're confusing disorganisation with their lack of ideas in the final third. Defensively, France looked weak but I thought they looked organised overall.

'Net neutrality' is about giving the user the freedom to surf websites of their choosing without interference from their internet service provider or having to pay extra to prioritising their traffic. WTF is the Murdoch thing about and what is the relevance? Murdoch wants to end net neutrality. Just like Hugo. Murdoch cites Google as the enemy. Just like Hugo. Murdoch wants us to pay more for our internet access. Just like Hugo. Murdock talks nonsense. You get it - just like Hugo!

I thought the Ox played well considering his lack of England experience and first major tournament game. He showed glimpses of brilliance at times. My main criticism of England is that they didn't stretch the French defence enough to allow the likes of Ox to go through with consummate ease. Lots of positives. The French restricted to shooting from outside the box. England had enough clear cut chances to win the game. Milner should have put his chance away. Four points should be enough to go through to the knock out stages and it's likely England will beat Ukraine and Sweden. To see the best of the Ox then I'd like to see Walcott play as well. The injection of pace will put fear to the opposition.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Motty reckons Young will move to the left and > Rooney will play behind Welbeck... Makes sense. Young will give England more width. I'd like to see Andy Carroll replace Welbeck due to the number of headed goals in the tournament.