No you're changing your argument.
It's an obvious foul...that doesn't make it factual.
Zidane's foul in the world cup was just as obvious...but to say it's factual is "really" a matter of opinion...cause I can point to a 100 more non-obvious calls for every "factual" (or better defined...obvious) call you say there is.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
No you're changing your argument.It's an obvious foul...that doesn't make it factual.
Zidane's foul in the world cup was just as obvious...but to say it's factual is "really" a matter of opinion...cause I can point to a 100 more non-obvious calls for every "factual" (or better defined...obvious) call you say there is.
What the hell? Of course it doesn't you idiot. I'm not changing anything.
There's a clear set of rules that constitutes what a foul is in the sport, those two committed fouls, so they were factual. Nobody can deny they were fouls. You think that because people might not agree, it's not factually a foul? Those people are idiots, because that's exactly what it is, it's foul, it's not the ref's opinion. It's him making a call based on a factual set of rules.
The reason this relates to YOU and THIS debate, to get back on point, if because we are giving you evidence as to why you are wrong, based on a factual truth, evidence and otherwise, you ignore this because you don't like it. Just like Manchester City fans literally but unsuccessfully denied that was a foul, despite it factually being one.
As for your comment of things being "factual" is a matter of opinion, how? Just how? Fact is the opposite of opinion, how can the two be the same, you moron?
fac·tu·al
1. of or pertaining to facts; concerning facts: factual accuracy. (A call based on the factual rules.).
2. based on or restricted to facts: a factual report.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AC's commentary on fouls in football:"...a factual foul... a factual call."
"No matter how strongly the fans believe it wasn't a foul, if the ref sees that it factually was, nothing will change that."
The irony is too much
There's no irony there you idiot. Also, who are you talking to? "AC...", you're referring to me, to someone else. Who?
Are you going to post this "argument" then or not? How long does it take you to explain your argument? Especially since you're so sure of it.
You know what? I don't think you have typed it, I think you're going to use this as an excuse not to post.
-AC
You're scary.
...and you goofed and everyone knows it.
A call by a referee in football isn't factual...the set of rules is.
A referee's take on what might be a foul isn't factual at all...it's a judgment call based on his opinion (which might be wrong because of something like the angle he saw it).
NOBODY in here but you would disagree with me on that.
Quite ironic you're arguing against it...of course you won't admit it though.
Just curious...
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
In the meantime, I'd be curious to see what people here consider to be some of the greatest albums ever made...As for myself...here's 7 of the 10 that I've listed as being some of the greatest albums recorded. I own and love all these albums, and it's easy to recognize the genius in each of them upon the first listen.
Dark Side of the Moon -Floyd
Pet Sounds - Beach Boys
Rumours - Mac
Revolver - Beatles
Are You Experienced? - Jimmy
Led Zeppelin - Zep
Nevermind - Nirvana(Hmmmm...I wonder how those fair with what other people who have informed opinions have said regarding some of the greatest ever albums)
And as a side note: There other albums that are closer to my heart, but I wouldn't say are as great as these.
If you don't stop the mass panic posting, I'll report you for spamming. I manage to reply to you once, one post, as do others. Afford us the same courtesy, it's annoying. If you want to fit more in, there's a 15 minute window to edit your posts. I manage to do so, do the same.
I've already replied to that post anyway.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You're scary....and you goofed and everyone knows it.
A call by a referee in football isn't factual...the set of rules is.
Precisely, so if the rules say what a foul is, and that happens, and the ref says "That happened.", because he saw it blatantly, it is a factual call. It's not him saying "I think it was a foul.", it was.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
A referee's take on what might be a foul isn't factual at all...it's a judgment call based on his opinion (which might be wrong because of something like the angle he saw it).
But we're not talking about MIGHT be wrong, I know refs CAN make wrong calls. What I'm saying to you is simple: If we KNOW for a fact that the ref saw it, great angle, great view, perfect sight, as he did with the video I showed you, it's a factual call. It's not "I think...", it's "I know.".
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Quite ironic you're arguing against it...of course you won't admit it though.
Now I'm convinced you're putting on an act, because this whole "You would never admit to being wrong." is clearly just you alluding to what YOU won't do, and know it.
Anyway, where's this mythical explanation of your argument? In the time you've taken to keep posting, you should have finished. It's taken you almost a day.
-AC
Again, you're changing the argument...you've added "video" (which you so craftily edited into one of your early posts as soon as I pointed out you goofed).
But even still you're wrong.
First of all, I didn't say anything about video in my example which you argued against...I just talked about a ref in a stadium...and THAT'S what you argued against. You said it was FACTUAL that the ref could make call on a foul in your first reply, and that my argument was faulty.
Also, in the video example the call was obvious...TONS of other calls aren't...even with great angles, sight, whatever. Even if it's obvious though, it's not an actual FACT...it might be darn close, but it's not FACT. It might be very, very, very worthy and dead-on opinion...but not a FACT.
Oh, the irony.
Sorry to say, but it appears you're using clever and sneaky tactics again to get out of looking like you goofed. That's not appreciated.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Again, you're changing the argument...you've added "video" (which you so craftily edited into one of your early posts as soon as I pointed out you goofed).But even still you're wrong.
Craftily? I edited it in because I wanted to make it even harder for you to try to deny, but your ignorance knows no bounds.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
First of all, I didn't say anything about video in my example which you argued against...I just talked about a ref in a stadium...and THAT'S what you argued against. You said it was FACTUAL that the ref could make call on a foul in your first reply, and that my argument was faulty.
You said this: "A stadium full of England football fans disagreeing with a ref's call against their side doesn't point to anything...a panel of referees disgreeing with the ref's call does.".
I said: "No matter how strongly the fans believe it wasn't a foul, if the ref sees that it factually was, nothing will change that. We are in the position of the ref, we know for a fact that you are wrong, and no matter how much you shout that you're not, you are.".
I'm not sure where you're falling short. You were the one who brought football, food, weather and movies into a discussion about music because you can't win.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Also, in the video example the call was obvious...TONS of other calls aren't...even with great angles, sight, whatever. Even if it's obvious though, it's not an actual FACT...it might be darn close, but it's not FACT. It might be very, very, very worthy and dead-on opinion...but not a FACT.
No, if there is a rule that states "A player committing a tackle with no contact on the ball is a foul.", and a ref DOES clearly see that happen, it is a factual foul, and his call is factually correct. Simple. Just simple.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Oh, the irony.
Look up the definition of the word before you use it, or is the dictionary wrong there, too?
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Sorry to say, but it appears you're using clever and sneaky tactics again to get out of looking like you goofed. That's not appreciated.
Where's the post you've been working on for about a day? Does it even exist?
You've still not shown any signs of it.
-AC
AC. This won't interest you anymore, because I've been forced to completely ignore you. You can reply all you want to my argument. I won't ever be replying to a post of yours again.
Carrying our differences over to other forums and unrelated threads where we're not even in discussion, and making unprovoked remarks to try and start something and get a rise out of me is very, very, very strange behaviour.
You seem to be taking this stuff very personally, and it's gotten to a point where you're basically stalking me to take jabs in forums I happen to be in.
Why would anyone want to continue discussing anything with someone who's exhibiting this kind of worrisome behaviour?
EDIT: As for the others, I'll be more than happy to discuss your posts (whenever I actually decide to post my argument...almost done)
Where's the argument, EP?
I'm waiting to read it, even if you won't reply to mine.
Civil question; Where is it? It's been over a day, and you've spent more time whining than writing. Is there even an argument? Or has this all been a built up to "You know what? I've had it, there's no point me even posting my reply."?
You said "Whenever I decide to post my argument.". So it must be written, so what's the "Almost done." about?
Just post it, put me on ignore and post it. I'll read it, you won't even see my reply.
-AC
You'd be surprised, and you care, you've spent a week writing out "This is why I think music has an objective standard of quality.".
As I said before, you were asked, not even by me, for a full and clear explanation of your argument. Not because the debate is valid, but so other people are aware of where you're coming from fully, as you continue to say we don't get it, despite being wrong yourself. You said you'd have it done soon...four days ago.
If it's so simple, why is it not here? Why is it 9 pages or more long? Why, day after day, do you say "Almost done."? Better yet, why do you say "I'll post it when I'm ready to.", suggesting it is done and you just won't?
Also, don't give me that busy bs, people have seen you. You're not too busy to constantly post here, or to write 9 pages of factually wrong debate, but the arduous task on following through on a request is too much? Then you shouldn't have said it. I bet that if I never raised the issue, you'd never return. We all know what'll happen; You'll either bail out and never post it, or you'll post it, it'll get refuted and we'll be back to "Nah you don't get it.".
-AC