hypochondriac

We were a 'ringleader' apparently. Not sure how that works when one vote is the same as anyone elses but u suppose it makes a good newspaper headline.

Me for one.

Here you go again with your mind- numbing replies. Utter tool.

Can't see batman saying that from that post. Whelk I'll give you- though I disagree with him.

Well if that is true then it would be a story. Has probably come from one of the aggrieved players and whilst it may be exaggerated, there's probably a grain of truth in there.

Could well be. Seems a more likely scenario than the journalist simply making the story up.

Agreed with all that. I would say particularly during the big slump earlier in the season which was getting to crisis point before we hauled ourselves out of it with some excellent form. There is probably some truth in this article but I agree the players are responsible first a d we have had some good results so you can't complain about koeman.

Agreed. We should assess each story based on the headline and if we don't like what we see then we should go no further.

See. If even I agree with someone as deluded as soggy then there must be something in it.

The fact I agree with soggy on this despite thinking he's a buffoon on 99% of issues regarding this matter should tell you a lot. I haven't seen either whelk or batman saying there has been no sort of backlash from any Muslims against terrorism. Do you have the post numbers?

This is what I'm talking about. You ignore the definition that you didn't like and then claim that there was no backlash because you didn't like the type of the backlash and thus say that one did not exist- not a single other poster on this thread has expressed any agreement with your absurd position. You quite clearly made up the guff posted earlier about jihad support being a price worth paying for the Islamic takeover of Britain.

People have given you loads of answers but you've ignored them, denied the answers existed and then invented things that you imagine people have said. He's right you are being a d*ckhead and that's from someone who has had some sympathy with some of the points you were making.

What you do is the other side of the coin to what soggy does. You're both a bit mental and you both invent things to support your opposing arguments. It's really odd.

Because there will be some change for the better.

Now you're just being immature. You're ignoring the definition that I showed fitted this situation. That's fine if you want to do that if it makes you feel better.

There's no point in me trying to find new words to explain the same thing.

You either have sovereignty or you don't. Watering sovereignty down means you no longer have it and is unacceptable to me.

So you are ignoring the other definition which doesn't say this?

Again, the amount of people taking part in the backlash was not the question, it was simply if their actions that have been publicised met the definition. Now you can twist it all you want but I would say it's fairly obvious to everyone else that it is antagonistic regardless of who hears it. You won't admit you are wrong but I'm afraid in this instance you quite clearly are.

If there is not a negative consequence to footballers coming and working here then why would the government not make it as easy as possible to continue what it does now?

Not sure the relevance of this in the context of foreign players being able to play here?

The act itself was antagonistic towards terrorism. Whether the terrorist knows about it or finds it antagonistic or not is entirely irrelevant in the context of meeting the stated definition.

We've been through this. I've quite clearly given you the definition of "antagonistic" (something that is openly hostile or opposes something.) and explained why that definition fits the demonstrations made by Muslims. There were CLEARLY Muslims opposing terrorism thus there was a backlash. Just because you think any demonstration should have been more public or more widespread doesn't mean that there wasn't a "backlash" as defined by myself earlier, you just don't want to listen. It's an odd stance to take, particularly because I've said I agree with you in some ways but it's an undeniable fact that a backlash took place.

Isn't part of the attraction of brexit that we can make our own rules for these type of things?

Had a good innings.