Jump to content

Dundee vs. Sevco - 9/12/18


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 756
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 minutes ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

Image result for that's the joke

ETA: It's "tack", anyway. You disgust me. :lol:

I know.

That's why you shouldn't even start me on the 'tact' people.

I'll match your 'That's the joke' thing with That's the fucking joke!

These whooshes could eat themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheCelt67 said:

If he's a Catholic QotS fan, is it like a two birds with the one stone type of thing? 

Unless your name's David, you might be better with a gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, weegienative said:

Who's angry? You trying to attach emotion to online text? Nice try. "Arrogant sniggering" was the one you were looking for.

That's not an emotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, weegienative said:

I wouldn't expect you to understand the underlying meaning so here it is explained...

We know "arabs" refer to Dundee Utd fans rather than a race of people from the middle East. We also know the term ****** refers to members of the Irish rebellion and not all Catholics. But the media/various other groups with a vested interest attempt to attach all sorts of other meanings to the song in order to point score using political correctness. 

I've merely done the same and look at your reaction. If Dundee or Dundee utd were more high profile it would be quite easy to make a big fuss and get that version banned too. It's pathetic.

The fact anyone is arguing about what group of people it's ok to sing about killing rather than the fact the song is about killing people must surely highlight, even to the likes of you, how ludicrous the whole debate is.

Dundee fans don't mention anyone dying! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I missed the offside. According to the BBC Lafferty had a goal chalked off after a Kent cut back. Now a cut back would imply that Lafferty was behind the play and therefore couldn't be offside as similar to a goal scored by a player connecting with a cross from a corner.

Was not a cut back, no sirree........[emoji149][emoji149]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Snafu said:

I missed the offside. According to the BBC Lafferty had a goal chalked off after a Kent cut back. Now a cut back would imply that Lafferty was behind the play and therefore couldn't be offside as similar to a goal scored by a player connecting with a cross from a corner.

It wasn't a cut back. Lafferty was behind the ball but probably in front of the last defender. That's why the linesman made a c**t of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I missed the offside. According to the BBC Lafferty had a goal chalked off after a Kent cut back. Now a cut back would imply that Lafferty was behind the play and therefore couldn't be offside as similar to a goal scored by a player connecting with a cross from a corner.


IMG_3884.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

That's not an emotion.

Every poster in this thread who interacts with GreetinNative is like a cat playing with its delicious mousey food. This particular taunt gave me a chuckle: it's a subtle variation on "You're not even wrong..."

The only remaining question is whether he can gather some sort of composure and dignity before zooming[sic] into the Head's Gone thread. The smart money is against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...