Not really. He just likes to think he's superior by using phrases and words such as 'Battle of wits' and 'Unarmed'. Unarmed for what exactly I don't know. We're on a Message Board not a f*cking battlefield.

For some, the message board is a battlefield. Granted those people usually spend too much time on the computer...

If you'd bothered to actually read one of my posts, you'd see I have several.

I don't "think" I'm superior, especially where you're concerned. I *KNOW* I am.

Let me see if I can spell this out in a way even you will understand.

I make several points. Each of these points is backed up by evidence & reasons, structured in such a way as to make a readable piece of literature.

In theory, if someone wishes to debate any of these points made, they should do it in a similar way.

In reality, I get such brilliantly well thought-out replies such as "Must try harder", strings of smilies, "Rubbish" and insults. The sad reality is that you have NEVER, EVER managed to actually word a reasonable and understandable post that even begins to break the surface of my case. In fact, I can't actually remember any Saints fan making any decent inroads into one of my arguments without making up a load of false claims or resorting to insults.

The simple fact is, you know I'm right. You don't like it, so you'll rely on your "mob" to back you up simply because you're a Saints fan, but I know that deep down, if you actually became a Rugby League fan (like me), you'd realise I only speak the truth and I make my points well and accurately (yes, with the exception of a reference to Edmondson).

Go ahead, prove me wrong... except you CAN'T. But you won't admit defeat! You'll just go on, making yourself look sillier and sillier, hoping desperately that people will perhaps find your childish and abusive retorts amusing enough to forget that you got absolutely OWNED, and on your own midden.

You brought Karma into the discussion. Once you infer the existence of mystical mumbo jumbo that doesn't exist to support your point of view, then you've either lost the argument you were having or didn't have a point in the first place.

I like how you call someone childish then refer to them being "OWNED"

I had some sympathy with you until I looked at the team sheets for before and after the 75-0

Fri, 10 June 2005
Wigan Warriors V Hull FC Hull 24-28 home
Wigan Warriors: Dennis Moran, Brett Dallas, Martin Aspinwall, Stephen Wild, Brian Carney,Kevin Brown, Danny Orr, Jerry Seuseu, Terry Newton, Jerome Guisset, Danny Tickle, Harrison Hansen, Liam Botham
Subs: Chris Ashton, Wayne Godwin, Bryn Hargreaves, Joel Tomkins
Sun 26 June 2005
Saints 75-0 away
Wigan Warriors: Sean Gleeson, Brett Dallas, Martin Aspinwall, Stephen Wild, Brian Carney, Kevin Brown, Dennis Moran, Jerry Seuseu, Terry Newton, Danny Sculthorpe, Danny Tickle, David Allen, Bob Beswick
Subs: Wayne Godwin, Bryn Hargreaves, Jerome Guisset, Harrison Hansen
9th July
2weeks later Warrington 36-17 home
Wigan Warriors: Chris Melling, Brett Dallas, Martin Aspinwall, David Vaealiki, Liam Colbon, Danny Orr, Dennis Moran, Jerome Guisset, Wayne Godwin, Bryn Hargreaves, David Allen, Stephen Wild, Liam Botham
Subs: Jerry Seuseu, Terry Newton, Danny Tickle, Harrison Hansen

Some positional changes but the general shape is the same. So 5/6 changes to the line up over 4 weeks, to a team, on paper that was able to win but lacked "motivation". But injury ridden well maybe not !

Your self righteous attitude is very amusing.



I think you should entertain us with your Cunningham always passes the ball forward rant or even better your Terry Newton's tackle on Sean Long was perfectly legal rant with pictures included.

It seems the ego has left the building for now.

Maybe Karma doesn't exist, but nevertheless you have to agree that Cunningham deserved a ban, didn't get one, and instead you lose Wellens and Roby to injury.

I didn't call on Karma to support my point of view, just point out that what has happened would be a good reason to perhaps believe that Karma DOES exist. Of course, if Karma really DID exist, then it has a long way to catch up with ALL the wrongs committed by Saints over the years.

My point that Cunningham deserved a ban but didn't get one is still completely rigid. Interesting how when this is the REAL issue, no-one is taking up the chance to debate it, instead they'll pick up on my "Karma" comment, hoping they can somehow debunk my posts, but instead looking rather silly. Thus proving that you DO actually know I'm right.

Let's not get into the Newton issue, I proved my point at the time, several people could actually take off their anti-Newton specs for a while and agreed with me, even people who didn't like me at the time.

But let's just say Newton DID intentionally break Sean Long's cheek... up until we found out there was no injury, Cunningham was guilty of WORSE than Newton. So perhaps you think he should be banned for a year?

I've never said he always passes the ball forward. He does, like a lot of Super League players, make several forward passes, and I am fed up of seeing forward passes from the play-the-ball fail to be picked up by the officials. Which is a fact, you will see several, every week, no matter what match you watch.

So once again, you just make things up to try and score a point over me. It's really quite sad. But it just goes to show... I've every right to be self-assured and confident in my argument, you're typical of the opposition, and you haven't a hope in hell of getting halfway to defeating my points, ever.

Now that I have corrected your comments, feel free to reiterate the truth as seen through your rose tinted glasses (specsaver specials) ergo no broken eye socket, no cheek bone depressed, no injury sustaining a long absence from the game equals no ban large or small.

First off, that's SO grown up. Your parents must be proud. Quoting my post and then changing it; as if that wasn't enough to remove all credibility to your post, you then make a statement that equates to "no injury, no ban".

So you're saying Howell shouldn't have been banned, then? After all, there was no injury to Sam Tomkins! As long as there's no injury, it's OK to punch someone in the face?

Yeah, I think you realise how silly you look just now.

You're great

Completely unrelated events.



Why bother to bring it up then?



It is your opinion that he should have been banned, unfortunately for your argument that doesn't make it fact whether you deem it to be 'completely rigid' or not. Given the sentencing guidelines the RFL now have, if he'd deserved a ban he'd have got one.

What you failed to take in, was that I admitted to correcting your post; therefore negating the need to confirm the same.
On the point of my parents, difficult to answer that as they are both sadly no longer with us, but I suspect that they were proud.
Finally, you are entitled to your opinion of the incident and have made that clear, but the RFL didn't see it your way, so pick another subject and lets await the next chapter in your crusade for justice, wigan style.

Hear you could be without Gardner this weekend, with a bug