Chelsea messageboard on 25th may 3642

I have not actualy questioned whether results = success. You are answering somthing I have not said.

I have said fans do not always accept the result as fair, they do not always accept the result as an objective "arbiter" of the game.

Where have I ever said opinion determines success? I have never said such a thing, nor have a disputed it, nor do you need to state this yet again.

I have said that the result is not always fair, and people do not always acept the result as such. And opinion is of value contrary to your idea that it meaningless. In fact it is clear opinion means a great deal to *you* or else why would you be so vehemently defending your club? If (my) opinon means so little why are you still here?

Yes, they were a decent team (12 months before you played them).

I never said you claimed it as fact Dan. I said, why is it that when I offer an opinion you discount it as meaningless and of no value, but then you go on to offer opinion yourself? If "rhetoric" and opinion are of no value then why do you bother with it yourself?

But not of truth or worthiness.

You argument was stating the bleeding obvious and sprinkling it with relativist bullpoo. "Football is a game, truth is transient".

Well a comitment to truth must seem godlike to an ostrich such as yourself. ;-)

I dont think your argument could get any more *simple* Dan. Results = success, football is a game! ;-)

Perhaps some fresh fish, that's suposed to be good for your brain. ;-)

Your mind is stodgy enough without cheesecake. ;-)

I said obsessive, ie limited and constrained mental patterns. ;-)

Yeah, red wine is good for your brain. ;-)

You corected it lol. You backpedaled from "no right" to "ilegitimate". You ever thought of going into politics? I'd sugest a job at the ministry of information, in North Korea.

So you admit the validity of someones opinion has nothing to do with what their club has in the trophy cabinet? (Just want to be sure about this one!)

Results do not define worthiness or truth.

Of course there is no absolute truth, but trying to get closer to the truth is a good thing, dont you think? I mean whats that 90 minutes for before the the final whistle, why dont we go home after the game and just say "it was 2-0 you know", over and over again?

If the result is all there is why are we even having this conversation?

Oh dear!

The holy trinity of bullpoo, perms and hubcaps?

Coherant as in making sense, in not contradicting itself, fitting with the facts You have a brain i think, most people find it quite usefull for such things as logic and reason.

Contradictions *always* appear mutually exclusive, thats how you spot em. If somthing doesnt look mutualy exclusive with somthing else then it dont actually look like a contradiction.

Savy?

But thats not what you did. You discounted subjective opinion per se. And then went on to offer it yourself.

If you had simply said "you're talking pooe this is the truth of the matter" then your analogy would acurate, as it is you have missed the point.

No thanks, I have enough pompous bullpoo to be going on with. ;-)

The ideal of reason is impartial if not the reality of it. But if reason is so flawed makes you wonder how huiman society has come so far in 2,500 years.

I never claimed concensus is synonymous with the truth. I claimed reason and analysis can be used to get closer to the truth that relying results alone.

I wonder what Plato would have thought about your discounting reason as unreliable and of little value?

It's not "all" about belief. It is somtimes about belief. But so are the decisions the referee makes, he might have pre concieved ideas about certain players or teams. He is not able to be tottally objective. And in such the result of the game is dependant on subjective decisions beliefs just as my opinion, and your opinion.

But talking and reasoning about such things get us closer that simply looking at the final score. If the ref comes out after the game and says "i got that decision wrong" surely that gets us closer to the truth than simply ignoring what he has to say?

I cant believe it!

The result relies on subject decisions made by the referee, so it is not tottaly objective. You cant claim that the result of the game is any more a platonic ideal that I can the results of reasoning about the game.

I'll agree if you admit redpooe fans are a bunch of badger fidling ponces.