Because to state "McGuire's injury could well act as a lesson to any other player watching that it doesn't pay to cheat. Perhaps the rugby Gods have punished him for his unsportsmanlike play" infers that his injury was as a result of karmic justice and as such deserved and the fault of Mcguire, which considering the very real risk of injury and worse to players playing our game, i find it pretty tasteless and unacceptable for someone who acts as a public face of our game to say.

Are you saying that you find it acceptable for Clarke to infer Mcguire deserved the injrury and was to blame for it.

Or

That Clarke isnt inferring Mcguire deserved and was to blame for the injury?

really? you think the meaning of a sentence is always dependant on the order the words appear? That is a very naive understanding of the english language but it does explain a lot.
i didnt ever say he was 'happy' about it did i?

It's pointless even bothering with you as you simply repeat the same lines time after time.

All you've done above is make assertions as to what you think Clarke meant.

Either way, you need to pull yer knickers put of yer 'arris!

He said "PERHAPS the Rugby Gods have punished him for his unsportsmanlike play".

He didn't say "HOPEFULLY the Rugby Gods have punished him for his unsportsmanlike play".

its a very simply question

Can you read?

I said it was the [i"appropriate interpretation"[/i of the [i"consecutively ordered words forming sentences and opinions which you appear incapable of handling in a rational and unbiased manner"[/i.

I’ve not popped onto the Warrington board so I can’t comment on that front. However it looks like that Danny has got you right where he wants you.

That’s complaining about his cheeky but not nasty character that he is on here.

Think about it…

I mentioned that was the key word on Friday. They've been too busy frothing at the mouth to take it on board.

He did indeed, but why would you think that prefacing offensive statements with uncertain adverbs removes the possibility of causing offence?

Why would i base my interpretation on the order of the words and not their context and meaning? The order of the words is pretty much secondary to context and meaning.

I'll tell you Damo, he's wrong as per usual. David makes wild assertions but never backs them up. His worst (and most unforgivable) was when he said Jayne Tomlinson was faking her cancer. Just don't get on the wrong side of him, that's all I can say.

Anyway, I digress. ALL OVER the board would suggest on every thread rather than starting the one thread like I have done.

Like I say, wild assertions.

It's the key contextual difference between what Clarke questioningly said and what McClennan disgustingly and pointedly said.

The problem for those who cry wolf too often is they are never believed when they are telling the truth.

PERHAPS and HOPEFULLY, McGuire will think twice next time about ordering a stretcher when there's fook all wrong with him like he did at Wembley last month, eh?

Are you really so clueless about rugby that you think McGuire will have ordered the stretcher?

Your comments about McGuire "faking injuries" are far more insidious than Mclennan's comments.

I suspect Geoff's knowledge of the English language is limited to reading the address's on the mail he's delivering, whilst Danny is simply a very immature plonker, in the best Del Boy tradition.

Simples.

Are they more insidious than Clarke's?

Clarke's are fine. Keith's were the most insidious (and he was proven very wrong, sadly) then Mclennan's were the next worse.

Is it perhaps part of your agenda to omit key words and quotations in your responses?

I said [iconsecutively[/i ordered words and the [iappropriate[/i interpretation thereof.

Your confirmed inability to apply any requisite form of appropriate interpretational skills fit neatly alongside your inability to accurately read and respond directly what others have actually wrote.

If you're going to post in such a pompous manner it should have been "[ihave actually written[/i"

HTH

Are you suggesting McGuire wasn't faking it at Wembley?

The order of the words, whether consecutive or not, is secondary to context and meaning when interpreting the meaning of the statement. It can in fact, in a lot of cases be irrelevant.

the fact you use the word appropriate is irrelevant and your focus on it is nonsense

It is perhaps part of your agenda that you have failed to answer why prefacing a statement with an uncertain adverb removes the potential for offence.

I'm not a fanatic and perhaps not even a good supporter these days (compared to my past)....but some on here do seem interested only in parading their majestic self perceived superiority over everbody else. (RL often takes a back seat).

Perhaps [ithey[/i are these "gods of rugby" often now spoken of.... and are now irritated at their cruel dispensing of justice been questioned.

However, ALL gods are superstitious figments of our imagination: they will dissipate and hold no real power if you ignore their dogma.

P.s. McClennan was imbecilic in his reaction: should have waited.

He commands no respect anyway for his persistent inability to drop Diskin (and Kirke) ...and promote Ambler, with Buderus of course promoted to the full 80 mins.

It is definitely part of your agenda that you have intentionally failed to answer why concluding a statement with a certain adverb removes the potential for offence, whilst insisting upon the existence of a non-injurious context which does not exist.

Ooo... this is goooood.

I havent failed to answer, i think someone (you) failed to ask it.

It doesnt remove the potential of offence, I have never said it does. I said the context removed the offence and the words he used should have made that context clear to all.

The non-injurious context is the context Mcclennan set out at the beginning of the statement. "It's just the way it goes and we're not going to use injuries as an excuse for our position in the table." Here Mcclennan sets out his context as the affect injuries have had on Leeds position in the table. He then goes on to talk about how he hopes other teams are affected the same was as injuries are part and parcel of the season.

And just for you he does it consecutively aswell



Now, are you ready to inform us why prefacing a statement with an uncertain adverb removes the potential for offence?