>igniting a Silva debate
That's literally what you did.
You sure talk a lot without saying anything. Loca had a bad game; he shaky, misspassed like a mother, out of position, got passed easily, and look flustered in the last 20-30 minutes. It does't have anything to do with stats. He simply had a bad game and you're excusing his bad performance because he showed something pretty? That doesn't fly in football am afraid.
Jesus you're one defensive dude.
There's a reason why people reply with "didn't read lol" posts. Cuz your posting style is a mess. Ever wrote a memo, e-mail, or anything work-related. The lesser words you use the better, nobody has time for your wall-o-texts that can literally be summarized into 3-4 lines at most.
Here is the executive summary: you write with authority that is unearned because you miss what people are writing and your constant need to be validated through references to authority underlines a deeper problem in you that I wish you would give up on because it is tiresome.
For explication of the above:
1) I did not intend to start anything. I said that repeatedly in my posts, I just wanted to know what he (Silva) was doing wrong. I apologized for that, and it seems your reflexive anger stems from this. Again, I sincerely apologize for starting a fight that is tiresome. It was not my intention.
2) I said he (Locatelli) had a bad game. At no point did I say he had a good game. I'm afraid you are the one who are inferring things based on your own feelings. It doesn't seem that people have to say much, you assume it for them, which in my line of work is a bad thing to do.
3) Your posting style is laced with the wisdom of a teen that is fueled by your petulance and the angst of someone who has sophomoric tastes that they try to pass off as those of a connoisseur.
4) Speaking about my work, not knowing what I do, and trying to find another place to use some sort of "authority" by referring to work and writing memos illustrates your need to use a place of authority and experience when you do not have any. You use it as a place so that your arguments have a gravity--but they simply reflect you have fights with issues that are not there (see Locatelli point above). I get the sense that you believe in your own importance and that you have achieved some sort of status through some mid-level position and corresponding entry level luxury car. It is why you cannot have a constructive discussion, because you dismiss what others write because of the larger feeling that you have: you were angry at me for talking about Silva. I apologized for that. This caused you to lash out, because let's face it: no matter what you say about what you do or why you have opinions I should listen to, your delivery of said opinions is poor. Furthermore, my decision to be condescending to you and unpack the underlying problems with you will probably make things worse, but frankly your tone and style annoys me. You are combative with people on this forum for no reason and your Holden Caulfield persona is mixed with constant references to authority that you do not have and frankly neither do I with you (whatever I tell you about what I do, will you believe me? Will I believe you? No), you stumble around trying to find places to avoid the arguments that are being made so you use your writing style and words such as "objective" to indicate authority, which very few people on this forum have, you and I do not. It's tiresome and annoying.
The reason why you think I am repeating myself is because your reading comprehension is poor, you assume things and insert your own feelings which makes your analysis inaccurate.
Take care.