Rooney in Restaurant Row

AthAnRi

p.pete wrote:

What irish1 said was "How the hell can you say Rooney was dead right to hit him???" - and all you've done is say that people get slapped for being stupid. Very clever, doesn't make it right though - far from it.

Where did I say that people get slapped for being stupid? I said people get slaped for being to smart, i.e. being too gobby.

Anyway I'm not gonna fall out with either yourself or Irish1 over it. I've read your posts in the past and largely find you to be excellent posters. On this ocassion, we'll have to disagree but I don't see what harm has come from the whole incident and Gray will certainly think twice about making ignorant remarks in the future to anyone.

p.pete

Hey, don't get me wrong AthAnRi - I agree that the world is the way you say it is, I just don't think it's socially right. I'd totally put Gray in the blame, sounds to me like he was being a complete ass and once you go down that road you can't have too many complaints - regardless of whatever Rooney did being right or wrong.

And in response to what Muppet said previously - I thought I tried to get across that it "shouldn't" be a story in the media, but the simple facts are that it will be. If Gray acted toward some random person we actually wouldn't have heard a thing until maybe a few months after if it reached a court case.

And with regard accepting payment for work - his work is as a footballer and he gets paid more then enough for it. If he decides he wants to get paid for things off the pitch then that's going to create extra media for himself - and he's not going to like all of it

ZENER

p.pete wrote:

And with regard accepting payment for work - his work is as a footballer and he gets paid more then enough for it. If he decides he wants to get paid for things off the pitch then that's going to create extra media for himself - and he's not going to like all of it

Wayne is not payed to be assaulted while out socialising with his girl-friend - he is payed to play football. I get payed for the job I do, it doesn't mean I have to accept insults from people who happen to recognise me when I'm out (regardless of status). If it was me I too would have smacked the Pansy. Truth be told this thread should have been closed before any replies had been posted to it, it's got nothing to do with football - put it in entertainment or something - the rules are different there.

Fanaticism is about being fanatical about your preferred football team, for non-fans this can be difficult to comprehend, defending your team - and its players - is part and parcel of this. This is a football forum not a gossip mag - if it can't be chanted in the terraces then it shouldn't be allowed here

ZEN

p.pete

ZENER wrote:

Wayne is not payed to be assaulted while out socialising with his girl-friend

Cripes! it's unbelievable some people's ability to miss a point
- yes he's paid to play football (lots)
- yes he should be able to go out without being approached by muppets

also...

- he's paid for a lot of other things outside of football, things which draw attention to himself
- attention attracts muppets.

<edit>

and the things outside of football - the books, the sponsorship, the endorsments - these are things that don't improve his football and he can limit. If he gave them a miss he'd be still living more than comfortably, due to this I've little sympathy for him or anyone else who moans about not being able to go outside peacefully, that goes for Liverpool players or anyone else - don't read into this I'm being ABU.

ZENER

I understand your point perfectly thank you.

Just because someone is good at something and people want to know about him does not mean he/she is a legitimate target for every nutcase or "pansy" to insult or take a pop at him.

He is entitled to react to these situations just the same as most people out on a Saturday night in the city center would. Fortunately he excercised restraint in not shoving a glass in the guys face - which is considered "normal" in town these days.

Your lack of sympathy could translate into good old Irish begrudgery by the way.

ZEN

p.pete

I'm not saying for a minute that he didn't react normally - having said that I don't think it's the right reaction regardless of whether it's the common denominator.

Begrudgery? perhaps.

The Muppet

p.pete wrote:

I'm not saying for a minute that he didn't react normally - having said that I don't think it's the right reaction regardless of whether it's the common denominator.

Begrudgery? perhaps.

No but you are excusing those in the wrong at the expense of the victim.

Can I take it that your reluctance to answer my question re Pornapsters post as an indication that my assumption was correct?

p.pete

The Muppet wrote:

No but you are excusing those in the wrong at the expense of the victim.

Show me where I've excused anyone? I think they were both wrong and I believe I've said that clearly - perhaps not simply enough though?

The Muppet wrote:

Can I take it that your reluctance to answer my question re Pornapsters post as an indication that my assumption was correct?

I'm not quite sure what your assumptions are but I'll have a go...
You initially said you'd be surprised if the post was reported, my response was "Really? how surprised?". I'm not sure what you've tried to read beyond that.

You're statement in response "Very Very surprised, unless you are making a confession?" had me confused tbh, a confession to what? (maybe I'm the simple one).

I will say however, when I asked "Really? how surprised?" I had not actually checked at that point whether the post had been reported - the question was still valid though I thought.

The Muppet

p.pete wrote:

Show me where I've excused anyone? I think they were both wrong and I believe I've said that clearly - perhaps not simply enough though?

Your stated opinion that Rooney getting paid for his promotional work makes him fair game excuses those thet are really in the wrong here especially the media for the way they reported the story. I understand why they reported it as they did, the correct headline would not have sold as many papers but that does not make it right.

p.pete wrote:

I'm not quite sure what your assumptions are but I'll have a go...
You initially said you'd be surprised if the post was reported, my response was "Really? how surprised?". I'm not sure what you've tried to read beyond that.

You're statement in response "Very Very surprised, unless you are making a confession?" had me confused tbh, a confession to what? (maybe I'm the simple one).

I will say however, when I asked "Really? how surprised?" I had not actually checked at that point whether the post had been reported - the question was still valid though I thought.

Well pete we both know for a fact that the post was not reported so let's not play games. Why did you try create the impression that it was reported with your "really how surprised" comment when you knew there was no report?

p.pete

The Muppet wrote:

Your stated opinion that Rooney getting paid for his promotional work makes him fair game excuses those thet are really in the wrong here especially the media for the way they reported the story. I understand why they reported it as they did, the correct headline would not have sold as many papers but that does not make it right.

BBC sell papers now? You're going for the whole I blame society thing there are you :rolleyes:

The Muppet wrote:

Well pete we both know for a fact that the post was not reported so let's not play games. Why did you try create the impression that it was reported with your "really how surprised" comment when you knew there was no report?

Are you calling me a liar? I've just stated that when I made that post I had not checked at that point whether it had been reported. Porn knows whether it was reported or not - doesn't matter an iota what you know my friend.

The Muppet

p.pete wrote:

BBC sell papers now? You're going for the whole I blame society thing there are you :rolleyes: .

Who was taking about the BBC? There was no mention of Rooney striking anyone in the op's Linked BBC article so the discusssion has obviously moved on from there. Keep up .:p I'm blaming poor journalism and the apologists who make excuses for it .

p.pete wrote:

Are you calling me a liar? I've just stated that when I made that post I had not checked at that point whether it had been reported. Porn knows whether it was reported or not - doesn't matter an iota what you know my friend.

Your comments gave the impression that the post was reported while in fact it wasn't. If you feel that makes you a liar so be it. I still wonder why you interjected as you did when by your own admission you didn't know if what I had posted was correct or not?

p.pete

The Muppet wrote:

Your comments gave the impression that the post was reported while in fact it wasn't.

Depends on how easily you jump to conclusions. I'd like to think a rational person wouldn't have concluded what you came up with.

The Muppet wrote:

If you feel that makes you a liar so be it.

I questioned if you were calling me a liar, that's all. I have noted that you haven't refuted that you were calling me a liar though...

The Muppet wrote:

I still wonder why you interjected as you did when by your own admission you didn't know if what I had posted was correct or not?

I questioned your belief in what you said, nothing more. I am pleased with the response it got though since it was akin to you wetting your pants.

The Muppet

p.pete wrote:

Depends on how easily you jump to conclusions. I'd like to think a rational person wouldn't have concluded what you came up with.

I questioned if you were calling me a liar, that's all. I have noted that you haven't refuted that you were calling me a liar though...


I questioned your belief in what you said, nothing more. I am pleased with the response it got though since it was akin to you wetting your pants.

It's quite rational for anyone to question someone that disputes something they know to be fact. Your unwillingness to answer the question I asked just confirms what I already know to be true.

If I had intended calling you a Liar I would have posted "p pete you're a liar". I have no intention of refuting something that a quick read of the thread will show is obviously a figment of your immagination.

I am pleased with the response it got though since it was akin to you wetting your pants.

How Immature. I,m surprised at you P Pete.

GuanYin

Muppet banned.

When I say back on topic, I mean it. ANY complaints about this by PM or feedback.

p.pete consider this a warning - you responded to muppets bait, but you're accountable for your own actions.