aah, so you believe prefacing a statement with the word 'perhaps' does remove the potential for offence. As i say that is a very naive understanding.

But i do wonder why you were so averse to saying this.

It's only naive if you don't understand what the word perhaps means.

so you wouldnt be offended by the statement 'perhaps' those who contract motor neurone disease deserve it.

or 'perhaps' black people should be forced back to slavery.

which are clearly idiotic and offensive statements in no way mitigated by their prefacing with an uncertain adverb, but they are entirely unoffensive to you?

Like the leeds fans and media who refuse to admit that mcguire injured himself whilst trying to pull Carmont back? That sort of thing?

Unfortunately you seem to have missed off the context within which Clarke chose his words and his use of the word perhaps. It probably explains why people who don't have the capacity to understand simple words would also be incapable of putting them into context.

Wrong again i've never defend him nor have i condoned what he said in anyway and i believe he apolgised (if not i stand to be corrected) and deserved the ban . However you then went on AND WITH FULL FOREKNOWLEDGE and posted your HOLOCAUST tipped agenda on these forums and again put any spin on it you want and claim any victory you want if it makes you feel better i wont be replying . ps I didn't know at the time of my initial post in that thread that it was ap . Enjoy your corner.

ok, lets reproduce the context word for word



now remember there is no further context in which Clarke puts his statement, this is the beginning of the paragraph, the only paragraph, in which Clarke discusses Mcguires injury with simply the name and affliction changed, the principle and context and words are exactly the same.

are you really arguing that the statement Gregory's illness 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.

isnt offensive?

Or are you just trolling because Keith Swiftcorn

told you to

But you were aware when you brought it up again, which makes it all the stranger.

I don't troll. I see you completely got the context wrong again in another desperate example. I don't see why you can't use what Clarke said.

Are you for fcking real?

Are you really using Mike Gregory's illness to make some ill-judged and bll points-scoring comparison to Danny McGuire picking up an injury?

You do, I assume, know Gregory was bitten whilst in Australia?

You do also know, I assume, that McGuire picked up his injury as a DIRECT RESULT of his OWN actions? Oh you can keep coming back with bll replies all night, we all saw it with our own eyes.

Someone ban this boring horrible little twt. Now fck off.

I did use the what clarke said, i simply changed the name and the afflication, i used it word for word.

Unless of course you are saying it was the context (and not the word perhaps) of a players career threatening injury which removed the offence? Because there is no other context which Clarke brings up. If not maybe you could indulge me and explain what other context Clarke is using and where he explains this?

But by your avoidence i think we can accept that you do find the statement offensive (like any normal person would)

And now I know why Leeds are nicknamed Whinos.

Stop crying over something who has nothing to do with the Wigan club has said.

I'd hate to see how you'd react if our head coach accused one of your players of intentionally injuring a player then another one of our players spouted more bull about unsportsman like behaviour.



Bring on Saturday...

No, im clearly not. Only an idiot would think I was, I am saying quite clearly that that statement would be idiotic and offensive, the same as it was about Mcguire
no, he didnt, whilst Mcguires injury correllated with him breaking the rules it would be nonsensical to suggest it was caused by it. It was caused by chance. The same as Gregory. Neither were responsible for it and it is offensive to say so.

obviously you are now seeing your own hypocrisy and you dont like it. I dont for one minute believe the statement i put. But i put it to highlight that you would find the same statement applied to a different subject matter very very offensive (which you did) not to offend you to but to hopefully show why Mcguire (not me, not any of the fans on this board nor anybody else) didnt deserve his injury, and certainly didnt deserve Clarkes publicly made statement, which YOU defended.

Are you for real you insensitive #####? I cant believe youve just stumped so low to try to make a point. Go back to your own board.

is that where you draw the line? somewhere between career threatening and life-threatening.

maybe it will make you think again when you say someones unfortunate circumstances are deserved or down to Karma, because when it applies to one person it applies to us all. Maybe now you can see why others found the comments abotu Mcguire insensitive and 'low'. The guy has a serious career-threatening injury its no small matter.

If karma applies to Mcguire it applies to all of us.

Yes you are moron. You're using his name, and his illness to try and score points. You're using Gregory's illness in DIRECT COMPARISON to the Clarke-Mcguire statement. The context doesn't matter - the words are there for all to read. Christ you're stupid.

Understand this: McGuire has an everyday injury; Gregory died from a terrible, horrible, utterly randomly contracted illness. The fact you choose to use his name says a lot about you and I have no time for trash like you.


Shut up prick.

McGuire's injury was caused by chance?? You're so full of sht you're licking yesterday's lunch. It's clear for the whole world to see how he got injured, if you're too fcking stupid to see it and keep waffling crap about 'chance', you're just too stupid, end of story. He grabbed Carmont, and AS A RESULT clipped his foot, then AS A RESULT he was off balance, and AS A RESULT his knee buckled.

Ok, if it was 'chance', he increased the chance of screwing up his knee to 100% when he grabbed Carmont and clipped his heel. The plain, simple, obvious truth is no, he didn't deserve it, but he caused it.

Now just get lost.

No, it isnt an everyday injury, it is a serious and career threatening injury, one which puts him at a much higher risk of having his quality of life impacted through things like degenerative bone disease when his career is finished.

And you are right, the context didnt change, hence the reason it was so offensive for YOU to try and defend Clarkes statement. It was clearly offensive.

And im not trying to score points, i am trying to explain why it is offensive for you to have defended and continue to defend Clarkes statement.

it was chance, and he didnt increase the chance of screwing up his knee to 100% that is clearly nonsense or everybody who grabbed a shirt is would suffer the same injury, this is clearly untrue.

[iMcClennan said: "It's just the way it goes and we're not going to use injuries as an excuse for our position in the table.

"It's part and parcel of the season and other clubs will go through this too hopefully.[/i

Now THAT's karma!!!

Probably the most disgusting method I have seen on these boards to try and win an argument.

You vile cretin

I don't find the statement offensive because I can read without a pitchfork in my hand and hillybilly music playing in the background.

It's pretty obvious to anyone that you need to read the whole thing to appreciate the context and meaning. Something you seem incapable of, to the extent you need to drop what happened to a completely unrelated person into the McGuire context. Mental.

and people are still trying to infer Mcguires injury was deserved, now even using a misrepresentation of someone else words to say why.

...yet more verbal diarrhoea. You just don't know when to stop.


Seriously, just fck off.

its the same principle applied to a different person, it would be the definition of hypocrisy to say that your principle only applied to Mcguire.

And which part of what Clarke put changed the context? the part where he talks about how it wasnt a penalty try or the part where he talks about how Leeds will miss him? the entire quote in full

The hottest topic was the foul by Danny McGuire on George Carmont in the last minute. Some people felt that the referee should've given a penalty try to Wigan, but I don't think that was a possibility when Richards still needed to pass the ball accurately to Carmont, who would have then needed to catch the ball and beat any defender in a 50 metre race to the try line, with the handicap of having to carry a ball as well. I can't understand why McGuire did it? He would have been fast enough to catch Carmont from behind.

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. Either way, he'll be a massive loss for Leeds and I can't see them winning the Grand Final without him. In my opinion, he's been brilliant for them this season.

Ohhh so Clarke's words can't be misrepresented but McClennan's can??

Is that what you're saying????

you could just say you were wrong to defend Clarke's statement and anyone saying or inferring Mcguire deserved his injury was wrong and classless aswell.