Liverpool FC Forum

peewee wrote:

LFC2007 wrote:

peewee wrote:well you call it research and i will call it speculation and we can end the conversation, i am sure your research comes solely from reading what has been published as by your own admission you are only looking at published arms deals, the fact is that unpublished arms deals may be of greater significance (and probably are) so to draw any conclusion must be purely speculation as you do not have all the facts.

the fact here is your knowledge is exactly the same as anyone elses, based on what they have read as opposed to any real knowledge of the situation

No, research from institutions who compile these stat's for a living.

They may well be incorrect, but I would pay more credence to info taken from a research institute as opposed to info grasped solely from the press.

I don't know how anybody could have any 'real knowledge' of the situation.

Unless of course you are an international arm's dealer.

so the fact you have gone two pages pressing your side while dismissing others sides is purely a waste of time when you finally agree that your knowledge is based on stats that will not be correct, as nobody can really have knowledge of the situation.

so you question someone elses belief that china is a big arms dealer when not even knowing for yourself, as you say thats to your knowledge, but then you admit that nobody can really have any knowledge, so like i said your knowledge on this subject is no more than anyone elses.

so maybe china is a big supplier and maybe they are not, we don't know

Bamaga man wrote:Its like the shoe's on the other foot hey LFC2007

Yet your one word answers such as "joke" "no" and "disreaguard" are really not proving your sources, sorry research to be correct.

Bamaga man wrote:

No, research from institutions who compile these stat's for a living.

Oh yeah, and they'd never be misleading would they, so naive.

Where mega bucks are concerned, na, they'd never mislead anyone  never mind as much as they'd mislead a truck full of grenades down a wrong turn for it to get lost.

LFC2007 wrote:

Bamaga man wrote:Its like the shoe's on the other foot hey LFC2007

Yet your one word answers such as "joke" "no" and "disreaguard" are really not proving your sources, sorry research to be correct.

No, you didn't ask me a specific question. Therefore, I didn't give you a reply.

peewee wrote:listen LFC2007 or whoever you are really, i have noticed may times that when people pick holes in your argument you choose to continue it hoping that your grasp of grammar will let you whittle your way out, when that fails you pop in the 'joke' comment as a way of backtracking.

you don't do yourself any favours mate, wouldn't it be much nicer of just once you say 'ah yes you are right, i have misunderstood something', or said oh my opinion is just speculation based on things i have read that may not be correct'

Bamaga man wrote:

LFC2007 wrote:

Bamaga man wrote:Its like the shoe's on the other foot hey LFC2007

Yet your one word answers such as "joke" "no" and "disreaguard" are really not proving your sources, sorry research to be correct.

No, you didn't ask me a specific question. Therefore, I didn't give you a reply.

Burma, I highlighted it for you in one of the quotes.

LFC2007 wrote:

peewee wrote:listen LFC2007 or whoever you are really, i have noticed may times that when people pick holes in your argument you choose to continue it hoping that your grasp of grammar will let you whittle your way out, when that fails you pop in the 'joke' comment as a way of backtracking.

you don't do yourself any favours mate, wouldn't it be much nicer of just once you say 'ah yes you are right, i have misunderstood something', or said oh my opinion is just speculation based on things i have read that may not be correct'

LFC2007 will do fine, not Karim or Oasis as you constantly suggest.

Bamaga chose to mock my post, I chose to mock his.

There are no 'holes' in my argument.

I put forward a list from a reasonably credible source, accepting at the same time that there is of course a margin for error, just one smaller than press reports alone.

LFC2007 wrote:No-one can or will ever have any real knowledge concerning illegal or unregistered arms deals that may or may not have taken place, that would be speculating.

Bamaga man wrote:

No, research from institutions who compile these stat's for a living.

Oh yeah, and they'd never be misleading would they, so naive.

Bamaga man wrote:Okay, whats your source then LFC2007.

He can't reveal them or he would have to kill you mate 

LFC2007 wrote:There may well be another conspiracy involving international research institutes, but I would make a considered judgement, that not everybody in this world is corrupt.

LFC2007 wrote:

Bamaga man wrote:

No, research from institutions who compile these stat's for a living.

Oh yeah, and they'd never be misleading would they, so naive.

Like I said, and have been saying all along. There will always be a margin for error, and the sources may or may not be correct. However, I would trust those who study the issue for a living ahead of individual press reports, or pure speculation.

There may well be another conspiracy involving international research institutes, but I would make a considered judgement, that not everybody in this world is corrupt.

LFC2007 wrote:

peewee wrote:listen LFC2007 or whoever you are really, i have noticed may times that when people pick holes in your argument you choose to continue it hoping that your grasp of grammar will let you whittle your way out, when that fails you pop in the 'joke' comment as a way of backtracking.

you don't do yourself any favours mate, wouldn't it be much nicer of just once you say 'ah yes you are right, i have misunderstood something', or said oh my opinion is just speculation based on things i have read that may not be correct'

LFC2007 will do fine, not Karim or Oasis as you constantly suggest.

Bamaga chose to mock my post, I chose to mock his.

There are no 'holes' in my argument.

I put forward a list from a reasonably credible source, accepting at the same time that there is of course a margin for error, just one smaller than press reports alone.

peewee wrote:

LFC2007 wrote:No-one can or will ever have any real knowledge concerning illegal or unregistered arms deals that may or may not have taken place, that would be speculating.

how strange, i said that half an hour ago while you were telling us how your information came from your source, when i said its mere speculation you tell us its from research, only when i show you that research is probably flawed and doesn't give you the full story you turn to this comment that i gave you earlier.

come on, i know personally i will think better of you if you just come out and say you were arguing a moot point rather than carrying it on now and acting as though the idea you have now was your idea all along