| Ashton OUT (n/t) on 13:19 - Mar 30 with 346 views | bluelagos |
I'll also add (and this is not a look at me) that I have first hand experience of being reported on by the Guardian.
From experience they absolutely double/triple check stories before they go to press. Lawyers often run their eyes over any stories too
Sure same applies to all the reputable media. |  |
|  |
| Ashton OUT (n/t) on 13:29 - Mar 30 with 301 views | Dubtractor |
| Ashton OUT (n/t) on 13:00 - Mar 30 by TheMoralMajority |
That's an incredibly disingenuous approach. You have taken 1 word from the first sentence, which has no meaningful impact on the rest of the post and chosen to amplify that. I'm not entirely sure that is arguing "in good faith".
However, let's take that one word and extrapolate:
The players were and probably still are furious about all this
So, your insinuation as far as I can tell, is that it is ok that they were furious but are not any more? Am I reading that correctly, and if so, why is it ok? [Post edited 30 Mar 13:02]
|
Disingenuous is a bit of an understatement! |  |
| |
| Ashton OUT (n/t) on 13:11 - Mar 31 with 132 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Ashton OUT (n/t) on 12:39 - Mar 30 by baxterbasics |
I've a feeling those reasons would have been less important if Smodz was banging in the goals. Which he wasn't, making it an easy decision. |
Well exactly |  |
| |
| Ashton OUT (n/t) on 13:24 - Mar 31 with 91 views | tonybied |
It's also easy to make up hypothetical situations, and then try to judge people on how they might possibly react to them. It's not really helpful, nor is there much point in doing so! Better to judge people on the evidence that IS known. [Post edited 31 Mar 13:24]
|  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
