I ignore your posts in particular more often than not.

I came to that conclusion because ThePrinter produced an eloquent and detailed argument with strong evidence and calculations (which you may of course disagree with) which TVOC responded to with allusions and suggestions and the most bizarre backpedalling on a "threaten to leave" that we have seen since our resident troll last did it.
The accuracy of stats or calculations isn't where TVOC acted like a cock, it was his response to those.

And yet you responded

.





So when you said




It wasn't really what you meant, as you have now realised you jumped too early, and are back peddling?

I ask again, How do you come to a conclusion that the poster who produced misinformation of stats to back up an argument, that was then pointed out by another poster as incorrect, and subsequently admitted by first poster it was incorrect, that the poster pointing it out had his ass kicked?

He hasn't had any ass kicked really as he? It is just something blow out of proportion, and yet when all said and done tvoc was correct all along, for which Printer now accepts.

I wonder what the collective noun is for a bunch of negative troll bullies. ???

Superiors?



How is it negative troll bullying for someone to point out an error, and then the person making the error admitting the mistake?

Surely the person getting called a cock, and told they had "had their ass kicked" is the one being bullied?

Thank Christ the season* (as far as the Rhinos are concerned - in case I get jumped on) starts this weekend. Hopefully the board will be back to it's usual debating games and mocking Hudds and Wigan trolls.

Just out of interest, will anyone be producing opta stats this year to stimulate debate / p1ss G1 off?

* I only count SL /WCC /CC /Playoffs as the season, I exclude friendlies. If anyone out there disagrees with my take on the season, tough.

Hey if the cap fits ......



Like I said before only a fool makes an argument out of a debate.

That's kind of how forums work. If no one responded, they wouldn't really work. I was being a little unfair on you. I skim rather than ignore your posts, because they do make me laugh. However, pointing out when you say something daft is getting boring now, the way anything does when it happens too often.



I meant exactly what I said. You interpreted it differently, but you do have your own unique way of interpreting things.

Spot on matey.

Stats are useful but are no indication on how a player has played or the effort they have excreted in a game. They don't take into account opposition, conditions or seasonal variations.

You left space hoping I'd compound my original error with another error (not spot my mistake) and back my stats so strongly that I'd accept a loser leaves board challenge, we've all seen that. Your plan failed, now you're backtracking.



Knock yourself out, you apparently know them (and have done so for a week). Why ask me to do them seen as I can't be trusted? And why didn't you ask me to provide them last week......you took time to ask me to leave the board and to back my stats......twice, but you never asked me to provide the correct figures.



Why not be provocative? Fight fire with fire. Why didn't you just provide the stats straight away when you realised they were wrong? Why didn't you provide them when I asked how they were wrong? (Can you actually be honest this time because no one is really believing the "I was letting you correct yourself" p*** poor excuse) So don't act the innocent here, you started with the provocative behavior, I just bided my time until you made a mess of the opportunity you had.

Note them posts of mine you quoted....
"but AS OF YET hasn't explained how so I believe they still stand up"

Note the "as of yet" bit, I was very careful to put that in as I knew at some point they wouldn't hold up. Note the word "still", why didn't I write "will stand up", because I knew the truth already. The stats did STILL stand up until clear evidence was given to the contrary......in a kind of 'innocent until proven guilty' way.

But why would I do that? Well you gave yourself away with your opening post back on page 5. You were like a dog with 2 d**ks and sounding extremely smug and satisfied with your find.........yet you held off explaining the details.

That's not normal tvoc style, normally you love to correct stats and post them. It was clear something wasn't right and that you were up to something and had an agenda and something up your sleeve before revealing your stats. That came in the form of you "throwing down the gauntlet" (your words not mine).

Your 'Loser leaves the board' plan might've work but for two simple reasons. Firstly I spotted where I'd gone wrong. Secondly and more importantly, even if I was 100% certain I was correct I wouldn't agree to such a pathetic challenge because I'm not 15 years old.

So yes call me provocative. But then look up the word 'provocative' and see one of the synonyms for it is 'irritating'. Then look back to page 7 and see how the poster Major Tom wrote "is tvoc always this irritating".



Perhaps the lesson here is people should be careful not to trust your motives?

Funny thing is that you've had a go at me for a 'misuse of information'......yep I got some numbers wrong.
You've had the full information about why the stats are wrong but held off from revealing them because you wanted to use them to your advantage. It's ended up with people (not even myself) on this thread in the last few days labelling you "irritating" and "insecure", of having a "selective memory" and "behaving very oddly" and of having "your a$$ kicked".

So as far as 'misuse of information' goes you take the biscuit dear boy and have no room to criticise others.

I never said tackles had gone down (which is what you responded to from Fatboy). I said points conceded.

But don't worry I want challenge you to leave the board





Despite yourself claiming I'd "rubbished" tvoc's statement (please show where btw) I never not once didn't ACCEPT he was correct. What I did straightaway (and something you yourself suggested a few pages later) was to simply ask him "in what way are the 2012 stats incomplete compared to 2013".....you said he would probably oblige, he didn't. He instead in his next post on this topic offered to leave the board if wrong and challenge me to do the same. Yet you still defend him?

As for the "ass kicked" statement made from another poster. It's crystal clear they're referring to tvoc showing himself up with his use of the information, not whether the information he had was correct.....but of course you know this really but apparently seem hell bent on going down with the Titanic.

As for "blown out of proportion". Yes it was, started by the man you're defending tvoc. He could've simply revealed answers and stats but decided to be cryptic for several days and start offering challenges.

And I know your view on this as posted on Tuesday...


Kind of missing a certain piece of what he asked this week aren't you?

But it was there last week.....on the Friday you said...


Seems last Friday you were quite clear in believing a challenge to leave had been made. Yet now you too are backtracking to make it sound as if tvoc simply only offered his own disappearance, or not mention at all everything about a "challenge."

Good thread this.

My eyes are bleeding!!


Fwiw Printer whether i agree with you or not from my own pov it's always just debate and opinions (unless i'm responding to trolls) and like i've posted in the past i think we could and should be better with recruitment ,selection and tactically.
I never "expect" to win every game nor do i demand we win every trophy but i will continue to post my opinions whether good bad or indifferent on agame by game basis both collectively and individually!

I think what we will find, is that if Printer corrects his stats from earlier, we could just ignore the last six pages, and go back to what I was debating with Printer, and show that as usual I am correct

'Superiors' is a plural. Not a collective noun.

I suggest that the collective noun is either a "Southstander" or perhaps an "irony" in this case...

Personally I would describe this thread as more bickering than bullying or trolling.

Will someone please let me know when ThePrinter does the sensible thing and posts his corrected comparable stats for those forwards in 2012.

He's been aware now (apparently) for several days that his first attempt was flawed in some way - although he's yet to explain his error, so the way forward seems rather obvious - apologise, explain the mistake and post the corrected figures.

Perhaps then those that were involved can all see if the new data set support his conclusions - or their own opinion.

For someone who at the time pleaded - =#FF0000'but check the stats I've posted' - he suddenly seems strangely reluctant to make the corrections and re-post the figures now.

Why does he need to apologise.....

a Cloud-Gazer ?

For using incorrect stats relating to the 2012 season. That's what I would do at any rate if I'd made such a schoolboy error.

__________

ThePrinter said: 'I said I'll stand by them until they've been properly explained wrong......not just been labelled wrong.'

They're his stats which he now accepts he got wrong - shouldn't the full explanation be coming from him along with the corrected stats?

He serially accused me of using incorrect SL attendance stats on the VT last year prior to disappearing from the thread entirely (I wonder why?) after contributing well over half a century of his own accusatory posts.

We all know you love it.......

I suppose it is a capital offence to make a mistake in dealing with the stats.

I did game stats in real time for 15 years so I humbly apologise for all my mistakes. The players certainly thought I consistently got their tackle counts wrong.

Of course I do but that's beside the point

The result of taking one too many fireworks to the head perhaps? You can guess if you want to but even ThePrinter fully accepts that I were right to question their integrity.



A little excessive given the nature of the original crime.

Will be interesting to see the corrected stats (once they appear) and the conclusions tested against them.

Sure you can have an apology and a list of corrected stats.......once we've heard your full clear explanation as to why the stats were wrong (with no alluding or indicating).

Not too hard a task, we'll see if he does it though.

statistically that would be correct