Sorry to bang on about this, but you asked me a few questions and have 
ignored my replies. You threw up a few responses that I think warrant 
clarification. You being a decent chap I'm sure it's just an oversight.

I've highlighted the areas below with a number and asterisk where I'd really 
like some enlightenment from you.

TIA:



"lescor"


>>
>>
>> It wasn't that good. It's just that everyone else was rubbish.
>
>
> Yes, they were good.....but not quite the Gods time and tragedy has turned
> them into. It was their age and potential which attracted, but it was
> still potential.



They'd already won the league despite being very young. Tha'ts more than
just potential.


(1*)This one above?



There have been better MU sides since, sides which
> could not afford to have an away record like....P21....W7....D7.....L7
> but still win the title.  Sort of suggests that maybe the competition was
> not so great eh?
>


Not really Les. It kind of suggests the opposite. P21 W21 D0  L0 Would
suggest the competition wasn't so great. No?



(2*) Above?




>
>>  it is astonishing when some lame brain accuses
>>
>>>you of anti MU bias. When you actually travel several miles outside
>>>London to do the same, or to see Liverpool etc., such comments are so
>>>stupid it becomes amusing, but also a bit sad. But the biggest emotion is
>>>amazement.
>>
>>
>>
>> You shouldn't be amazed Les. I've provided enough examples of your
>> anti-utd bias.
>
> Not one....not one.....lol......not even a shred of one. My comments about
> the advantage gained from high population areas applies to scores of
> clubs, so it must also be anti just about everyone.  If not...why not?


Les, do you actually read my responses. You said United were lucky to have
been situated in Manchester and that they wouldn't have had any success if
they'd been from Exeter. I pointed out that Huddersfield, Blackpool and
Ipswich among others had great success despite a very small local
population. Your point had no validity and was simply an attempt to belittle
Utd's achievements.

Again, the only thing wrong with the above is your inability to admit what
you're doing.


(3*) Above?




> And......something you still ignore, why isn't my comment that Chelsea
> were bloody awful when they won the title the year before the babes an
> Anti Chelsea comment?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>How the hell can anyone get into such a ridiculous partisan frame of
>>>mind? I made two main comments about the Babes period. One, that the
>>>previous club to win the title, Chelsea, was the worst holders I have
>>>ever seen because the general level was so poor in those seasons. I know
>>>this because I was there, week in, week out.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Les, forgive me mate. It's a great story, but in one part you're deciding
>> which of any number of random teams to go and watch of a Saturday
>> afternoon, and then two paragraphs later you say you went and watched
>> Chelsea week in and week out.
>
> Sorry. My fault.  I do know about your penchant for reading what you want
> to see rather than what is written, so I should have made it simpler.


  I said.....I know Chelsea were poor because THE general level
> was poor in those seasons...... I know because I was there week after
> week...... meaning....at football matches.  I did not say THEIR LEVEL etc.
> The difference between THE LEVEL (general)  and THEIR LEVEL (specific))
> brings different meanings and it's something you should learn.
>
>> Which is it?
>>
>>
>> The second was that, for
>>
>>>this reason the quality of that MU side has been exaggerated over time,
>>>although they were very good.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, though you ignored my point about much of the praise for the babes
>> being contemporary, not written later, and many of the pros they played
>> against have said they've never seen better players.
>>
>>
>>
>> You might agree or disagree if you were
>>
>>>also around at that period, it is just an opinion. But incredibly, this
>>>is seen as an anti MU bias......but, god knows why....NOT ALSO AN ANTI
>>>CHELSEA BIAS. How club defensive and illogical can thinking get?
>
>
> So why isn't it an anti Chelsea comment??
>
>>>
>>>But I have to admit to a bias towards certain clubs, but it changes
>>>because of situations. Right now I would like to see Hull succeed in the
>>>top flight for a few seasons. I would probably get more satisfaction from
>>>them doing well than watching another Prem or CL win by any of the top 4.
>>>Why?  Because of what it means to the fans of a small club who were
>>>almost out of business just a few years ago, and to now establish
>>>themselves in the Prem would rate as a greater feat than anything the
>>>wealthy clubs will do.  But no, that does not make ne a Hull City fan.
>>
>>
>>
>> I share your feelings Les. I have a few sides other than Utd who I like
>> to see win.
>>
>> And I attach no blame to anyone with abu feelings. I would feel exactly
>> the same if I was a supporter of another club, even someone with no club
>> at all, at seeing utd win so much over such a long period. It's human
>> nature. I had no great hatred of Liverpool in their heyday, it felt like
>> the natural order of things, but it did get really boring.
>>
>> So it's no surprise that you sometimes come out with abu sentiments. Who
>> doesn't. The surprise is that you're so keen to deny them.
>
> LOL......please explain just one thing because I really would like to find
> out how your mind works....or maybe I wouldn't.





>
> Does your support for something always mean that any comment which does
> not fit your preferred image automatically mean that the comment is, by
> definition, intended to be anti the thing you support?  It cannot be just
> fair comment?



Chelsea's success is just as deserved as United's is not fair comment.

United wouldn't have been successful if they'd come from Exeter is not fair
comment.

The Busby Babes weren't as good as everyone says they were, is not fair
comment.

United were lucky to win the league as Chelsea had so many injuries is not
fair comment.

These are just off the top of my head Les.


(4*) Response to the above?



Does whatever political party you support never make
> balls ups according to you.  Do you jump to defend these things regardless
> of fact, evidence or intent?
> I hope for your sake that you do not take this blind loyalty, which makes
> you see opponents wherever you look, into the real world.


Les, we're discussing football. And whether you've made unsubstantiated digs
at Utd. Why you should be embarrassed at having done so is anyone's guess.
Everyone else is more than proud to run us down.


>
>
>
>>>It is also a fact that if you bet as much money on Prem football as I do
>>>there is no room for bias or prejudice....unless you want to go skint
>>>fast.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bit disengenuous there Les. You don't have to follow your bias in your
>> betting.
>
> It is the fact that many do which leads to offers of acceptable odds at
> times. An even greater truth when it comes to internationals involving
> England.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>A final revelation. Stand by to be amazed. It is actually possible to be
>>>a lover of food without wanting only beef every day. It is possible to
>>>love classical music without favouring Beethoven over all others, or
>>>rock, without supporting just one group. It is possible to love travel
>>>without a fixation for Italy or Spain, and to enjoy many authors and
>>>playwrights.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Perfectly true Les. But an absolutely ridiculous comparison to make
>> between any of the above and sport. As I think you know.
>
> Why?  Are you really saying that sport is the only entertainment which
> cannot be enjoyed unless you are partisan?  Do you think the over
> subscribed ticket lottery which Wimbledon have in place wasn't created
> by tennis fans who expected to see a great game between two fine players,
> applied for weeks before the event started, or that the viewing figures
> for the Cup final or CL final does not attract numbers which far outweigh
> the natural support for either finalist. 50%% of those with team loyalties
> get a bad result. The other tens of millions around the world, with luck,
> saw a good football match.



With hardly a single one of them not rooting for one side or the other to
win.

Poor comparisons Les. They make me think you don't really understand the
game.



(5*) I'd really just like clarification here. Are you really saying that a 
vast amount of football watchers support neither one team or the other? That 
partisan fans like myself are actually in the minority? Or is this another 
of my famous misreadings?


>
> The Olympic games cannot be enjoyed simply because of the quality of
> competition and performance??  Really ? Tiger Woods cannot be watched,
> with no particular concern if he wins or not, just because he does so well
> the things I tried to do. Or Ali, or Gerrard, or Best, or O'Sullivan etc.
> Utter cobblers chum.....well maybe not for you? Maybe you are one of those
> unfortunates who cannot see sport as sport and cannot even "support"
> without taking it to the extremes you show.
>
>
>
>> I think you're protesting a bit too much mate. For someone who's been
>> involved in football as long as you, you're professing amazement that
>> everyone's not as you claim to be, impartial, when they spend so much
>> money and time to go and watch a game.
>
> When???  How??? I understand fan support only too well. My comments were
> about the growing majority who, over the years, have taken it beyond
> support into the realm of stupid, blind, mob identity. The decline which
> forced so many police forces to segregate fans in case they killed each
> other over a penalty.
> But your word problem continues. How the hell does paying fortunes to go
> to matches show impartiality?


The word problem seems to be yours. I was saying exactly the opposite.




Do you understand what the word means?
> The first task of those foul mouthed, intolerant yobs is to get into the
> ground, so whatever their motive - and there are thankfully many decent
> fans left - simply attending has nothing to do with impartiality does it?


The opposite of what I was saying Les.


>
>
>
>
>>
>> Football is a religion. You can't be catholic, protestant, hindu and
>> jewish. 99% of football fans pledge allegiance to one club, whether they
>> actually attend matches or not.
>>
>> A confession. Brought up in London I did much the same as you between the
>> ages of 10 and 20. I saw a lot of arsenal, paying 15p to go in the kids
>> enclosure alongside the pitch; West Ham, Chelsea, QPR, Crystal Palace,
>> even Millwall, though less often than the others. A few of us would just
>> pick the best looking game and go. But I'd always have to have a side
>> that I wanted to win. Usually the home team, as that was where you were
>> standing. And none of this diminished my passion for United. You had to
>> have a football team Les. The game just wasn't as good if you didn't.
>
> Well, maybe that is true for you,



Les mate, you have to admit this is true for the overwhelming majority of
those who attend matches.



(6*) Yes or no?



and I agree that I will often watch
> games with mild a preference for one side winning.
> I love to see small sides clobber some fancy team in the cup, just because
> I know what it will  mean to them. I will often like a struggling side to
> win because of the bad luck which put them in trouble. This preference is
> natural, but it has bugger all to do with the topic of where the
> distortions which avid club support like your leads.


Like mine?

You're denying that almost all fans who attend matches have an overwhelming
preference for a particular side to win the game?

You're getting a bit weird here Les.



(7*) Clarification?




>
>
>> It is possible to really enjoy the Olympics because of the
>>
>>>standards of performance rather than the nationality of the winners, or
>>>to enjoy many other sports for the same reason.
>>>
>>>Some might go further, and argue that having  wide tastes is the only way
>>>to really appreciate these great pleasures, and being just one of a
>>>fixated howling mob doesn't really work, unless you cannot live without
>>>it and find it far more difficult to be an individual?
>>>
>>>Now there a thought!
>>
>>
>>
>> A good thought Les. Applicable to food, travel, literature and the arts
>> and many things besides.
>>
>> But not football.
>>
>> And as a footballing man, though you might not want to admit it, I think,
>> deep down you'd agree.
>
> Yes even football. And, much as you and the media - who have a massive
> vested financial interest in football fan following - might like the
> romantic notion that the game is a religion....it isn't!


Well, it's the nearest thing I've got. And you are in a tiny, tiny minority
of those who are impartial as to the outcome of a game.

If that is indeed the case. And I have my doubts.



>
> If you want a metaphor, it is with too many, more like a political
> following, and a pretty extreme right wing one at that. Blind loyalty to
> the leader. "they are all either with us or against us".....  in your
> words...... ABMU.  The ready defensive reaction that anything said which
> does not conform to the party line just has to show outside anti party
> loyalties.
> Why does it remind me so much of the Hitler Youth and SS ?



Because you're distorting the reality to try and fit your case.

99% of football fans at a match will strongly want one of the teams to win
it. No?

I'm not sure that makes them Nazis Les.


(8*) Are you really saying that people who strongly support one team over 
the other in a match are like the Hitler Youth and the SS?

You're calling the vast majority of football fans around the world Nazis?



>
>
> I have nthing more to say, mainly because I am getting bored with your
> inability to read what is actually said, and the certainty that my long
> posts are boring others.
>
> I will leave you to fret over, or ignore (more likely) another poster who
> pointed out to you that, right or wrong, my other posts to all other
> groups have been far more critical than those you imagine being directed
> at MU.  It happens to be true.



I don't doubt that Les.

I'm just picking you up on your unsubstantiated digs at United.



I just post about football matters as I
> see them and without any bias against any club,


So you'd like to think. The fact is that you show bias against United. The
fact that you may also show bias against other clubs is neither here nor
there.




something I doubt you
> will ever be able to do chum.



Oh, you'd be surprised Les. These particular football ngs are sadly not the
right place for impartial discussions. And given that you're a bit of a
controversialist on the sly, I'm guessing you wouldn't have it any other
way.


8 Points that I'd really be interested for you to expand upon.

TIA.

(;}) brought next idea :
> Sorry to bang on about this, but you asked me a few questions and have 
> ignored my replies. You threw up a few responses that I think warrant 
> clarification. You being a decent chap I'm sure it's just an oversight.
>
This guy is like a dog with a bone.  Let it go you fucking mutt !

-- 
Count Baldoni

(;}) wrote:
> Sorry to bang on about this, but you asked me a few questions and have 
> ignored my replies. You threw up a few responses that I think warrant 
> clarification. You being a decent chap I'm sure it's just an oversight.
> 
> I've highlighted the areas below with a number and asterisk where I'd really 
> like some enlightenment from you.
> 
> TIA:
> 
> 


What a boring twat you are

lol :-)

"(;})"  wrote in message 
news:oHKGk.603$h85.191@newsfe27.ams2...

Oh dear, poor old Timmy - well and truly in Lescor's pocket !

"(;})"  wrote in message 
news:oHKGk.603$h85.191@newsfe27.ams2...
> Sorry to bang on about this, but you asked me a few questions and have 
> ignored my replies. You threw up a few responses that I think warrant 
> clarification. You being a decent chap I'm sure it's just an oversight.
>
> I've highlighted the areas below with a number and asterisk where I'd 
> really like some enlightenment from you.
>
> TIA:
>
>
>
> "lescor"
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> It wasn't that good. It's just that everyone else was rubbish.
>>
>>
>> Yes, they were good.....but not quite the Gods time and tragedy has 
>> turned
>> them into. It was their age and potential which attracted, but it was
>> still potential.
>
>
>
> They'd already won the league despite being very young. Tha'ts more than
> just potential.
>
>
> (1*)This one above?
>
>
>
> There have been better MU sides since, sides which
>> could not afford to have an away record like....P21....W7....D7.....L7
>> but still win the title.  Sort of suggests that maybe the competition was
>> not so great eh?
>>
>
>
> Not really Les. It kind of suggests the opposite. P21 W21 D0  L0 Would
> suggest the competition wasn't so great. No?
>
>
>
> (2*) Above?
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>  it is astonishing when some lame brain accuses
>>>
>>>>you of anti MU bias. When you actually travel several miles outside
>>>>London to do the same, or to see Liverpool etc., such comments are so
>>>>stupid it becomes amusing, but also a bit sad. But the biggest emotion 
>>>>is
>>>>amazement.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You shouldn't be amazed Les. I've provided enough examples of your
>>> anti-utd bias.
>>
>> Not one....not one.....lol......not even a shred of one. My comments 
>> about
>> the advantage gained from high population areas applies to scores of
>> clubs, so it must also be anti just about everyone.  If not...why not?
>
>
> Les, do you actually read my responses. You said United were lucky to have
> been situated in Manchester and that they wouldn't have had any success if
> they'd been from Exeter. I pointed out that Huddersfield, Blackpool and
> Ipswich among others had great success despite a very small local
> population. Your point had no validity and was simply an attempt to 
> belittle
> Utd's achievements.
>
> Again, the only thing wrong with the above is your inability to admit what
> you're doing.
>
>
> (3*) Above?
>
>
>
>
>> And......something you still ignore, why isn't my comment that Chelsea
>> were bloody awful when they won the title the year before the babes an
>> Anti Chelsea comment?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>How the hell can anyone get into such a ridiculous partisan frame of
>>>>mind? I made two main comments about the Babes period. One, that the
>>>>previous club to win the title, Chelsea, was the worst holders I have
>>>>ever seen because the general level was so poor in those seasons. I know
>>>>this because I was there, week in, week out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Les, forgive me mate. It's a great story, but in one part you're 
>>> deciding
>>> which of any number of random teams to go and watch of a Saturday
>>> afternoon, and then two paragraphs later you say you went and watched
>>> Chelsea week in and week out.
>>
>> Sorry. My fault.  I do know about your penchant for reading what you want
>> to see rather than what is written, so I should have made it simpler.
>
>
>  I said.....I know Chelsea were poor because THE general level
>> was poor in those seasons...... I know because I was there week after
>> week...... meaning....at football matches.  I did not say THEIR LEVEL 
>> etc.
>> The difference between THE LEVEL (general)  and THEIR LEVEL (specific))
>> brings different meanings and it's something you should learn.
>>
>>> Which is it?
>>>
>>>
>>> The second was that, for
>>>
>>>>this reason the quality of that MU side has been exaggerated over time,
>>>>although they were very good.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, though you ignored my point about much of the praise for the babes
>>> being contemporary, not written later, and many of the pros they played
>>> against have said they've never seen better players.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You might agree or disagree if you were
>>>
>>>>also around at that period, it is just an opinion. But incredibly, this
>>>>is seen as an anti MU bias......but, god knows why....NOT ALSO AN ANTI
>>>>CHELSEA BIAS. How club defensive and illogical can thinking get?
>>
>>
>> So why isn't it an anti Chelsea comment??
>>
>>>>
>>>>But I have to admit to a bias towards certain clubs, but it changes
>>>>because of situations. Right now I would like to see Hull succeed in the
>>>>top flight for a few seasons. I would probably get more satisfaction 
>>>>from
>>>>them doing well than watching another Prem or CL win by any of the top 
>>>>4.
>>>>Why?  Because of what it means to the fans of a small club who were
>>>>almost out of business just a few years ago, and to now establish
>>>>themselves in the Prem would rate as a greater feat than anything the
>>>>wealthy clubs will do.  But no, that does not make ne a Hull City fan.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I share your feelings Les. I have a few sides other than Utd who I like
>>> to see win.
>>>
>>> And I attach no blame to anyone with abu feelings. I would feel exactly
>>> the same if I was a supporter of another club, even someone with no club
>>> at all, at seeing utd win so much over such a long period. It's human
>>> nature. I had no great hatred of Liverpool in their heyday, it felt like
>>> the natural order of things, but it did get really boring.
>>>
>>> So it's no surprise that you sometimes come out with abu sentiments. Who
>>> doesn't. The surprise is that you're so keen to deny them.
>>
>> LOL......please explain just one thing because I really would like to 
>> find
>> out how your mind works....or maybe I wouldn't.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Does your support for something always mean that any comment which does
>> not fit your preferred image automatically mean that the comment is, by
>> definition, intended to be anti the thing you support?  It cannot be just
>> fair comment?
>
>
>
> Chelsea's success is just as deserved as United's is not fair comment.
>
> United wouldn't have been successful if they'd come from Exeter is not 
> fair
> comment.
>
> The Busby Babes weren't as good as everyone says they were, is not fair
> comment.
>
> United were lucky to win the league as Chelsea had so many injuries is not
> fair comment.
>
> These are just off the top of my head Les.
>
>
> (4*) Response to the above?
>
>
>
> Does whatever political party you support never make
>> balls ups according to you.  Do you jump to defend these things 
>> regardless
>> of fact, evidence or intent?
>> I hope for your sake that you do not take this blind loyalty, which makes
>> you see opponents wherever you look, into the real world.
>
>
> Les, we're discussing football. And whether you've made unsubstantiated 
> digs
> at Utd. Why you should be embarrassed at having done so is anyone's guess.
> Everyone else is more than proud to run us down.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>It is also a fact that if you bet as much money on Prem football as I do
>>>>there is no room for bias or prejudice....unless you want to go skint
>>>>fast.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bit disengenuous there Les. You don't have to follow your bias in your
>>> betting.
>>
>> It is the fact that many do which leads to offers of acceptable odds at
>> times. An even greater truth when it comes to internationals involving
>> England.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>A final revelation. Stand by to be amazed. It is actually possible to be
>>>>a lover of food without wanting only beef every day. It is possible to
>>>>love classical music without favouring Beethoven over all others, or
>>>>rock, without supporting just one group. It is possible to love travel
>>>>without a fixation for Italy or Spain, and to enjoy many authors and
>>>>playwrights.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Perfectly true Les. But an absolutely ridiculous comparison to make
>>> between any of the above and sport. As I think you know.
>>
>> Why?  Are you really saying that sport is the only entertainment which
>> cannot be enjoyed unless you are partisan?  Do you think the over
>> subscribed ticket lottery which Wimbledon have in place wasn't created
>> by tennis fans who expected to see a great game between two fine players,
>> applied for weeks before the event started, or that the viewing figures
>> for the Cup final or CL final does not attract numbers which far outweigh
>> the natural support for either finalist. 50%% of those with team 
>> loyalties
>> get a bad result. The other tens of millions around the world, with luck,
>> saw a good football match.
>
>
>
> With hardly a single one of them not rooting for one side or the other to
> win.
>
> Poor comparisons Les. They make me think you don't really understand the
> game.
>
>
>
> (5*) I'd really just like clarification here. Are you really saying that a 
> vast amount of football watchers support neither one team or the other? 
> That partisan fans like myself are actually in the minority? Or is this 
> another of my famous misreadings?
>
>
>>
>> The Olympic games cannot be enjoyed simply because of the quality of
>> competition and performance??  Really ? Tiger Woods cannot be watched,
>> with no particular concern if he wins or not, just because he does so 
>> well
>> the things I tried to do. Or Ali, or Gerrard, or Best, or O'Sullivan etc.
>> Utter cobblers chum.....well maybe not for you? Maybe you are one of 
>> those
>> unfortunates who cannot see sport as sport and cannot even "support"
>> without taking it to the extremes you show.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think you're protesting a bit too much mate. For someone who's been
>>> involved in football as long as you, you're professing amazement that
>>> everyone's not as you claim to be, impartial, when they spend so much
>>> money and time to go and watch a game.
>>
>> When???  How??? I understand fan support only too well. My comments were
>> about the growing majority who, over the years, have taken it beyond
>> support into the realm of stupid, blind, mob identity. The decline which
>> forced so many police forces to segregate fans in case they killed each
>> other over a penalty.
>> But your word problem continues. How the hell does paying fortunes to go
>> to matches show impartiality?
>
>
> The word problem seems to be yours. I was saying exactly the opposite.
>
>
>
>
> Do you understand what the word means?
>> The first task of those foul mouthed, intolerant yobs is to get into the
>> ground, so whatever their motive - and there are thankfully many decent
>> fans left - simply attending has nothing to do with impartiality does it?
>
>
> The opposite of what I was saying Les.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Football is a religion. You can't be catholic, protestant, hindu and
>>> jewish. 99% of football fans pledge allegiance to one club, whether they
>>> actually attend matches or not.
>>>
>>> A confession. Brought up in London I did much the same as you between 
>>> the
>>> ages of 10 and 20. I saw a lot of arsenal, paying 15p to go in the kids
>>> enclosure alongside the pitch; West Ham, Chelsea, QPR, Crystal Palace,
>>> even Millwall, though less often than the others. A few of us would just
>>> pick the best looking game and go. But I'd always have to have a side
>>> that I wanted to win. Usually the home team, as that was where you were
>>> standing. And none of this diminished my passion for United. You had to
>>> have a football team Les. The game just wasn't as good if you didn't.
>>
>> Well, maybe that is true for you,
>
>
>
> Les mate, you have to admit this is true for the overwhelming majority of
> those who attend matches.
>
>
>
> (6*) Yes or no?
>
>
>
> and I agree that I will often watch
>> games with mild a preference for one side winning.
>> I love to see small sides clobber some fancy team in the cup, just 
>> because
>> I know what it will  mean to them. I will often like a struggling side to
>> win because of the bad luck which put them in trouble. This preference is
>> natural, but it has bugger all to do with the topic of where the
>> distortions which avid club support like your leads.
>
>
> Like mine?
>
> You're denying that almost all fans who attend matches have an 
> overwhelming
> preference for a particular side to win the game?
>
> You're getting a bit weird here Les.
>
>
>
> (7*) Clarification?
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> It is possible to really enjoy the Olympics because of the
>>>
>>>>standards of performance rather than the nationality of the winners, or
>>>>to enjoy many other sports for the same reason.
>>>>
>>>>Some might go further, and argue that having  wide tastes is the only 
>>>>way
>>>>to really appreciate these great pleasures, and being just one of a
>>>>fixated howling mob doesn't really work, unless you cannot live without
>>>>it and find it far more difficult to be an individual?
>>>>
>>>>Now there a thought!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A good thought Les. Applicable to food, travel, literature and the arts
>>> and many things besides.
>>>
>>> But not football.
>>>
>>> And as a footballing man, though you might not want to admit it, I 
>>> think,
>>> deep down you'd agree.
>>
>> Yes even football. And, much as you and the media - who have a massive
>> vested financial interest in football fan following - might like the
>> romantic notion that the game is a religion....it isn't!
>
>
> Well, it's the nearest thing I've got. And you are in a tiny, tiny 
> minority
> of those who are impartial as to the outcome of a game.
>
> If that is indeed the case. And I have my doubts.
>
>
>
>>
>> If you want a metaphor, it is with too many, more like a political
>> following, and a pretty extreme right wing one at that. Blind loyalty to
>> the leader. "they are all either with us or against us".....  in your
>> words...... ABMU.  The ready defensive reaction that anything said which
>> does not conform to the party line just has to show outside anti party
>> loyalties.
>> Why does it remind me so much of the Hitler Youth and SS ?
>
>
>
> Because you're distorting the reality to try and fit your case.
>
> 99% of football fans at a match will strongly want one of the teams to win
> it. No?
>
> I'm not sure that makes them Nazis Les.
>
>
> (8*) Are you really saying that people who strongly support one team over 
> the other in a match are like the Hitler Youth and the SS?
>
> You're calling the vast majority of football fans around the world Nazis?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> I have nthing more to say, mainly because I am getting bored with your
>> inability to read what is actually said, and the certainty that my long
>> posts are boring others.
>>
>> I will leave you to fret over, or ignore (more likely) another poster who
>> pointed out to you that, right or wrong, my other posts to all other
>> groups have been far more critical than those you imagine being directed
>> at MU.  It happens to be true.
>
>
>
> I don't doubt that Les.
>
> I'm just picking you up on your unsubstantiated digs at United.
>
>
>
> I just post about football matters as I
>> see them and without any bias against any club,
>
>
> So you'd like to think. The fact is that you show bias against United. The
> fact that you may also show bias against other clubs is neither here nor
> there.
>
>
>
>
> something I doubt you
>> will ever be able to do chum.
>
>
>
> Oh, you'd be surprised Les. These particular football ngs are sadly not 
> the
> right place for impartial discussions. And given that you're a bit of a
> controversialist on the sly, I'm guessing you wouldn't have it any other
> way.
>
>
> 8 Points that I'd really be interested for you to expand upon.
>
> TIA.

What a bore you are

pmsl

won't anybody back dullard Tim up ?

"*Still* Undefeated Usenet God (18 & 5)"  wrote in message 
news:gcge3i$11ah$1@energise.enta.net...
> pmsl
>
> won't anybody back dullard Tim up ?


PMSL

You do with you every post.

Please take off your dunce's cap when addressing the Champions.

LOL

"(;})"  wrote in message 
news:A0PGk.5419$gZ3.4226@newsfe16.ams2...
>
> "*Still* Undefeated Usenet God (18 & 5)"  wrote in message 
> news:gcge3i$11ah$1@energise.enta.net...
>> pmsl
>>
>> won't anybody back dullard Tim up ?
>
>
> PMSL
>
> You do with you every post.
>
> Please take off your dunce's cap when addressing the Champions.
>
> LOL
>

that doesn't even make sense Tim.

Which for you is par for the course.

Keep it up, you're hilarious.

PMSL

(;}) wrote:
> Sorry to bang on about this, but you asked me a few questions and have 
> ignored my replies. You threw up a few responses that I think warrant 
> clarification. You being a decent chap I'm sure it's just an oversight.


Not an oversight, boredom more accurate. I never had the right 
temperament to be a schoolteacher.











> 
> I've highlighted the areas below with a number and asterisk where I'd really 
> like some enlightenment  
> There have been better MU sides since, sides which
> 
>>could not afford to have an away record like....P21....W7....D7.....L7
>>but still win the title.  Sort of suggests that maybe the competition was
>>not so great eh?
>>
> 
> 
> 
> Not really Les. It kind of suggests the opposite. P21 W21 D0  L0 Would
> suggest the competition wasn't so great. No?

NO


>>
>>Not one....not one.....lol......not even a shred of one. My comments about
>>the advantage gained from high population areas applies to scores of
>>clubs, so it must also be anti just about everyone.  If not...why not?
> 
> 
> 
> Les, do you actually read my responses. You said United were lucky to have
> been situated in Manchester and that they wouldn't have had any success if
> they'd been from Exeter. I pointed out that Huddersfield, Blackpool and
> Ipswich among others had great success despite a very small local
> population. Your point had no validity and was simply an attempt to belittle
MU






> (5*) I'd really just like clarification here. Are you really saying that a 
> vast amount of football watchers support neither one team or the other? That 
> partisan fans like myself are actually in the minority? Or is this another 
> of my famous misreadings?

Yes.....it is. But par for the course now.


>>The Olympic games cannot be enjoyed simply because of the quality of
>>competition and performance??  Really ? Tiger Woods cannot be watched,
>>with no particular concern if he wins or not, just because he does so well
>>the things I tried to do. Or Ali, or Gerrard, or Best, or O'Sullivan etc.
>>Utter cobblers chum.....well maybe not for you? Maybe you are one of those
>>unfortunates who cannot see sport as sport and cannot even "support"
>>without taking it to the extremes you show.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I think you're protesting a bit too much mate. For someone who's been
>>>involved in football as long as you, you're professing amazement that
>>>everyone's not as you claim to be, impartial, when they spend so much
>>>money and time to go and watch a game.
>>
>>When???  How??? I understand fan support only too well. My comments were
>>about the growing majority who, over the years, have taken it beyond
>>support into the realm of stupid, blind, mob identity. The decline which
>>forced so many police forces to segregate fans in case they killed each
>>other over a penalty.
>>But your word problem continues. How the hell does paying fortunes to go
>>to matches show impartiality?
> 
> 
> 
> The word problem seems to be yours. I was saying exactly the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand what the word means?
> 
>>The first task of those foul mouthed, intolerant yobs is to get into the
>>ground, so whatever their motive - and there are thankfully many decent
>>fans left - simply attending has nothing to do with impartiality does it?
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite of what I was saying Les.







Lol.......read what you said above again.






> Les mate, you have to admit this is true for the overwhelming majority of
> those who attend matches.
> 
> 
> 
> (6*) Yes or no?

An ephemeral support, which lasts for just that one match, is common to 
most. This was not the topic.

> 8 Points that I'd really be interested for you to expand upon.

Sorry I cannot go over your points again. There comes a time when we 
understand that the drill tip is not sharp enough to penetrate.

Ok, maybe just one point.....the one which got you most worked up.
There is a recent theory about our ancestors from way back. It is 
suggested that Homo Sapiens did not use their superior reason, brain 
power and gifts of organisation to destroy their predecessors , the
slower thinking, heavy browed Neanderthal man, as we thought, but 
absorbed them through mating....inter breeding. If correct, it follows 
that we will all have these comparatively inferior genes in our bodies, 
possibly some more than others.  An interesting theory which would 
explain the problem of understanding simple logical sequences, and the 
difficulty of reasoning some might suffer from  more than others.

More research is needed, and I would like to help and invite you to 
cooperate. Please study the following. Take your time.

Liverpool, Arsenal, Portsmouth, Portsmouth,Spurs, MU , Arsenal,Wolves, 
Chelsea, MU, MU,Wolves, Wolves, Burnley, Spurs.Ipswich.Everton. L'vpool.
MU. Pool, Man U,  Man City, Leeds , Everton, Arsenal, Derby, Liverool,
Leeds, Derby, L'pool, L'pool, Notts F, L'pool, L'pool, Villa, L'pool,
L'pool, L,pool,  Everton. L'pool, Everton, L'pool Arsenal, L'pool, 
Arsenal, Leeds, MU , MU, Blacburn,  MU, MU, Arsenal, MU,MU,MU 
Arsenal,MU, Chelsea, Chelsea, MU, MU.

Test 1: Find a common link ALL these have in common.

Test 2: Find a more dominating link which the greater majority have in 
common.

Time allowed for both, 30 seconds.

Too difficult?  OK.  They are the winners of the top English league 
since the war. The common link of test one is that they all dwell in 
very highly populated areas. A closer study for test 2 shows that, in 
fact, most are teams from the biggest cities in England. The list pre 
1939 is much the same, and, surprise, surprise, so is the list of 
winners in Italy Spain and other major Euro countries.

So what would a rational man, like me, conclude from this? Maybe that 
clubs situated in big cities and major population areas have an 
advantage in the football world?  That clubs situated in rural areas are 
obviously at a disadvantage. If not, why don't we find Southend, 
Brighton, and other small rural towns more frequently in this list?
Maybe fresh country air and football don't work well together?

An overwhelming lump of evidence.....indisputable, but not for you.
This obvious advantage might apply to other clubs, but not, as I 
suggested, also to Man U.  LOL.  Alone they stand, and, according to 
you, would have been just as successful if situated on the Isle of Man.

I shall not bother with your nonsense in the future, but I wish you no 
ill will.....in fact I will leave you with a well meaning tip.

Always try to walk as upright as you can when you go out.

LC

On 8 Oct, 10:56, lescor  wrote:
> (;}) wrote:

>
> Always try to walk as upright as you can when you go out.
>
> LC- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If you would would go easy on the insults your point would be better
received.
Of course you need a certain fan base to generate funds to stay at the
top level but there are just as many clubs in large catchment areas
that are having no major success (major as in winning the top
trophies), in fact the club with the second best attendances in
England for years had no major success. So attendance can only help,
in some cases, to ensure a certain level is maintained but the next
level, in winning trophies, is in a large number of such cases, never
reached.

On 8 Oct, 10:56, lescor  wrote:
> (;}) wrote:
>
> > 8 Points that I'd really be interested for you to expand upon.
>
> Sorry I cannot go over your points again. There comes a time when we
> understand that the drill tip is not sharp enough to penetrate.

LOL.  We've all come to that conclusion with Tiresome Timmy, Les.

> Ok, maybe just one point.....the one which got you most worked up.
> There is a recent theory about our ancestors from way back. It is
> suggested that Homo Sapiens did not use their superior reason, brain
> power and gifts of organisation to destroy their predecessors , the
> slower thinking, heavy browed Neanderthal man, as we thought, but
> absorbed them through mating....inter breeding. If correct, it follows
> that we will all have these comparatively inferior genes in our bodies,
> possibly some more than others.  An interesting theory which would
> explain the problem of understanding simple logical sequences, and the
> difficulty of reasoning some might suffer from  more than others.

As usual, Timmy will now resort to his usual mong-witted reply and
claim he has, in fact, won some intellectual victory over you, Les -
when, and as usual, the opposite is very much the case.

chuck-spears@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> On 8 Oct, 10:56, lescor  wrote:
>> (;}) wrote:
> 
>> Always try to walk as upright as you can when you go out.
>>
>> LC- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> If you would would go easy on the insults your point would be better
> received.
> Of course you need a certain fan base to generate funds to stay at the
> top level but there are just as many clubs in large catchment areas
> that are having no major success (major as in winning the top
> trophies), in fact the club with the second best attendances in
> England for years had no major success. So attendance can only help,
> in some cases, to ensure a certain level is maintained but the next
> level, in winning trophies, is in a large number of such cases, never
> reached.

Asda are doing LYNX deoderant 3 for £2 atm, you want me to get you a few 
cans le stinky timmy ?

"lescor"



Les mate, you're being a bit naughty now.

You say you're too bored to respond to some of my points but then respond at 
length to the one you fancied, making a mockery of your first statement.

Let us not forget Les, that you are probably the most long-winded poster on 
these ngs so playing the boredom card rings a little hollow.

Strangely you snipped all the points where you've been asked to clarify your 
lazy thinking.

Les, you are sometimes right, and, as we've established, sometimes wrong, 
I'm a little disappointed you can't simply admit where you're wrong and move 
on.

You really can't get away with saying that a record of P21 W7 D7 L7 shows 
there was little competition in that league.

It is patently clear that P21 W21 D0 L0 would show there was little or no 
competition.

Would you care to expand your point or shall we just pretend you never said 
it?

You said the Busby babes had potential but that's all it was.

I pointed out they'd already won the league. Actually 3 times in the 50s and 
twice in the years immediately before the crash. That's more than potential 
in anyone's book, Les. No?

As for your population breakdown diatribe (and you call me boring) you said 
United wouldn't have had the same success if they'd come from Exeter. I 
proved you wrong by listing numerous teams from smaller places than Exeter 
who had achieved great success. Rendering your point nonsense.

As for your point that the partial fans at a football match are in the 
minority, well, I think even you must be embarrassed at having tried that 
one.

And your likening partial fans to the Hitler Youth and SS? Oh dear.

Les, I too bear you no ill will.

But if you spout unsubstantiated nonsense in these ngs, sooner or later 
you're going to be picked up on it.

I expect you will avoid responding, it takes a big man to admit when he's 
wrong.

Cheers,

(;}) wrote:
> "lescor"
> 
> 
> 
> Les mate, you're being a bit naughty now.
> 
> You say you're too bored to respond to some of my points but then respond at 
> length to the one you fancied, making a mockery of your first statement.
> 
> Let us not forget Les, that you are probably the most long-winded poster on 
> these ngs so playing the boredom card rings a little hollow.
> 
> Strangely you snipped all the points where you've been asked to clarify your 
> lazy thinking.
> 
> Les, you are sometimes right, and, as we've established, sometimes wrong, 
> I'm a little disappointed you can't simply admit where you're wrong and move 
> on.
> 
> You really can't get away with saying that a record of P21 W7 D7 L7 shows 
> there was little competition in that league.


Oh dear,  oh dear, oh dear, oh dear,  No kidding, I an honestly getting 
worried about you.  Why doesn't an away record like that - and it tends 
to be away form that swings the title - not suggest that the all round 
performance in that league season was poor? Chelsea, a bunch of just 
average honest toilers, won it the year before with a better away 
record. In fact MU's was one of the poorest away records for a  title 
winner over those years.

This suggests that someone around at the time who, with plenty of 
others, thought the general standard to be very low, might have a case?

Just a fact, sorry. I know how much you dilike them.


Last word.  I do suffer fools gladly, but there has to be a limit.


LC


















> 
> It is patently clear that P21 W21 D0 L0 would show there was little or no 
> competition.
> 
> Would you care to expand your point or shall we just pretend you never said 
> it?
> 
> You said the Busby babes had potential but that's all it was.
> 
> I pointed out they'd already won the league. Actually 3 times in the 50s and 
> twice in the years immediately before the crash. That's more than potential 
> in anyone's book, Les. No?
> 
> As for your population breakdown diatribe (and you call me boring) you said 
> United wouldn't have had the same success if they'd come from Exeter. I 
> proved you wrong by listing numerous teams from smaller places than Exeter 
> who had achieved great success. Rendering your point nonsense.
> 
> As for your point that the partial fans at a football match are in the 
> minority, well, I think even you must be embarrassed at having tried that 
> one.
> 
> And your likening partial fans to the Hitler Youth and SS? Oh dear.
> 
> Les, I too bear you no ill will.
> 
> But if you spout unsubstantiated nonsense in these ngs, sooner or later 
> you're going to be picked up on it.
> 
> I expect you will avoid responding, it takes a big man to admit when he's 
> wrong.
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
>

On 8 Oct, 13:37, lescor  wrote:
> (;}) wrote:
> > "lescor"
>
> > Les mate, you're being a bit naughty now.
>
> > You say you're too bored to respond to some of my points but then respond at
> > length to the one you fancied, making a mockery of your first statement> > Let us not forget Les, that you are probably the most long-winded poster on
> > these ngs so playing the boredom card rings a little hollow.
>
> > Strangely you snipped all the points where you've been asked to clarify your
> > lazy thinking.
>
> > Les, you are sometimes right, and, as we've established, sometimes wrong,
> > I'm a little disappointed you can't simply admit where you're wrong and move
> > on.
>
> > You really can't get away with saying that a record of P21 W7 D7 L7 shows
> > there was little competition in that league.
>
> Oh dear,  oh dear, oh dear, oh dear,  No kidding, I an honestly getting
> worried about you.  Why doesn't an away record like that - and it tends
> to be away form that swings the title - not suggest that the all round
> performance in that league season was poor? Chelsea, a bunch of just
> average honest toilers, won it the year before with a better away
> record. In fact MU's was one of the poorest away records for a  title
> winner over those years.
>
> This suggests that someone around at the time who, with plenty of
> others, thought the general standard to be very low, might have a case?
>
> Just a fact, sorry. I know how much you dilike them.
>
> Last word.  I do suffer fools gladly, but there has to be a limit.
>
> LC
>
>
>
>
>
> > It is patently clear that P21 W21 D0 L0 would show there was little or no
> > competition.
>
> > Would you care to expand your point or shall we just pretend you never said
> > it?
>
> > You said the Busby babes had potential but that's all it was.
>
> > I pointed out they'd already won the league. Actually 3 times in the 50s and
> > twice in the years immediately before the crash. That's more than potential
> > in anyone's book, Les. No?
>
> > As for your population breakdown diatribe (and you call me boring) you said
> > United wouldn't have had the same success if they'd come from Exeter. I
> > proved you wrong by listing numerous teams from smaller places than Exeter
> > who had achieved great success. Rendering your point nonsense.
>
> > As for your point that the partial fans at a football match are in the
> > minority, well, I think even you must be embarrassed at having tried that
> > one.
>
> > And your likening partial fans to the Hitler Youth and SS? Oh dear.
>
> > Les, I too bear you no ill will.
>
> > But if you spout unsubstantiated nonsense in these ngs, sooner or later
> > you're going to be picked up on it.
>
> > I expect you will avoid responding, it takes a big man to admit when he's
> > wrong.
>
> > Cheers,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's impossible to come to any reasonable conclusion about the general
standard of football, based on the statistics you have quoted. You
could say that teams appeared to be fairly evenly matched which
produced games that were a bit of a slog but that's about it. If you
could properly compare the best English teams with the best of foreign
teams you might get a better perspective but that isn't really
possible.

chuck-spears@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> On 8 Oct, 10:56, lescor  wrote:
> 
>>(;}) wrote:
> 
> 
>>Always try to walk as upright as you can when you go out.
>>
>>LC- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
> 
> 
> If you would would go easy on the insults your point would be better
> received.
> Of course you need a certain fan base to generate funds to stay at the
> top level but there are just as many clubs in large catchment areas
> that are having no major success (major as in winning the top
> trophies), in fact the club with the second best attendances in
> England for years had no major success. So attendance can only help,
> in some cases, to ensure a certain level is maintained but the next
> level, in winning trophies, is in a large number of such cases, never
> reached.

You are right. Sorry about the insults, but such silliness, not the 
opposing point of view, gets tiring.

But you are also under estimating the importance of location if you want 
success. Surely you can see the difference between the two arguments.
I wouldn't suggest that having plenty of local fans undewrites success.
Far from it.  But that is not the same as claiming that you won't get 
sustained success without it.

Look at the records. Location isn't just handy, it is vital. You need to 
add good management to it, but the greatest manager in the world won't 
win the title with a team based on  Orkney. One person refutes this 
simple argument.  To most of us it is obvious....and not very important.

LC

"lescor"  wrote in message 
news:48ECA97E.6020608@btinternet.com...
> (;}) wrote:
>> "lescor"
>>
>>
>>
>> Les mate, you're being a bit naughty now.
>>
>> You say you're too bored to respond to some of my points but then respond 
>> at length to the one you fancied, making a mockery of your first 
>> statement.
>>
>> Let us not forget Les, that you are probably the most long-winded poster 
>> on these ngs so playing the boredom card rings a little hollow.
>>
>> Strangely you snipped all the points where you've been asked to clarify 
>> your lazy thinking.
>>
>> Les, you are sometimes right, and, as we've established, sometimes wrong, 
>> I'm a little disappointed you can't simply admit where you're wrong and 
>> move on.
>>
>> You really can't get away with saying that a record of P21 W7 D7 L7 shows 
>> there was little competition in that league.
>
>
> Oh dear,  oh dear, oh dear, oh dear,  No kidding, I an honestly getting 
> worried about you.  Why doesn't an away record like that - and it tends to 
> be away form that swings the title - not suggest that the all round 
> performance in that league season was poor?



Les mate, if one side is winning everything, then the competition is poor.

If you are losing as many games as you're winning away, this tends to 
suggest that the competition is stiff. And that out of this stiff 
competition, the title winners gained the most points and were worthy 
champions.


Chelsea, a bunch of just
> average honest toilers, won it the year before with a better away record.


Then they were worthy champions having won more points than any of their 
peers.

That's how a league works Les. To compare a league from one era with a 
league from another in order to belittle a side's achievements smacks of 
desperation Les.

Step back for a moment and you might see it.



In fact MU's was one of the poorest away records for a  title
> winner over those years.


But combined with our home record, it must have been better than any other 
side Les, therefore we were worthy title winners.

Can't you see that your continued belittling of United's achievements make 
you look slightly daft?

Your persistent avoiding of my other points don't do you any favours either.

Les: "The Busby babes weren't as good as everyone says they were, they had 
potential, that's all.

Me: Utd won the league 3 teams in the build up to the crash.



>
> This suggests that someone around at the time who, with plenty of others, 
> thought the general standard to be very low, might have a case?


Judged against what Les? The standard now? Don't be ridiculous.

So Les, what about the glowing tributes to the Busby Babes written at the 
time, *before* the crash? All nonsense? The admiration of their fellow 
professionals at other clubs? You keep dodging this point.


>
> Just a fact, sorry. I know how much you dilike them.



I love facts Les. You seem to be a stranger to them.


>
>
> Last word.  I do suffer fools gladly, but there has to be a limit.
>
>


Yes Les. Your limit being just before having to address any of my points 
which seem to have you stumped. Much easier to just snip them and hope no 
one notices, 'ey?

"lescor"  wrote in message 
news:48ECB341.1040002@btinternet.com...
> chuck-spears@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>> On 8 Oct, 10:56, lescor  wrote:
>>
>>>(;}) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Always try to walk as upright as you can when you go out.
>>>
>>>LC- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>> If you would would go easy on the insults your point would be better
>> received.
>> Of course you need a certain fan base to generate funds to stay at the
>> top level but there are just as many clubs in large catchment areas
>> that are having no major success (major as in winning the top
>> trophies), in fact the club with the second best attendances in
>> England for years had no major success. So attendance can only help,
>> in some cases, to ensure a certain level is maintained but the next
>> level, in winning trophies, is in a large number of such cases, never
>> reached.
>
> You are right. Sorry about the insults, but such silliness, not the 
> opposing point of view, gets tiring.
>
> But you are also under estimating the importance of location if you want 
> success. Surely you can see the difference between the two arguments.
> I wouldn't suggest that having plenty of local fans undewrites success.
> Far from it.  But that is not the same as claiming that you won't get 
> sustained success without it.
>
> Look at the records. Location isn't just handy, it is vital. You need to 
> add good management to it, but the greatest manager in the world won't win 
> the title with a team based on  Orkney.



Oh right Les, it's Orkney now, is it. LOL.

You made the point that United wouldn't have had the same success if they 
were based in Exeter. (Not Orkney) I pointed out that several clubs had had 
major success based in places less populated than Exeter.

Making your point plain wrong.

Rather than concede it, you just try and shift the goalposts with every 
response.




One person refutes this
> simple argument.  To most of us it is obvious....and not very important.


But it was your argument Les.

I just pointed out its flaws.

Sorry.

On 8 Oct, 14:34, "\(;}\)"  wrote:
> "lescor"  wrote in message
>
> news:48ECB341.1040002@btinternet.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > chuck-spe...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >> On 8 Oct, 10:56, lescor  wrote:
>
> >>>(;}) wrote:
>
> >>>Always try to walk as upright as you can when you go out.
>
> >>>LC- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>- Show quoted text -
>
> >> If you would would go easy on the insults your point would be better
> >> received.
> >> Of course you need a certain fan base to generate funds to stay at the
> >> top level but there are just as many clubs in large catchment areas
> >> that are having no major success (major as in winning the top
> >> trophies), in fact the club with the second best attendances in
> >> England for years had no major success. So attendance can only help,
> >> in some cases, to ensure a certain level is maintained but the next
> >> level, in winning trophies, is in a large number of such cases, never
> >> reached.
>
> > You are right. Sorry about the insults, but such silliness, not the
> > opposing point of view, gets tiring.
>
> > But you are also under estimating the importance of location if you want
> > success. Surely you can see the difference between the two arguments.
> > I wouldn't suggest that having plenty of local fans undewrites success.
> > Far from it.  But that is not the same as claiming that you won't get
> > sustained success without it.
>
> > Look at the records. Location isn't just handy, it is vital. You need to
> > add good management to it, but the greatest manager in the world won't win
> > the title with a team based on  Orkney.
>
> Oh right Les, it's Orkney now, is it. LOL.
>
> You made the point that United wouldn't have had the same success if they
> were based in Exeter. (Not Orkney) I pointed out that several clubs had had
> major success based in places less populated than Exeter.
>
> Making your point plain wrong.
>
> Rather than concede it, you just try and shift the goalposts with every
> response.
>
> One person refutes this
>
> > simple argument.  To most of us it is obvious....and not very important.
>
> But it was your argument Les.
>
> I just pointed out its flaws.
>
> Sorry.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The problem is, I would suggest, is that you are both right and wrong.
In order to sustain a team with a qualitity of players that gives a
team a platform to win major honours, you need a good fan base but
that is just a platform and even that is not guaranteed. It just makes
it a lot more likely depending on how many other thing are handled.

wrote in message 
news:923bf090-a465-4624-bd03-17af979c76b6@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
On 8 Oct, 14:34, "\(;}\)"  wrote:
> "lescor"  wrote in message
>
> news:48ECB341.1040002@btinternet.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > chuck-spe...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >> On 8 Oct, 10:56, lescor  wrote:
>
> >>>(;}) wrote:
>
> >>>Always try to walk as upright as you can when you go out.
>
> >>>LC- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>- Show quoted text -
>
> >> If you would would go easy on the insults your point would be better
> >> received.
> >> Of course you need a certain fan base to generate funds to stay at the
> >> top level but there are just as many clubs in large catchment areas
> >> that are having no major success (major as in winning the top
> >> trophies), in fact the club with the second best attendances in
> >> England for years had no major success. So attendance can only help,
> >> in some cases, to ensure a certain level is maintained but the next
> >> level, in winning trophies, is in a large number of such cases, never
> >> reached.
>
> > You are right. Sorry about the insults, but such silliness, not the
> > opposing point of view, gets tiring.
>
> > But you are also under estimating the importance of location if you want
> > success. Surely you can see the difference between the two arguments.
> > I wouldn't suggest that having plenty of local fans undewrites success.
> > Far from it. But that is not the same as claiming that you won't get
> > sustained success without it.
>
> > Look at the records. Location isn't just handy, it is vital. You need to
> > add good management to it, but the greatest manager in the world won't 
> > win
> > the title with a team based on Orkney.
>
> Oh right Les, it's Orkney now, is it. LOL.
>
> You made the point that United wouldn't have had the same success if they
> were based in Exeter. (Not Orkney) I pointed out that several clubs had 
> had
> major success based in places less populated than Exeter.
>
> Making your point plain wrong.
>
> Rather than concede it, you just try and shift the goalposts with every
> response.
>
> One person refutes this
>
> > simple argument. To most of us it is obvious....and not very important.
>
> But it was your argument Les.
>
> I just pointed out its flaws.
>
> Sorry.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The problem is, I would suggest, is that you are both right and wrong.
In order to sustain a team with a qualitity of players that gives a
team a platform to win major honours, you need a good fan base but
that is just a platform and even that is not guaranteed. It just makes
it a lot more likely depending on how many other thing are handled.


Indeed.

But Les made the point that it was a requirement to have a big fan base if 
you wanted success. I pointed out numerous exceptions but he's not having 
it.

chuck-spears@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> On 8 Oct, 13:37, lescor  wrote:
> 
>>(;}) wrote:
>>
>>>"lescor"
>>
>>>Les mate, you're being a bit naughty now.
>>
>>>You say you're too bored to respond to some of my points but then respond at
>>>length to the one you fancied, making a mockery of your first statement.
>>
>>>Let us not forget Les, that you are probably the most long-winded poster on
>>>these ngs so playing the boredom card rings a little hollow.
>>
>>>Strangely you snipped all the points where you've been asked to clarify your
>>>lazy thinking.
>>
>>>Les, you are sometimes right, and, as we've established, sometimes wrong,
>>>I'm a little disappointed you can't simply admit where you're wrong and move
>>>on.
>>
>>>You really can't get away with saying that a record of P21 W7 D7 L7 shows
>>>there was little competition in that league.
>>
>>Oh dear,  oh dear, oh dear, oh dear,  No kidding, I an honestly getting
>>worried about you.  Why doesn't an away record like that - and it tends
>>to be away form that swings the title - not suggest that the all round
>>performance in that league season was poor? Chelsea, a bunch of just
>>average honest toilers, won it the year before with a better away
>>record. In fact MU's was one of the poorest away records for a  title
>>winner over those years.
>>
>>This suggests that someone around at the time who, with plenty of
>>others, thought the general standard to be very low, might have a case?
>>
>>Just a fact, sorry. I know how much you dilike them.
>>
>>Last word.  I do suffer fools gladly, but there has to be a limit.
>>
>>LC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>It is patently clear that P21 W21 D0 L0 would show there was little or no
>>>competition.
>>
>>>Would you care to expand your point or shall we just pretend you never said
>>>it?
>>
>>>You said the Busby babes had potential but that's all it was.
>>
>>>I pointed out they'd already won the league. Actually 3 times in the 50s and
>>>twice in the years immediately before the crash. That's more than potential
>>>in anyone's book, Les. No?
>>
>>>As for your population breakdown diatribe (and you call me boring) you said
>>>United wouldn't have had the same success if they'd come from Exeter. I
>>>proved you wrong by listing numerous teams from smaller places than Exeter
>>>who had achieved great success. Rendering your point nonsense.
>>
>>>As for your point that the partial fans at a football match are in the
>>>minority, well, I think even you must be embarrassed at having tried that
>>>one.
>>
>>>And your likening partial fans to the Hitler Youth and SS? Oh dear.
>>
>>>Les, I too bear you no ill will.
>>
>>>But if you spout unsubstantiated nonsense in these ngs, sooner or later
>>>you're going to be picked up on it.
>>
>>>I expect you will avoid responding, it takes a big man to admit when he's
>>>wrong.
>>
>>>Cheers,- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
> 
> 
> It's impossible to come to any reasonable conclusion about the general
> standard of football, based on the statistics you have quoted. You
> could say that teams appeared to be fairly evenly matched which
> produced games that were a bit of a slog but that's about it. If you
> could properly compare the best English teams with the best of foreign
> teams you might get a better perspective but that isn't really
> possible.

So you are suggesting that we do not know when teams are playing well?
We are not capable of knowing when the standard of passing and team 
skills is low?  When week after week we come home from matches having 
seen rubbish, we are not capable to know it?

You miss the point. It was not an opinion based on statistic. It is a 
view based upon being there, but for those who doubt, backed up by the 
stats to a degree. Chelsea won it the year before MU with  52, one of 
the lowest winning point totals ever recorded. the runners up were on 
48,48,48,47,47,46,43,43,43,42...............

Yes, this could show a very high  all round level of top class 
competition, but far more likely to show a high level of mediocrity, 
particularly when the same title winning team manages only 16th place 
the following season with about the same squad of players.

Then along came the young Man U. Bright and refreshing amongst the 
dross, a fact which made  them the popular side they became all over the 
country, where decent football had become pretty scarce  But make no 
mistake, they had little to beat in those days.  They improved the 
general standard by being very good compared to their opponents, 
something common to all sports, and the teams in the later 50's and 
early 60's were far better.

Believe me, they couldn't have got much worse.

LC

"lescor"  wrote in message 
news:48ECC13D.4090608@btinternet.com...
> chuck-spears@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>> On 8 Oct, 13:37, lescor  wrote:
>>
>>>(;}) wrote:
>>>
>>>>"lescor"
>>>
>>>>Les mate, you're being a bit naughty now.
>>>
>>>>You say you're too bored to respond to some of my points but then 
>>>>respond at
>>>>length to the one you fancied, making a mockery of your first statement.
>>>
>>>>Let us not forget Les, that you are probably the most long-winded poster 
>>>>on
>>>>these ngs so playing the boredom card rings a little hollow.
>>>
>>>>Strangely you snipped all the points where you've been asked to clarify 
>>>>your
>>>>lazy thinking.
>>>
>>>>Les, you are sometimes right, and, as we've established, sometimes 
>>>>wrong,
>>>>I'm a little disappointed you can't simply admit where you're wrong and 
>>>>move
>>>>on.
>>>
>>>>You really can't get away with saying that a record of P21 W7 D7 L7 
>>>>shows
>>>>there was little competition in that league.
>>>
>>>Oh dear,  oh dear, oh dear, oh dear,  No kidding, I an honestly getting
>>>worried about you.  Why doesn't an away record like that - and it tends
>>>to be away form that swings the title - not suggest that the all round
>>>performance in that league season was poor? Chelsea, a bunch of just
>>>average honest toilers, won it the year before with a better away
>>>record. In fact MU's was one of the poorest away records for a  title
>>>winner over those years.
>>>
>>>This suggests that someone around at the time who, with plenty of
>>>others, thought the general standard to be very low, might have a case?
>>>
>>>Just a fact, sorry. I know how much you dilike them.
>>>
>>>Last word.  I do suffer fools gladly, but there has to be a limit.
>>>
>>>LC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It is patently clear that P21 W21 D0 L0 would show there was little or 
>>>>no
>>>>competition.
>>>
>>>>Would you care to expand your point or shall we just pretend you never 
>>>>said
>>>>it?
>>>
>>>>You said the Busby babes had potential but that's all it was.
>>>
>>>>I pointed out they'd already won the league. Actually 3 times in the 50s 
>>>>and
>>>>twice in the years immediately before the crash. That's more than 
>>>>potential
>>>>in anyone's book, Les. No?
>>>
>>>>As for your population breakdown diatribe (and you call me boring) you 
>>>>said
>>>>United wouldn't have had the same success if they'd come from Exeter. I
>>>>proved you wrong by listing numerous teams from smaller places than 
>>>>Exeter
>>>>who had achieved great success. Rendering your point nonsense.
>>>
>>>>As for your point that the partial fans at a football match are in the
>>>>minority, well, I think even you must be embarrassed at having tried 
>>>>that
>>>>one.
>>>
>>>>And your likening partial fans to the Hitler Youth and SS? Oh dear.
>>>
>>>>Les, I too bear you no ill will.
>>>
>>>>But if you spout unsubstantiated nonsense in these ngs, sooner or later
>>>>you're going to be picked up on it.
>>>
>>>>I expect you will avoid responding, it takes a big man to admit when 
>>>>he's
>>>>wrong.
>>>
>>>>Cheers,- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>> It's impossible to come to any reasonable conclusion about the general
>> standard of football, based on the statistics you have quoted. You
>> could say that teams appeared to be fairly evenly matched which
>> produced games that were a bit of a slog but that's about it. If you
>> could properly compare the best English teams with the best of foreign
>> teams you might get a better perspective but that isn't really
>> possible.
>
> So you are suggesting that we do not know when teams are playing well?
> We are not capable of knowing when the standard of passing and team skills 
> is low?  When week after week we come home from matches having seen 
> rubbish, we are not capable to know it?
>
> You miss the point. It was not an opinion based on statistic. It is a view 
> based upon being there, but for those who doubt, backed up by the stats to 
> a degree. Chelsea won it the year before MU with  52, one of the lowest 
> winning point totals ever recorded. the runners up were on 
> 48,48,48,47,47,46,43,43,43,42...............
>
> Yes, this could show a very high  all round level of top class 
> competition, but far more likely to show a high level of mediocrity, 
> particularly when the same title winning team manages only 16th place the 
> following season with about the same squad of players.
>
> Then along came the young Man U. Bright and refreshing amongst the dross, 
> a fact which made  them the popular side they became all over the country, 
> where decent football had become pretty scarce  But make no mistake, they 
> had little to beat in those days.  They improved the general standard by 
> being very good compared to their opponents, something common to all 
> sports, and the teams in the later 50's and early 60's were far better.
>
> Believe me, they couldn't have got much worse.
>
> LC
>


If only you'd said that in the first place.

(;}) wrote:
> "lescor"  wrote in message 
> news:48ECB341.1040002@btinternet.com...
> 
>>chuck-spears@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>On 8 Oct, 10:56, lescor  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>(;}) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Always try to walk as upright as you can when you go out.
>>>>
>>>>LC- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>
>>>If you would would go easy on the insults your point would be better
>>>received.
>>>Of course you need a certain fan base to generate funds to stay at the
>>>top level but there are just as many clubs in large catchment areas
>>>that are having no major success (major as in winning the top
>>>trophies), in fact the club with the second best attendances in
>>>England for years had no major success. So attendance can only help,
>>>in some cases, to ensure a certain level is maintained but the next
>>>level, in winning trophies, is in a large number of such cases, never
>>>reached.
>>
>>You are right. Sorry about the insults, but such silliness, not the 
>>opposing point of view, gets tiring.
>>
>>But you are also under estimating the importance of location if you want 
>>success. Surely you can see the difference between the two arguments.
>>I wouldn't suggest that having plenty of local fans undewrites success.
>>Far from it.  But that is not the same as claiming that you won't get 
>>sustained success without it.
>>
>>Look at the records. Location isn't just handy, it is vital. You need to 
>>add good management to it, but the greatest manager in the world won't win 
>>the title with a team based on  Orkney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right Les, it's Orkney now, is it. LOL.


Yes, Orkney, Bath, Barnstable, and any other country town or even island 
with low local populartion. I don't have to list them all do I?




> 
> You made the point that United wouldn't have had the same success if they 
> were based in Exeter. (Not Orkney) I pointed out that several clubs had had 
> major success based in places less populated than Exeter.
> 
> Making your point plain wrong.

  Please name some....just a handful. The three you listed last time, 
which I was kind enough to ignore, were Huddersfield (god knows where i 
was when they had major success  in the past 70 years)  plus Blackpool 
and Ipswich.

Don't you have any pride in what you say? All your examples have greater 
populations than Exeter, some by many thousands. Sorry to keep hitting 
you with facts chum, but you really are your own worst enemy. Better try 
again.

But don't look in that list of winners since '39 I gave you(but ignored)
of course......because you wont find any.

I hope you  are just keeping an argument going for the kicks, which, 
given the stupidity of your comments, has to be a possibility.  If 
not................oh dear.

LC



>

chuck-spears@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> On 8 Oct, 14:34, "\(;}\)"  wrote:
> 
>>"lescor"  wrote in message
>>
>>news:48ECB341.1040002@btinternet.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>chuck-spe...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 8 Oct, 10:56, lescor  wrote:
>>>
>>>>>(;}) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Always try to walk as upright as you can when you go out.
>>>>
>>>>>LC- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>If you would would go easy on the insults your point would be better
>>>>received.
>>>>Of course you need a certain fan base to generate funds to stay at the
>>>>top level but there are just as many clubs in large catchment areas
>>>>that are having no major success (major as in winning the top
>>>>trophies), in fact the club with the second best attendances in
>>>>England for years had no major success. So attendance can only help,
>>>>in some cases, to ensure a certain level is maintained but the next
>>>>level, in winning trophies, is in a large number of such cases, never
>>>>reached.
>>>
>>>You are right. Sorry about the insults, but such silliness, not the
>>>opposing point of view, gets tiring.
>>
>>>But you are also under estimating the importance of location if you want
>>>success. Surely you can see the difference between the two arguments.
>>>I wouldn't suggest that having plenty of local fans undewrites success.
>>>Far from it.  But that is not the same as claiming that you won't get
>>>sustained success without it.
>>
>>>Look at the records. Location isn't just handy, it is vital. You need to
>>>add good management to it, but the greatest manager in the world won't win
>>>the title with a team based on  Orkney.
>>
>>Oh right Les, it's Orkney now, is it. LOL.
>>
>>You made the point that United wouldn't have had the same success if they
>>were based in Exeter. (Not Orkney) I pointed out that several clubs had had
>>major success based in places less populated than Exeter.
>>
>>Making your point plain wrong.
>>
>>Rather than concede it, you just try and shift the goalposts with every
>>response.
>>
>>One person refutes this
>>
>>
>>>simple argument.  To most of us it is obvious....and not very important.
>>
>>But it was your argument Les.
>>
>>I just pointed out its flaws.
>>
>>Sorry.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
> 
> 
> The problem is, I would suggest, is that you are both right and wrong.
> In order to sustain a team with a qualitity of players that gives a
> team a platform to win major honours, you need a good fan base but
> that is just a platform and even that is not guaranteed. It just makes
> it a lot more likely depending on how many other thing are handled.


Bloody hell!  No mate. I am right....he is wrong. I never said that 
numbers were the sole reason for sustained  success. It would be idiotic 
  when we have sides like Birmingham, Newcastle and others in the leagues.

What I said was, MU made full use of their location, just like all the 
other top sides. It obviously requires more than that, but my point was, 
no matter how good the other things, you will not sustain success 
without the big local fanj base.

There is a bloody difference you know?

LC

"lescor" <

>>
>>
>> Oh right Les, it's Orkney now, is it. LOL.
>
>
> Yes, Orkney, Bath, Barnstable, and any other country town or even island 
> with low local populartion. I don't have to list them all do I?



No mate. Just stick to the one you first listed and not change to towns with 
smaller and smaller populations as you realise your original point doesn't 
stand.




>
>>
>> You made the point that United wouldn't have had the same success if they 
>> were based in Exeter. (Not Orkney) I pointed out that several clubs had 
>> had major success based in places less populated than Exeter.
>>
>> Making your point plain wrong.
>
>  Please name some....just a handful. The three you listed last time, which 
> I was kind enough to ignore, were Huddersfield (god knows where i was when 
> they had major success  in the past 70 years)  plus Blackpool and Ipswich.



The last 70 years? No mention of that in your original point Les. You're 
shifting goalposts again.




>
> Don't you have any pride in what you say? All your examples have greater 
> populations than Exeter, some by many thousands. Sorry to keep hitting you 
> with facts chum, but you really are your own worst enemy. Better try 
> again.


Facts Les?

Here's a fact for you. The population of Ipswich is smaller than that of 
Exeter.

The populations of Huddersfield and Blackpool are marginally larger.

But not so large as to negate the point that if those three teams can enjoy 
success with their population base, so could Manchester United.




>
> But don't look in that list of winners since '39 I gave you(but ignored)
> of course......because you wont find any.
>
> I hope you  are just keeping an argument going for the kicks, which, given 
> the stupidity of your comments, has to be a possibility.  If 
> not................oh dear.
>
> LC



Les mate.

This isn't an argument. This is an attempt on my part to get you to realise 
that, despite your self-proclaimed 'impartiality', you've gone to some 
extraordinary lengths to try and belittle United's achievements.

That's fine. It's just the extent of your denial that's intriguing. But 
here's what you said:

 - The Busby Babes weren't as good as people like to think, they had 
potential, nothing more.

- United wouldn't have had their success if they'd come from Exeter.

- Chelsea's money is just as deserved as United's.

- United were lucky to win the league last season due to Chelsea's injuries.

(When I point out the United's injuries were more extensive than Chelsea's 
you evade the point like the plague again)

And your denial that the overwhelming majority of fans in a stadium will be 
partial is an amusing indication of how far you will try and go before 
admitting you're wrong.

"lescor"


> What I said was, MU made full use of their location, just like all the 
> other top sides. It obviously requires more than that, but my point was, 
> no matter how good the other things, you will not sustain success without 
> the big local fanj base.
>
> There is a bloody difference you know?
>
> LC




You said (in one of your bizarre digs) that United wouldn't have been 
successful if they'd come from Exeter.

I pointed out that teams have been successful with populations close to the 
size of Exeter's and so it would have been theoretically possible for United 
to have emulated their success.

You, therefore, are patently wrong.

Sorry mate. It happens.

(;}) wrote:
>  wrote in message 
> news:923bf090-a465-4624-bd03-17af979c76b6@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
> On 8 Oct, 14:34, "\(;}\)"  wrote:
> 
>>"lescor"  wrote in message
>>
>>news:48ECB341.1040002@btinternet.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>chuck-spe...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 8 Oct, 10:56, lescor  wrote:
>>>
>>>>>(;}) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Always try to walk as upright as you can when you go out.
>>>>
>>>>>LC- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>If you would would go easy on the insults your point would be better
>>>>received.
>>>>Of course you need a certain fan base to generate funds to stay at the
>>>>top level but there are just as many clubs in large catchment areas
>>>>that are having no major success (major as in winning the top
>>>>trophies), in fact the club with the second best attendances in
>>>>England for years had no major success. So attendance can only help,
>>>>in some cases, to ensure a certain level is maintained but the next
>>>>level, in winning trophies, is in a large number of such cases, never
>>>>reached.
>>>
>>>You are right. Sorry about the insults, but such silliness, not the
>>>opposing point of view, gets tiring.
>>
>>>But you are also under estimating the importance of location if you want
>>>success. Surely you can see the difference between the two arguments.
>>>I wouldn't suggest that having plenty of local fans undewrites success.
>>>Far from it. But that is not the same as claiming that you won't get
>>>sustained success without it.
>>
>>>Look at the records. Location isn't just handy, it is vital. You need to
>>>add good management to it, but the greatest manager in the world won't 
>>>win
>>>the title with a team based on Orkney.
>>
>>Oh right Les, it's Orkney now, is it. LOL.
>>
>>You made the point that United wouldn't have had the same success if they
>>were based in Exeter. (Not Orkney) I pointed out that several clubs had 
>>had
>>major success based in places less populated than Exeter.
>>
>>Making your point plain wrong.
>>
>>Rather than concede it, you just try and shift the goalposts with every
>>response.
>>
>>One person refutes this
>>
>>
>>>simple argument. To most of us it is obvious....and not very important.
>>
>>But it was your argument Les.
>>
>>I just pointed out its flaws.
>>
>>Sorry.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
> 
> 
> The problem is, I would suggest, is that you are both right and wrong.
> In order to sustain a team with a qualitity of players that gives a
> team a platform to win major honours, you need a good fan base but
> that is just a platform and even that is not guaranteed. It just makes
> it a lot more likely depending on how many other thing are handled.
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> But Les made the point that it was a requirement to have a big fan base if 
> you wanted success. I pointed out numerous exceptions but he's not having 
> it.


But you didn't old mate. You produced three, who.you said had major 
success, obviously comparable with the type of MU Arsenal type sustained 
succes we were talking about, and you.....wait for it, named 
Huddersfield??? Ipswich? and Blackpool all of which had success although 
with less populations than my example, which could have been chosen from 
scores but happened to be Exeter.  So, according to you, this proves 
that as Exeter has a bigger population than  all your named 3 it proves 
that my argument is wrong.  lol........Do you have any idea of what a 
non sequitur is?

It would prove no such thing, but put your mind to this. Exeter.in fact, 
has a lower population to the three you named......lol.....unfortunate 
but true old chump.

Best ignore this.

"lescor"


> But you didn't old mate. You produced three, who.you said had major 
> success, obviously comparable with the type of MU Arsenal type sustained 
> succes we were talking about, and you.....wait for it, named 
> Huddersfield??? Ipswich? and Blackpool all of which had success although 
> with less populations than my example, which could have been chosen from 
> scores but happened to be Exeter.  So, according to you, this proves that 
> as Exeter has a bigger population than  all your named 3 it proves that my 
> argument is wrong.  lol........Do you have any idea of what a non sequitur 
> is?



Les, Les, Les.

You said a big population base was a 'requirement' of success. I clearly 
pointed out, with examples, that this isn't necessarily the case.

You really are going to have to get better at dealing with adversity.

And let's not forget that this all stemmed from your pathological inability 
to acknowledge United's success without some bizarre rider such as they 
wouldn't have had it if they'd come from Exeter.



>
> It would prove no such thing, but put your mind to this. Exeter.in fact, 
> has a lower population to the three you named......lol.....unfortunate but 
> true old chump.



Sadly for you Les, not true at all.

Latest official figures has Exeter's population as being over 3000 larger 
than Ipswich's.

But I know how hard you find it to ever admit you're wrong so let's gloss 
over this.

Let's just recognise just what kind of 'impartial' mind would gain comfort 
from the idea that United would never have been successful if they'd come 
from Exeter.



>
> Best ignore this.
>


I expect you will.

(;}) wrote:
> "lescor"  wrote in message 
> news:48ECA97E.6020608@btinternet.com...
> 
>>(;}) wrote:
>>
>>>"lescor"

>>>Let us not forget Les, that you are probably the most long-winded poster 
>>>on these ngs so playing the boredom card rings a little hollow.






>>>Strangely you snipped all the points where you've been asked to clarify 
>>>your lazy thinking.

I reply to all points...just look back.....I just get tired of making 
you look silly with the same stuff over and over again. Shooting fish in 
a barrel comes to mind

>>>Les, you are sometimes right, and, as we've established, sometimes wrong, 
>>>I'm a little disappointed you can't simply admit where you're wrong and 
>>>move on.
>>>
>>>You really can't get away with saying that a record of P21 W7 D7 L7 shows 
>>>there was little competition in that league.

What a chump you are......lol.....don't you even know the difference 
between competition and quality???  Competition proves nothing about 
standard. The worst groups can be highly competitive. MU's opponents 
were not competitive because they were very bad. Chelsea's previous win
proves this when half the division were within a few ponts of them. Hell 
it was competitive, but mainly because the standard all over was poor. 
Get the idea?  You suggest, maybe because you know no better, that maybe 
all those close finishing teams were very good and that is the reason 
they all finished so close.

Sorry mate, it does not work that way. You can get close bulk results 
because of similar merit in sports leagues with wide participation, but 
the chances of this being because of a high all round standard is too 
rare to be considered. It is almost certain that it shows low general 
standards. Of course 3 or four teams can be involved in a close league 
finish, but when there is only a few points between 12 of them.....none 
are outsatnding.  And I did say leagues....not one off events, like 
golf.....lol....just to save you from introducing another of your red 
herrings.Yes







>>Oh dear,  oh dear, oh dear, oh dear,  No kidding, I an honestly getting 
>>worried about you.  Why doesn't an away record like that - and it tends to 
>>be away form that swings the title - not suggest that the all round 
>>performance in that league season was poor?

> 
> 
> 
> 
> Les mate, if one side is winning everything, then the competition is poor.
> 
> If you are losing as many games as you're winning away, this tends to 
> suggest that the competition is stiff. And that out of this stiff 
> competition, the title winners gained the most points and were worthy 
> champions.
> 
> 
> Chelsea, a bunch of just
> 
>>average honest toilers, won it the year before with a better away record.
> 
> 
> 
> Then they were worthy champions having won more points than any of their 
> peers.
> 
> That's how a league works Les. To compare a league from one era with a 
> league from another in order to belittle a side's achievements smacks of 
> desperation Les.
> 
> Step back for a moment and you might see it.
> 
> 
> 
> In fact MU's was one of the poorest away records for a  title
> 
>>winner over those years.
> 
> 
> 
> But combined with our home record, it must have been better than any other 
> side Les, therefore we were worthy title winners.
> 
> Can't you see that your continued belittling of United's achievements make 
> you look slightly daft?
> 
> Your persistent avoiding of my other points don't do you any favours either.
> 
> Les: "The Busby babes weren't as good as everyone says they were, they had 
> potential, that's all.
> 
> Me: Utd won the league 3 teams in the build up to the crash.
&g