Sorry, but that is not what it says. Again you accuse me of mind reading but you are changing the one sentence in the OP to suit your understanding of it. There is no way on earth that that sentence says he was not MOTM but merely Wigans MotM, as it should if it wants to portray the truth.
DJ staying up to be a mind reader!
I think people should write a single sentence and let DJ interpret as to what the article actually says.
OP already told him what the article says, but DJ doesn't believe him.
Yup we all know Ojo was Wigans man of the match twice in 3 games.
Do you dispute this Dj?
I notice DJ isn't arguing about his first hand experiences any more.
I wonder why
DJ is the only one on the thread who didn't understand what the OP was saying. He tried to be a smartass and it has backfired massively onto him and made a fool of himself. Since the OP clarified what he meant he has just been throwing his toys out the pram, and his posts becoming increasingly desperate, which have been wrong too. Painful to watch.
Scouse education
Redinthehead still accusing me of mind reading when all I am doing is reading a sentence the way it is written. The 'we all know he is at Wigan' doesn't change the fact that the article says he was the MOTM. Not Wigans MotM, but the MOTM.
In 3 games for Wigan... Meaning he has played 3 games for Wigan. That is what it says. No mind reading, just reading what it says. You, for some reason, are adding in punctuation to change the meaning of the sentence, or as you put it, mind reading.
What the article says is
Motm for the 2nd time in 3 games for Wigan..
Quite clearly stating he was MOTM, with the extra information that it is the second time in 3 games for Wigan. 3 games for Wigan. Not MOTM for Wigan.
What you are second guessing the sentence reading is
Motm, for the 2nd time in 3 games, for Wigan..
Or even
Wigans MotM for the 2nd time in 3 games.
A significant difference.
Why you are connecting the 'MOTM' directly to the 'for Wigan' is any bodies guess. Mind reading you would say no doubt. But it simply does not say he was Wigans, and not the match, MOTM.
Bloody hell, DJ's been up all night compiling that one Still got it all wrong though
i think his name looks cool
ojo
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
WrongScouse education
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DJ's new fallback phrase when it's all going horribly wrong for him
All waffle, and increasingly desperate. Give it up DJ, you made a mistake, it happens
No, Neo. It is basic English.
comment by terminator1 (U1863)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
WrongScouse education
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DJ's new fallback phrase when it's all going horribly wrong for him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only thing that has gone horribly wrong is the Scouse education system.
It is telling that the only Liverpool fan who understands basic English is RAP. RAP who is from the south of England.
Why does "for Wigan" need to be added when everyone knows he's at Wigan?
It would be pointless.
Seek clarification from the OP, oh you have... and still arguing?
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 38 minutes ago
i think his name looks cool
ojo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It'll be cheap to get on the back of a shirt.
'Dad I want Markovic on the back of my shirt'
'No you're getting Ojo'
DJ, who was man of the match for Arsenal today?
No one. Kondogbia was arguably MOTM, or Fabinho.
Arsenals MOTM was probably given to Alexis, but I would say Coquelin.
Kondogbia or Fabinho aren't arsenal players..
your lack of comprehension is noted.
No, again you fail to understand simple English. The question was answered 'No one', followed by a full stop. A new sentence then explained that answer.
shhhh..
the first players in your reply were Monaco players. You've obviously misunderstood the "for arsenal" bit. Nowhere did I mention Monaco in the question posed...
Obviously this lack of comprehension pours doubt on your other replies in this thread.
Sign in if you want to comment
Ojo
Page 6 of 6
6
posted on 22/2/15
Sorry, but that is not what it says. Again you accuse me of mind reading but you are changing the one sentence in the OP to suit your understanding of it. There is no way on earth that that sentence says he was not MOTM but merely Wigans MotM, as it should if it wants to portray the truth.
posted on 22/2/15
DJ staying up to be a mind reader!
I think people should write a single sentence and let DJ interpret as to what the article actually says.
OP already told him what the article says, but DJ doesn't believe him.
Yup we all know Ojo was Wigans man of the match twice in 3 games.
Do you dispute this Dj?
posted on 22/2/15
I notice DJ isn't arguing about his first hand experiences any more.
I wonder why
posted on 22/2/15
DJ is the only one on the thread who didn't understand what the OP was saying. He tried to be a smartass and it has backfired massively onto him and made a fool of himself. Since the OP clarified what he meant he has just been throwing his toys out the pram, and his posts becoming increasingly desperate, which have been wrong too. Painful to watch.
posted on 22/2/15
Scouse education
Redinthehead still accusing me of mind reading when all I am doing is reading a sentence the way it is written. The 'we all know he is at Wigan' doesn't change the fact that the article says he was the MOTM. Not Wigans MotM, but the MOTM.
In 3 games for Wigan... Meaning he has played 3 games for Wigan. That is what it says. No mind reading, just reading what it says. You, for some reason, are adding in punctuation to change the meaning of the sentence, or as you put it, mind reading.
What the article says is
Motm for the 2nd time in 3 games for Wigan..
Quite clearly stating he was MOTM, with the extra information that it is the second time in 3 games for Wigan. 3 games for Wigan. Not MOTM for Wigan.
What you are second guessing the sentence reading is
Motm, for the 2nd time in 3 games, for Wigan..
Or even
Wigans MotM for the 2nd time in 3 games.
A significant difference.
Why you are connecting the 'MOTM' directly to the 'for Wigan' is any bodies guess. Mind reading you would say no doubt. But it simply does not say he was Wigans, and not the match, MOTM.
posted on 22/2/15
Bloody hell, DJ's been up all night compiling that one Still got it all wrong though
posted on 22/2/15
Wrong Scouse education
posted on 22/2/15
i think his name looks cool
ojo
posted on 22/2/15
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
WrongScouse education
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DJ's new fallback phrase when it's all going horribly wrong for him
posted on 22/2/15
All waffle, and increasingly desperate. Give it up DJ, you made a mistake, it happens
posted on 22/2/15
No, Neo. It is basic English.
posted on 22/2/15
comment by terminator1 (U1863)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
WrongScouse education
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DJ's new fallback phrase when it's all going horribly wrong for him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only thing that has gone horribly wrong is the Scouse education system.
It is telling that the only Liverpool fan who understands basic English is RAP. RAP who is from the south of England.
posted on 22/2/15
Why does "for Wigan" need to be added when everyone knows he's at Wigan?
It would be pointless.
Seek clarification from the OP, oh you have... and still arguing?
posted on 22/2/15
this has gone on abit
posted on 22/2/15
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 38 minutes ago
i think his name looks cool
ojo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It'll be cheap to get on the back of a shirt.
'Dad I want Markovic on the back of my shirt'
'No you're getting Ojo'
posted on 22/2/15
posted on 25/2/15
DJ, who was man of the match for Arsenal today?
posted on 25/2/15
No one. Kondogbia was arguably MOTM, or Fabinho.
Arsenals MOTM was probably given to Alexis, but I would say Coquelin.
posted on 25/2/15
Kondogbia or Fabinho aren't arsenal players..
your lack of comprehension is noted.
posted on 25/2/15
No, again you fail to understand simple English. The question was answered 'No one', followed by a full stop. A new sentence then explained that answer.
posted on 25/2/15
shhhh..
the first players in your reply were Monaco players. You've obviously misunderstood the "for arsenal" bit. Nowhere did I mention Monaco in the question posed...
Obviously this lack of comprehension pours doubt on your other replies in this thread.
Page 6 of 6
6