Clarke's are fine. Keith's were the most insidious (and he was proven very wrong, sadly) then Mclennan's were the next worse.

Is it perhaps part of your agenda to omit key words and quotations in your responses?

I said [iconsecutively[/i ordered words and the [iappropriate[/i interpretation thereof.

Your confirmed inability to apply any requisite form of appropriate interpretational skills fit neatly alongside your inability to accurately read and respond directly what others have actually wrote.

If you're going to post in such a pompous manner it should have been "[ihave actually written[/i"

HTH

Are you suggesting McGuire wasn't faking it at Wembley?

The order of the words, whether consecutive or not, is secondary to context and meaning when interpreting the meaning of the statement. It can in fact, in a lot of cases be irrelevant.

the fact you use the word appropriate is irrelevant and your focus on it is nonsense

It is perhaps part of your agenda that you have failed to answer why prefacing a statement with an uncertain adverb removes the potential for offence.

I'm not a fanatic and perhaps not even a good supporter these days (compared to my past)....but some on here do seem interested only in parading their majestic self perceived superiority over everbody else. (RL often takes a back seat).

Perhaps [ithey[/i are these "gods of rugby" often now spoken of.... and are now irritated at their cruel dispensing of justice been questioned.

However, ALL gods are superstitious figments of our imagination: they will dissipate and hold no real power if you ignore their dogma.

P.s. McClennan was imbecilic in his reaction: should have waited.

He commands no respect anyway for his persistent inability to drop Diskin (and Kirke) ...and promote Ambler, with Buderus of course promoted to the full 80 mins.

It is definitely part of your agenda that you have intentionally failed to answer why concluding a statement with a certain adverb removes the potential for offence, whilst insisting upon the existence of a non-injurious context which does not exist.

Ooo... this is goooood.

I havent failed to answer, i think someone (you) failed to ask it.

It doesnt remove the potential of offence, I have never said it does. I said the context removed the offence and the words he used should have made that context clear to all.

The non-injurious context is the context Mcclennan set out at the beginning of the statement. "It's just the way it goes and we're not going to use injuries as an excuse for our position in the table." Here Mcclennan sets out his context as the affect injuries have had on Leeds position in the table. He then goes on to talk about how he hopes other teams are affected the same was as injuries are part and parcel of the season.

And just for you he does it consecutively aswell



Now, are you ready to inform us why prefacing a statement with an uncertain adverb removes the potential for offence?

Anyway, back on topic.

No one can sniff out a try like mcguire. If we are to win and get through to the grand final, we need ali, burrow, eastwood and webb to be outstanding. Because that's where our tries will most likely come from. We need gamebreaking plays from these guys.

I think this is ''wigan's time''. They've fallen at this hurdle sooo many times the past 3 years I think this year they'll get one step further. It's one of those times in sport where you just sense when it's a teams turn, so to speak.

Like in the 2004 grand final, after 32 years, you just knew it was leeds' time.

Sadly I think you're right.

With are recent success there are some who will see a CC final and a Championship semi as a disappointment, I'll just be happy that we're not Bradford.

Of course he wasn't.

It's pitiful to suggest he was. You suggested it last week at after the Wigan game and your shameful suggestion was proven to be way off the mark then so I've no reason to think your previous insidious suggestion was any more accurate than your most recent one.

I agree with the 1st paragraph and would add we need that level of performance from 1-17.
As for this being "Wigans time" they still have to earn it and yest the table shows their consistency this year in 2 of their biggest games of the year they've failed against you know who.
Of course missing Mcguire and Peacock is a big loss but this squad as we know are more than capable of performing when written off and i think we can and will win.

I like your confidence.

Maybe you're the rl jedi master, and not tony smith?

It's fairly obvious that Wogan have been the top flights bench mark side this season but who else has had the measure of them home and away this season and to be more precise who's beaten them home and away when it really matters?

Far from it did you see where i finished in the prediction comp?
I just love it when we are written off and yes i can see why they are favourites but this squad have proven themselves in these play-off eliminators past and present whereas Wigan have beaten an ill disciplined Rovers and lost to us.
I also don't think they are the "Machine" they are made out to be yes they good and deserved top spot on merit and have some quality but so do we and i don't think we'll let this trophy go lightly.

Could not agree more.....think this team will go down fighting but none should complain whatever the outcome. We have had a Bluddy good run. Next year will be interesting.

Not wishing to get involved in your more than capable ripostes......did you not mean invidious rather than insidious ?

I make that about 8 pages of dross out of 10.

The only thing I'd argue with is that Leeds have beaten Wigan 'when it counts' with regards the first play-off game. Everyone knew it wasn't sudden death for either team (except perhaps the wilder Wigan fans who seemed to think the sky had fallen in). The next game is the one that counts.

Whether Leeds quite have the personnel left to win the comp is a bit of an unknown. All we know is that they have done it in the past, but need a few of the lesser lights (and some possible relative underperformers this season) to really step up if we're to do it.

Must have been a miracle recovery at Wembley then.

At least the stretcher got to make a brief appearance after the boy cried wolf!

Speaking of pitiful suggestions, one of your heroes has now jumped on the ted McClennan bandwagon and let himself down badly [url=http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/Peacock-sure-Rhinos-will-be.6539544.jp[uhere[/u[/url

You still think Mcguire called for the stretcher at Wembley?

You still think McGuire was feigning injury at Wigan?


Peacock's comments seem perfectly reasoned and well constructed and, unlike yours, probably reflect the truth of the matter.

Yep, and I also believe he chelped for a stretcher at Wembley after feigning injury and crying wolf.



The moral of the boy cries wolf? Even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed. The liar will lie once, twice, and then perish when they finally tell the truth.



McGuire cheated by pulling a player back and in the process sustained a serious injury. Given McGuire's previous propensity for feigning injury and making miraculously rapid recoveries, I'm not surprised in the least that a couple of Wigan players didn't believe him either and berated him instead for cheating.

It's disappointing to learn that Peacock has now joined the ted ranks of making crass, insensitive and inflammatory statements, though to his credit at least he hasn't repeated his coach's [i"Danny has done knee ligament damage to his knee after he we was fouled off the ball"[/i allegations.

Why are you disappointed by Peacock's comments? He's saying that two Wigan players stood over an injured player calling him a cheat whilst he was hurt. Is that the kind of behaviour you want to see from anyone? I'm amazed.

Its a load of b*lls to suggest they would have taken into account McGuire's past 'record' of supposedly feigning injury. They were very annoyed at losing a game they supposedly couldn't and had an easy prone target to yell at. If they were so convinced he was faking it, they could have done what that guy did in the NRL a few years ago, and lifted him up. Funnily enough they didn't, suggesting that they could see he was hurt but were more interested in yelling at him.

BTW have you got a list of examples of McGuire's 'propensity' to fake injury? TBH this is the first I've heard of it.

They didn't know he was badly hurt, and he did cheat. Had roles been reversed and Sam Tomkins had obstructed a Leeds player off the ball, I'm fairly sure your players would have something to say about it.

Bollox he was in agony and despite the sh#te that the "re-incarnated AP" Bell End popcorn has typed you could see he was clearly injured.