Dinho lad

http://4gifme.com/gifs/bored_gif-1624.gif

I think it's more likely that he's just not arsed about playing football anymore. The truth hurts.

It's a way of saying I dislike Ashley - certainly is contributive.

Yeah he's dead, any chance you can stop now? When you stop the needless digs at me. Okay, mate? Okay?

This coach still here?

So this cunt is not dead yet?

You and your friends on here can....

I've continually argued my point in utmost boring detail, and have had to make longer and longer posts to explain things to you as you generally either avoid replying to the actual points being made or decide to not reply at all and instead post personal attacks (see your above post for yet another example of this). It saddens me that you decided that the best way for you to step out of this discussion was pretending not to read my latest post, but also very acceptable and fitting. I, and many others, will certainly be glad we can move on from this now. That's why you started this whole thing in a quite obnoxious manner; you know you've support on this board and that bashing Dinho lad would be prove to be a popular move by you in order to get this support. Sado.

I've continually argued my point in boring detail, and have to make longer and longer posts to explain things to you. It saddens me that you decided that the best way for you to step out of this discussion was pretending not to read my latest post, but also very acceptable and fitting. You kept repeating yourself with the same arguments but with different examples, which further shows your confusion. Go and watch the Antiques Roadshow.

I haven't bothered to read your last post as it was you who was getting worked up about this right from your very first reply. Your replies are even getting longer and longer, which shows how worked up you're getting. (deep down you know because you spouted some shit!) You've proven fuck all and made a fool out of yourself with shit examples and confused yourself as to what your argument was. Go away, clown.

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard. You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it. It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with. Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event. This does nothing. It’s the same argument. In what world has it not been a symbolic act? Jesus christ, man. For absolute fucking fucks sake. Taking the match ball after you score a hat trick is to commemorate the event with a symbol from the match. If you scored three or zero goals with the ball you take makes no difference to the intended purpose of taking the match ball. So now you're hanging onto the point that this is inherit? (Which it is, but as I mentioned before, everything else has symbolism to it!) You're contradicting yourself time and time again... Thanks... it's been a pleasure. Delightfully ironic. How did I contradict myself, then? You mocked me when I touched upon the point that it may no longer symbolic, by asking, sarcastically, when was it ever not symbolic.(And no, you can't mention its 'inherent' nature as clearly I was talking about the act and intention of the player - not the philosophy behind it!) Later, you say oh yes 'I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore'! Time-fucking-waster. Again...this is the impression of you: The difference between you and I is that I at least try to stick to the discussion at hand rather than resort to weird personal attacks to deflect from a losing hand. Again, as mentioned, the snippet you've chosen to extract and base a new argument on is, in context, used to exemplify why it's always been a symbolic act. My argument started with "When has it not been a symbolic act?", and it's what I've been arguing the entire time. I conceded something raised by KI, which is that there can be different layers of symbolism attached to something. I'm not disputing that if a ball was the ball that was used for all three goals, it does not have more symbolic meaning for someone. But that was never my argument. My argument was that there's never been a time when taking home the match ball after a hat trick was not a symbolic gesture. You've, for some reason, argued against this even though the post I initially replied to said that it was fair enough if it was a symbolic gesture - which I've time and time again have explained to you, but for some reason you refuse to pick up on it. In simplified terms: Question: When has taking the match ball home after a hat trick ever not been symbolic? Example 1: Taking the match ball home after a hat trick in the one ball era: symbolic. Example 2: Taking the match ball home after a hat trick in the multi ball era: symbolic. Resolution: It's always been symbolic. I agreed that the symbolism is there inherently. I simply was going beyond this (the materialistic factor), and because obviously you can make everything into a symbol anyway. Keep covering your arse with more bullshit. 'Losing hand', ffs.

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard. You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it. It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with. Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event. This does nothing. It’s the same argument. In what world has it not been a symbolic act? Jesus christ, man. For absolute fucking fucks sake. Taking the match ball after you score a hat trick is to commemorate the event with a symbol from the match. If you scored three or zero goals with the ball you take makes no difference to the intended purpose of taking the match ball. So now you're hanging onto the point that this is inherit? (Which it is, but as I mentioned before, everything else has symbolism to it!) You're contradicting yourself time and time again... Thanks... it's been a pleasure. Delightfully ironic. How did I contradict myself, then? You mocked me when I touched upon the point that it may no longer symbolic, by asking, sarcastically, when was it ever not symbolic.(And no, you can't mention its 'inherent' nature as clearly I was talking about the act and intention of the player - not the philosophy behind it!) Later, you say oh yes 'I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore'! Time-fucking-waster. Again...this is the impression of you:

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard. You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it. It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with. Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event. This does nothing. It’s the same argument. In what world has it not been a symbolic act? Jesus christ, man. For absolute fucking fucks sake. Taking the match ball after you score a hat trick is to commemorate the event with a symbol from the match. If you scored three or zero goals with the ball you take makes no difference to the intended purpose of taking the match ball. So now you're hanging onto the point that this is inherit? (Which it is, but as I mentioned before, everything else has symbolism to it!) You're contradicting yourself time and time again... Thanks... it's been a pleasure.

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard. You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it. It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with. Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event.

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard. You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it.

Just stick to why the players do it. WHY?! So fucking what if there are deeper reasons behind it?

My response is above.

I'd put a bet anytime that the players are doing it for the 'materialistic' reason rather than the 'philosophical' reason.

Useless example. The ball has something 'special' about it.

You could argue an 'inherent' symbolism for everything in life!

What about medals?

Maybe the players are simply carrying on with that tradition without a second thought about the how the system of multi-balls have 'changed' the meaning behind it?

You're simply repeating the argument. The ball is 'special' because it was that ball that a hat-rick was scored with - assuming it's correct that in previous eras only one ball was used (I might be wrong about it, but that's the impression that I'm under). Anyway, what about winners' medals, Kaizero? Symbolic or the prize? (And no, you didn't answer this question appropriately).

He also wants to stay here as long as possible, with the view of hopefully something changing, as he clearly values his position as NUFC manager.