Liverpool transfers in/out and rumours 22/23 + Contracts

[CCTV]

Another extraordinary muddled post dear CCTV which refers to a different thread and does not answer this particular one!

I answered your question directly. The answer given to you was, no.

The rest was indeed a reply to your postings in another thread about how I.....

"Enjoyed belittling Balinkay knowing full well that English was not his first language!"

English was neither of ours first language.

[CCTV]

Well it's a good thing that I haven't suggested that losing these players on free transfers next summer which seems likely now, a net loss in terms of transfer spending, when their contributions have not met their expectations to date, is not an example of how we entice players to the club for me.

(Is this an unfair twisting of your words?)

I don't know what you are saying here exactly.

I've given you what you posted directly.

How I interpreted it in 3 portions.

Your not even talking about what you wrote
And
How I interpreted it almost verbatim.

If you want to explain how what you posted,
And how I interpreted it as a 3 step proposition, are at odds, fire away.

Not sure why you are using text posted after your claim that I twisted your words,
Whilst avoiding explaining the twisting of words that apparently occurred before the accusation was made.

[Insidious]

Not sure why you are using text posted after your claim that I twisted your words,
Whilst avoiding explaining the twisting of words that apparently occurred before the accusation was made.

Well I've explained it to you.

You have been displaying an inability to grasp my explanation, which I don't feel I can fix for you.

[CCTV]

Well I've explained it to you.

You have been displaying an inability to grasp my explanation, which I don't feel I can fix for you.

Considering you accused me of twisting your words, I would have thought you could point to where I twisted your words.

I gave you a direct quote of a paragraph from you. Your post.
I broke it into 3 pieces, practically verbatim and in the same order. This was the basis of my question.
The problematic question addressing this 3 pronged statement.

You've failed to reply as to how there is a discrepancy between what you wrote, and how I interpreted it.

[Insidious]

Considering you accused me of twisting your words, I would have thought you could point to where I twisted your words.

I did.

[Insidious]

You've failed to reply as to how there is a discrepancy between what you wrote, and how I interpreted it.

"I have not claimed that keeping Ox makes us more attractive. That is your interpretation of what I said, or "twisting" if you will.

I have claimed that actions such as, to use my own words, "not freezing players out" will be a factor (only one of many, might I add) in us being an attractive proposition for a player - ie we don't treat our players like crap."

Page 85.

Your discrepancy my liege.

[CCTV]

I did.

I have detailed what you wrote and how I interpreted it.

So far you have failed to explain how what you wrote was at odds with my interpretation of it, which was a near verbatim interpretation.

When I asked you directly if each of the 3 parts was a fair interpretation of what you wrote, you ignored it.

My question which you had an issue with refers directly to the post you made.
It addressed the 3 points in that statement.

If you can't say where I twisted your words, maybe don't accuse me of twisting your words.

It's hard to argue someone twisted your words with a near verbatim summary of your post.
And a question that is directed at both the post itself, and my summary of it.

[Insidious]

1. I have detailed what you wrote and how I interpreted it.


2. When I asked you directly if each of the 3 parts was a fair interpretation of what you wrote, you ignored it.

1. How YOU interpreted it, indeed.

2. Fella, you have been condescending ("what World are you living in") very repetitive and extremely pedantic - and I owe you absolutely nothing.

You've ignored large chunks of my posts to hone in on a single point before yourself - pot, kettle, black.

[CCTV]

1. How YOU interpreted it, indeed.

2. Fella, you have been condescending ("what World are you living in") very repetitive and extremely pedantic - and I owe you absolutely nothing.

You've ignored large chunks of my posts to hone in on a single point before yourself - pot, kettle, black.

I honed in on a cluster of statements that I believe are ridiculous. They were the exemplary case within the post.
I then asked a question attending to each of these 3 parts of the proposition

I've asked you if there is any discrepancy between what you wrote and my summary.
So far no example has been highlighted of a discrepancy.
You didn't answer of course, so I'm assuming you don't have an answer.

You accused me of twisting your words, all I've done is asked you where and how.
You can call it condescending all you like, but you're simply asked to back up your claim.

[Insidious]

You accused me of twisting your words, all I've done is asked you where and how.

Fella you've been told!

I can't make you understand.