-
Posts
30,039 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Matthew Le God
-
You lure children into a cave never to be seen again? 🤔
-
Yes, I agree asking you a question on this forum is pointless, as you consistently don't answer them! Had you answered it we could have continued talking.
-
I was not making a point, I was asking you a question (which you haven't answered)
-
If it was a widely used practise then no one would take it seriously as they would be aware it was a likely manipulation. This isn't flogging a can of coke to a consumer, it is multi million pound business transactions. Its use would make it obsolete. It is a catch 22.
-
I did not say you did.
-
If they are talking in private to other clubs, how does making up stories in the press help? If clubs knew stories were regularly made up in the press the would not trust them to influence multi million pound transactions.
-
Talk me through how making up a story in the media makes a difference. If clubs knew stories were regularly made up in the press the would not trust them to influence multi million pound transactions. Agents can talk directly to clubs, it doesn't need to be done in the press.
-
Having it in the press makes no difference. The agent could talk directly to other clubs to see if there was interest. Making up stories in the media is pointless and achieves nothing.
-
Yes, it is. Can you answer it? Why would multi million pound transactions be influenced by made up stories?
-
Can people only be fans if they do things like you?
-
How does an agent fabricating a story help get a move? 🤔
-
Southampton 0-1 Leicester - Match Thread
Matthew Le God replied to Matthew Le God's topic in The Saints
Why does it matter? Most transfers are paid in installments. Saints are guaranteed the cash and can spend it regardless on players also on installments. -
He left to get regular starts, he'd be 4th in pecking order for us.
-
Anyone starting to look nervously at the table?
Matthew Le God replied to washsaint's topic in The Saints
You think they'll get 10 points from... Arsenal Spurs Liverpool Man City West Ham Leicester Sheffield Utd Burnley Fulham If 3 of those 10 points come vs Fulham on the final day... then that is 3 points Fulham won't be getting to catch us. -
I am more than happy to change my view based on evidence. I don't hold views based on no evidence. I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Don't you? Faith is not a reliable path to truth as it is possible to hold a view on anything, even opposing contradictory views and say you hold them on faith. Thus it is not reliable path to truth. There is a significant difference between saying I don't believe your god has met his burden of proof and saying your god does not exist. The former does not mean you believe the latter.
-
Why would anyone hold a view they did not believe to be correct? 🤔
-
Nonsense. He suggested it was possible for someone to take an opposing view, it is not unreasonable for him to be able to express what he thinks that view might be even if he doesn't agree with it. Bizarre you think people can't imagine other perspectives as it is what humans learn as toddlers.
-
He is a bit of a thug then. Not very Church of England with quaint church summer fates and strawberry jam is it!? 😁
-
No it isn't. As I've already explained, he was suggesting although he may not hold the view he could imagine someone could take an opposing view to it, I couldn't see how it could be justified so I asked him to explain it.
-
That isn't a 100% kind and loving god then.
-
My 'moronic' claim was not about anything other than the two statements of '100% kind and loving' and 'endorsing/enabling slavery' being in conflict with each other. It was not about any other aspects of religion apart from that. You keep overlooking this.
-
Clearly you never make mistakes when typing...
-
I didn't say you took that viewpoint. But by not thinking such a viewpoint is moronic, it at least suggests you think someone could take up a position against it even if you wouldn't agree with them either.
-
I wasn't the one who thought it possible to see no conflict between 100% kind and loving and endorsing/enabling slavery.
-
I have and I can't. I see no way you can justify endorsing and enabling slavery with being 100% kind and loving. You appeared to think there was a way. So can you do it?