Looking for Clues...
- Nov 16, 2016
Well, the language you use is aggressive so lets agree it is attacking me, but thats fine. I dont understand why, but if it makes you feel better then fine.Of course it's much more convenient for you to spin that as people saying 'City are not getting any dubious decisions in their favour'. Then all you have to do is point to a single dubious decision. Boom. Those mysterious people whom you can't actually quote have been soundly defeated. Simples.
The alternative might be for you to stop strawmanning the counterpoints raised by others in this thread. :well done:
Anyway, I'm getting very confused at this point. I thought this thread was about anti-LFC bias. Are you saying that extends to giving decisions to City in order to help them beat us to the title, even in games not being played vs. LFC?
'By and large fair'? Or in line with the suggestion that referees are inconsistent, homers, and beholden to not spoiling the televised matchday experience? Meaning referees can still give dubious/bad decisions, but not only for/against the interests of Liverpool Football Club? When is shit refereeing just shit refereeing? When is a mistake a mistake?
(In other words, when is your theory about bias falsifiable? Is it ever? If not, do you not see how that is a problem?)
I'm really not trying to come across like a dickhead with you but it gets very difficult when you distort the arguments that others are making, refuse to answer questions, and then act like people are out of line for not just taking your word on all sorts of different things. It's like pulling teeth getting you to back up the most basic of statements that you make. You cry about other posters coming in here to leave short, snide, bait-y comments after every noteworthy refereeing incident and then you come and do the exact same thing while trying to weasel around owning up to the ridiculous strawman you're attacking.
If you can't stand me and you think the rest of my post is just to attack you, at least address the bold.
City have got a few dubious decisions, which may lead to them winning the title. It may be shit refereeing, but its happening quite a bit over the last ten or so league games. Few dubious pens for them, the Kompany non red card, two possible pens against them today. It could be shit refereeing. But maybe its not. My comment was generalised but, I was told that the City decisions even out. I am not seaching for it. Mysterious person perhaps, not so many people. (Edited... apologies dear readers, should have mentioned at this point the lack of furore in the media when decisions go Citys way, mentioned before.)
Regarding my views on bias against Liverpool, the argument has extended over 40 odd pages, with evidence and support of the fact that these biases exist. You disagree, fair enough. There are a number of forum members who disagree. If you dont see what I see, if you refuse to contemplate that I, or those of a similar view could be correct, what do you want me to say? As far as I am concerned the people you refer to as "biasists" have been consistent enough with their view. From different angles, with different reference points for evidence. As soon as this is produced the "non biasists" require more. Nothing I can do for you there. To me the vias is obvious. To you its not. I doubt you will become enlightened or agree with me without the type of smoking gun evidence you require.
The non biasists will need an autobiography from a referee saying he made a poor call that denied Liverpool because he was afraid SKY would destroy his career. Even then, that wont convince you.