Man U Man backs Klopp:This man can do it.

[Peter R]

Why can't one forget the individuals? Because you say so?? You said "bad choices" made by a proven winner (you could put any name here, let's say Road Runner) is better than "bad choices" by a proven failure (you could put any name here, let's say Wile E. Coyote). You FAILED MISERABLY TO UNDERSTAND MY POINT... and I will point you to Phil 101 not Psych 101... proven winner , Road Runner decides to turn left and he falls off a cliff, proven failure does the same , with same outcome... NO DIFFERENCE is my point... Now considering track records, who should shoulder greater responsibility?? philosophically...

My point is you make statements because they sound good and don't think them through grasshopper!!

You're right, Brendan didn't win anything but those who support the club will remember how close he came to winning the EPL... Rafa came close too. But you can spin with the any detail you want but the fact is he matches up against all managers at LFC.

http://lfcstats.co.uk/

[Sir X]

Ahhh peter there is a reason you said exclude the individuals ,there is a reason you said logic ? but lets look at it logically.

You quoted me and said proven winner vs a proven failure in the making of choices,how do you exclude the individuals by quoting proven winner,isnt that meant to mean individual ?

But you exclude it (proven winner) and ask for logic ?

To your road runner analogy if he falls over the cliff,bad choice ,proven failure does the same ,also a bad choice,considering track records given your simplistic reasoning ,they are equally on par .1 poor decision is on par with the other poor decision.


Now what happens when proven failure makes that choice a 5 times out of 10 and the road runner 1 out of 10 ? One has a 50 % failure rate,one has a 90% sucess rate.

Did I fail again to understand your point,am i being logical ?

You cannot remove an individual from a behavior,choice is a behavior and it has a psych aspect.Now would you rather have a proven winner making bad choices as your coach or a proven failure,keep in mind they have to make a 1000 choices a day .Use yuh logic...

Psych 101 ,there is a reason for every behavior.

[Sir X]

I am itching to add more of the psych analogy (choices-behaviour ) road runner vs proven failure or Johnny vs Claffy making poor choices.

Lets say Johnny jumped off the Cliff and Claffy followed,poor choice ,one equal to the other.But if i investigate and ask Johnny why did you jump off the cliff,and he says because I was in fear of my life an unknown stranger was following me (Claffy).Logical makes sense.

I then ask Claffy why did you jump off the cliff,he says because i just wanted to follow him and i dont know him from anywhere ,i felt like it .Not logical requires further investigation.

Given what I know about these two,who would you trust to coach your team,employ,send on an assingment,do your banking,give your credit card info for a transaction.

To try and seperate beings(humans,animals,mamals etc) actions of choice from behavior is irrational ,it must be examined.Choice is an act to make a decision.

So a bad choice isnt a bad choice regardless of whom makes them(Sidekick,2015).One man could have a psych defecit,or isnt as trained in a specific field.


Yuh see mi !

[Peter R]

Ahhh peter there is a reason you said exclude the individuals ,there is a reason you said logic ? but lets look at it logically.

You quoted me and said proven winner vs a proven failure in the making of choices,how do you exclude the individuals by quoting proven winner,isnt that meant to mean individual ?

NO.

But you exclude it (proven winner) and ask for logic ?

How I exclude proven winner? I clearly speak about Road Runner!

To your road runner analogy if he falls over the cliff,bad choice ,proven failure does the same ,also a bad choice,considering track records given your simplistic reasoning ,they are equally on par .1 poor decision is on par with the other poor decision.

Aha! Now we getting somewhere!

Now what happens when proven failure makes that choice a 5 times out of 10 and the road runner 1 out of 10 ? One has a 50 % failure rate,one has a 90% sucess rate.

Did I fail again to understand your point,am i being logical ?

Yes and NO because now you introduce other parameters into the equation. Where in your initial statement do you mention success and failure rates?

You cannot remove an individual from a behavior,choice is a behavior and it has a psych aspect.Now would you rather have a proven winner making bad choices as your coach or a proven failure,keep in mind they have to make a 1000 choices a day .Use yuh logic...

Psych 101 ,there is a reason for every behavior.

You've proven nothing except that you are a spin and con artist.

Go and revisit the statement you made. You clearly said "Bad choices" by a proven winner is better than "bad choices" by a proven failure. THAT IS WHAT I took you to task on. If by me taking you to task you realize you meant to say something else, that's all you have to do boss... so cut out the spinnery. Individuals have nothing to do with the discussion, it's philosophical and not psychological. A sensible person would simply have said: well that's not exactly what I mean to say, clarify tthier position and move on. But instead you try and fail miserably I might add to defend some ridiculous statement, which as I pointed out to you, you repeat simply because it sounded nice! LOL

[Sir X]

I know what I said and I corrected myself.Thanks gave you a good analogy wid Claffy and Johnny.

[Peter R]

Ok Grasshopper! or is that GraXXhopper (X pronounced as in Xylophone)

[Sir X]

So a bad choice isnt a bad choice regardless of whom makes them(Sidekick,2015).One man could have a psych defecit,or isnt as trained in a specific field.


Yuh see mi !

[Peter R]

So a bad choice isnt a bad choice regardless of whom makes them(Sidekick,2015).One man could have a psych defecit,or isnt as trained in a specific field.


Yuh see mi !

GraXXhopper, I would ask that you cease and desist from mangling, misrepresenting, misinterpreting and making mistakes with my words. If you must quote me, I advise you to go to my post and cut and paste, because when you try to interpret them you fail miserably. My position at the outset was stated rhetorically. Here is what I said: "Aren't bad choices simple (sic) "bad choices" regardless of who makes them?" I wrote "sic" as I meant "simply".
You said, "bad choices" made by one were "better" than "bad choices" made by the other in case you don't remember.

Try to interpret my words correctly or I might have to lay a sidekick on your headside again. But let me help you, if bad choices are made by Road Runner and/or Wile E Coyote and they both end up flying off a cliff to their doom, it doesn't matter that RR was the perceived "winner" and "Coyote" the perceived failure... de two ah dem dead!

Now, as I said, if you meant to say something different, just say so.. dats all folks!

[Rockman]

How the choice to compromise one's alliance to combating racism matches up with one's choice to entertain switching alliance regarding team?
Both scenarios have everything to do with commitment.

[Peter R]

You have me there dude! You speak in parables...I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Peter R]

A former player becoming a pundit on BBC may very well be a matter of submitting an application.Is that the criterion for being a pundit?
He is as much a pundit as Jamie Carragher.

If it makes you happy: "Jamie Carragher as a pundit?" there there, now our sensitivities have been appeased... I would hope.

[Sir X]

Aren't bad choices simple (sic) "bad choices" regardless of who makes them(claffy,2015)

No,cc explanation above as per psych mitigating factors.Yuh feel better now

[Rockman]

Revisiting the Suarez controversy,if you compromised your core beliefs regarding racism because of some frigging club then that act is as unforgiving and inexcusable as voicing one's intent to jump ship(Pool to Man U),both are bad choices,having to do with not having the desired commitment and the ill-advised switching of alliances.

[Rockman]

Just seems had Dwight Yorke been an iconic former Liverpool player his credentials would not have been questioned,much the same way had Sterling mother gave birth in Merseyside (lol)his commitment would not have been questioned by at least one ..
Sensitivity and Objectivity!

[Peter R]

How is that relevant to this thread??

BUT just to appease your sense of outrage: It is PRECISElY because of a sense of justice that Suarez gets a bligh on the so-called racism incident. The spitting and the biting are different things. He committed those acts and there is no denying it. With respect to the racism, NOTHING was ever proven and I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt, knowing as I do how South Americans speak Spanish... nothing is compromised IN THE LEAST. Patrice says he abused him, Suarez denies it. Absolutely no other evidence was introduced! NONE! So as far as I am concerned it was a non-incident brought on by Patrice Evra who is no choir boy.

So how is this relevant to this current discussion??