理性討論..冇抽水之意(2) [復制鏈接]

引用第58樓rBB於2009-08-31 22:09發表的“”:
都可以咁講
我就係唔明點解有人又要好針對d黑哨,又要睇

引用第35樓火鳳凰於2009-08-31 20:39發表的“”:
黑哨當然係有啦，有利益衝突既地方就一定會有蠱惑野，呢樣野放諸四海任何年代都係一樣，何況足球現時牽涉既利益咁龐大……

但係相信有黑哨，點解唔可以睇波？呢個世界有部份害群之馬，唔通我就要避開佢，連自己喜愛既足球都唔睇？ [表情]

引用第59樓freezefox於2009-08-31 22:14發表的“”:
唔，其實我都明既。就好似你要去樓下個間茶餐廳食飯，睇到佢d 伙記好唔衞生，但又睇唔到佢地係廚房攪咩。但你又肚餓，又要食，所以就自我安慰。
無野既，d 伙記係外面先會咁拿渣既者。一入到廚房就會好衞生，好乾淨架啦！於是，就可以好開心咁續繼食飯。
.......

引用第60樓火鳳凰於2009-08-31 22:15發表的“”:
其實我都已經認真答過你，不過你無理我，繼續話無人答你，所以我先問你開呢個 topic 究竟係想真心討論定係想批評「有人」、「d人」……
正如我自己做生意既，亦明白商場好多私商授授、貪污等等既害群之馬，我亦非常「針對」呢的人，但係我仍然會用我自己認為岩既方法繼續去做生意，唔會刻意去避開佢地一樣道理……

引用第60樓火鳳凰於2009-08-31 22:15發表的“”:
其實我都已經認真答過你，不過你無理我，繼續話無人答你，所以我先問你開呢個 topic 究竟係想真心討論定係想批評「有人」、「d人」……
正如我自己做生意既，亦明白商場好多私商授授、貪污等等既害群之馬，我亦非常「針對」呢的人，但係我仍然會用我自己認為岩既方法繼續去做生意，唔會刻意去避開佢地一樣道理……

引用第61樓rBB於2009-08-31 22:15發表的“”:
唔關事
茶餐廳我一向都知唔乾淨

引用第63樓rBB於2009-08-31 22:16發表的“”:
自己喜愛既足球,但因為呢d事件,唔會令你覺得無咁喜愛咩

引用第63樓rBB於2009-08-31 22:16發表的“”:
自己喜愛既足球,但因為呢d事件,唔會令你覺得無咁喜愛咩

引用第64樓freezefox於2009-08-31 22:16發表的“”:
比喻者。「喻體」本身無意義既。 [表情] [表情] [表情] [表情]

引用第67樓rBB於2009-08-31 22:21發表的“”:
「整你！咁巴閉，唔好入黎食飯哎！又要入黎食又要嘈！去大酒店哎笨！」
呢句岩
佢令你不得不面對一個你一直最逃避唔想去面對既事實：「整！呢間餐廳真係好污糟…………」
.......

引用第63樓rBB於2009-08-31 22:16發表的“”:
自己喜愛既足球,但因為呢d事件,唔會令你覺得無咁喜愛咩

引用第32樓諗唔到改咩名好於2009-08-31 20:29發表的“”:
中國足球是沒有黑哨的

Was It A Penalty?
We’ve had lots of Arsenal fans on here over the past couple of days telling us that Wayne Rooney dived, just like Eduardo, to earn United their equalising goal and way back in to the game. We have been accused of wearing red-tinted specs (something I happily admit to and challenge any passionate football fan to view a game from any perspective other than biased towards their own team!) and that is why we fail to see what a cheat Rooney really is.
I would argue the only ‘cheat’ from Saturday’s match was Eboue, who intentionally went out to try and con the ref, just days after the media storm around Eduardo’s dive and ban. But apparently, according to Arsenal fans at least, Rooney is exactly the same.
So, what better way to judge the penalty incident than to read the match reports. Given that the press have been having weekly wanks over Arsenal’s performances, surely they would be able to spot a cheating and diving Rooney if they saw one. After all, they all hung him out to dry following our 2-0 win over them in 2004.
Was it a penalty?
Official Arsenal website: YES
Arsenal had looked good value for their lead until the 59th minute when Manuel Almunia clipped Wayne Rooney in the area. Rooney raced across the area and poked the ball away from Almunia. The keeper certainly made contact with the striker as he went through. Rooney picked himself up and stroked the ball home from the spot.
The Times: YES
Wayne Rooney had won and scored the penalty that drew United level after Manuel Almunia had inexplicably raced out and caught the forward’s ankles.
The Guardian: YES
The Spaniard was suckered at the United equaliser, after 58 minutes, when he brought down Wayne Rooney. The attacker was chasing a Giggs through ball and had nudged it towards the flank just before the goalkeeper made contact with him. Rooney swept in the penalty.
The Observer: YES
Arsenal were in front and in control until Manuel Almunia left his line too enthusiastically and bundled Wayne Rooney over while trying to reach the ball. Wenger seems to like players who are “shrewd in the box”. Maybe he needs to have a word with his own goalkeeper.
The Sun: YES
In the 59th minute United somehow were level and there was no question it was a penalty, either. Rooney roared into the box on a diagonal run and was needlessly felled by Manuel Almunia. Just what the Arsenal keeper was doing charging out to that part of his area only he will know. Rooney picked himself up and coolly put it away.
The Independent: YES
Unlike the Eduardo travesty in mid-week, the Rooney penalty which snapped Arsenal’s extremely impressive hold over the reigning champions was inevitable. Manuel Almunia could only have offered himself and his team up more spectacularly if he had brought along his own altar of sacrifice. Wenger said the penalty award was “Old Traffordish”, which made you wonder quite what category in which to place the Eduardo affair.
The Mirror: YES
Arsenal were in complete control but a rush of blood to Manuel Almunia’s head, when he needlessly upended Rooney to concede a penalty, handed United a way back into the game.
The Telegraph: YES
Wenger was waspish in his verdict of the penalty decision that gave United their equaliser. “Oldtraffordish,” was the neologism he coined for it. True, when Manuel Almunia, the Arsenal goalkeeper, came flying out to challenge Wayne Rooney, the England striker started to go down before contact was made. But there was substantial contact, unlike with the Eduardo incident, so it was a penalty. Rooney converted from the spot.
Even The Daily Mail, who totally ripped United and Sir Alex Ferguson to shreds in their report: YESAbou Diaby might have followed Rooney’s penalty - courtesy of Manuel Almunia’s needless foul on the England striker - with a quite spectacular 64th minute own goal but, had it not been for that momentary loss of concentration, he would have been man of the match.

引用第70樓麥精於2009-09-01 00:07發表的“”:
咁如果你好鐘意一個女仔..會唔會因為原來佢冇剃毛而唔鐘意佢呀?? [表情]
[明抽水] 唔好成日話人地針對你..自己諗下有冇針對人先啦QC仔[/明抽完水] [表情]