comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by Wahl (U22164)
posted 5 hours, 42 minutes ago
OK, I finally figured out a way to explain it.

Say you have two people who make a bet at the start of the season. One thinks Liverpool will win the league and the other thinks Man City will win the league, so they make a bet on that. As the season goes on, the one who thought Liverpool will win the league realises that Man City are going to win the league so his original opinion that he thought Liverpool would win the league changes. The season ends and Man City win the league. The person who bet that Man City would win the league goes to his friend and asks him to pay up but the friend argues that he shouldn't have to because he ended up changing his mind and thinking that City would win the league. He refuses to honour the bet for that reason.

I'm sure anyone can see that that's clearly wrong and that regardless of whether his opinion changed on who would win the league, he should have honoured the best because he made an agreement with his friend. The situation with Klopp is the exact same. It does not matter that he changed his mind about whether spending money in football was good or bad, he is entitled to do so. However he gave his word that if he faced a situation where he would have to spend money to keep his job that he'd leave his job. Even if he changes his mind, like the person in our example did, he still has to honour his word, or the bet in our example, and do what he agreed to do.

Now does it make sense?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What bet did klopp make and to whose detriment, apart from yours, is it that he's changed his mind. Zero other parties are impacted by him changing his mind. That's where your analogy falls apart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought it fell apart at “Ok, I finally figured out.......” myself.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Wahl (U22164)
posted 7 hours, 21 minutes ago
OK, I finally figured out a way to explain it.

Say you have two people who make a bet at the start of the season. One thinks Liverpool will win the league and the other thinks Man City will win the league, so they make a bet on that. As the season goes on, the one who thought Liverpool will win the league realises that Man City are going to win the league so his original opinion that he thought Liverpool would win the league changes. The season ends and Man City win the league. The person who bet that Man City would win the league goes to his friend and asks him to pay up but the friend argues that he shouldn't have to because he ended up changing his mind and thinking that City would win the league. He refuses to honour the bet for that reason.

I'm sure anyone can see that that's clearly wrong and that regardless of whether his opinion changed on who would win the league, he should have honoured the best because he made an agreement with his friend. The situation with Klopp is the exact same. It does not matter that he changed his mind about whether spending money in football was good or bad, he is entitled to do so. However he gave his word that if he faced a situation where he would have to spend money to keep his job that he'd leave his job. Even if he changes his mind, like the person in our example did, he still has to honour his word, or the bet in our example, and do what he agreed to do.

Now does it make sense---------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a fookin life you sad fack

comment by Wahl (U22164)
posted 8 hours, 15 minutes ago
OK, I finally figured out a way to explain it.

Say you have two people who make a bet at the start of the season. One thinks Liverpool will win the league and the other thinks Man City will win the league, so they make a bet on that. As the season goes on, the one who thought Liverpool will win the league realises that Man City are going to win the league so his original opinion that he thought Liverpool would win the league changes. The season ends and Man City win the league. The person who bet that Man City would win the league goes to his friend and asks him to pay up but the friend argues that he shouldn't have to because he ended up changing his mind and thinking that City would win the league. He refuses to honour the bet for that reason.

I'm sure anyone can see that that's clearly wrong and that regardless of whether his opinion changed on who would win the league, he should have honoured the best because he made an agreement with his friend. The situation with Klopp is the exact same. It does not matter that he changed his mind about whether spending money in football was good or bad, he is entitled to do so. However he gave his word that if he faced a situation where he would have to spend money to keep his job that he'd leave his job. Even if he changes his mind, like the person in our example did, he still has to honour his word, or the bet in our example, and do what he agreed to do.

Now does it make sense?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear..

wahl, why do you even care about this?

What bet did klopp make
-------------------------
He made an agreement. If he had to spend money and change his approach then he promised he wouldn't do so and would quit instead.


Zero other parties are impacted by him changing his mind.
-----------------------
That's true, but why does that ruin the analogy?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 8 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by Wahl (U22164)
posted 53 minutes ago
What bet did klopp make
-------------------------
He made an agreement. If he had to spend money and change his approach then he promised he wouldn't do so and would quit instead.


Zero other parties are impacted by him changing his mind.
-----------------------
That's true, but why does that ruin the analogy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the very premise of the example you used was a comparison. If in your analogy the issue is that someone didn't honour a bet made with another person, yet with klopp there is no "other person" then the whole thing is ruined. Like you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does there have to be another person :/ what if the person in my analogy was a ja606 user who said they would delete their account if Liverpool didn’t win the league, eventually realised that city were going to win the league and regretted their decision and thus when city did win the league, refused to follow through with deleting his account, saying that he changed his mind. It doesn’t affect anyone else that he didn’t delete his account, but It’s still wrong because he made a promise and didn’t keep it, regardless of whether his opinion changed.

comment by Wahl (U22164)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 8 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by Wahl (U22164)
posted 53 minutes ago
What bet did klopp make
-------------------------
He made an agreement. If he had to spend money and change his approach then he promised he wouldn't do so and would quit instead.


Zero other parties are impacted by him changing his mind.
-----------------------
That's true, but why does that ruin the analogy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the very premise of the example you used was a comparison. If in your analogy the issue is that someone didn't honour a bet made with another person, yet with klopp there is no "other person" then the whole thing is ruined. Like you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does there have to be another person :/ what if the person in my analogy was a ja606 user who said they would delete their account if Liverpool didn’t win the league, eventually realised that city were going to win the league and regretted their decision and thus when city did win the league, refused to follow through with deleting his account, saying that he changed his mind. It doesn’t affect anyone else that he didn’t delete his account, but It’s still wrong because he made a promise and didn’t keep it, regardless of whether his opinion changed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you just delete your account please?

Filtered. Hope you do the same, then you have nothing to complain about

comment by Wahl (U22164)
posted 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 8 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by Wahl (U22164)
posted 53 minutes ago
What bet did klopp make
-------------------------
He made an agreement. If he had to spend money and change his approach then he promised he wouldn't do so and would quit instead.


Zero other parties are impacted by him changing his mind.
-----------------------
That's true, but why does that ruin the analogy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the very premise of the example you used was a comparison. If in your analogy the issue is that someone didn't honour a bet made with another person, yet with klopp there is no "other person" then the whole thing is ruined. Like you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does there have to be another person :/ what if the person in my analogy was a ja606 user who said they would delete their account if Liverpool didn’t win the league, eventually realised that city were going to win the league and regretted their decision and thus when city did win the league, refused to follow through with deleting his account, saying that he changed his mind. It doesn’t affect anyone else that he didn’t delete his account, but It’s still wrong because he made a promise and didn’t keep it, regardless of whether his opinion changed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you are talking about going back on a "bet"
Is that what Klopp did in your eyes
You really are like a child

Your love for Maureen has left you in a mess and your weird hatred for us and Klopp is just pure envy as Klopp and Pep's stock keeps rising and the special once turns into a crap tv pundit

comment by Wahl (U22164)
posted 6 hours, 51 minutes ago
Filtered. Hope you do the same, then you have nothing to complain about
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, you go on about ‘the mark of a man’, and then filter someone for nothing.

You’re nothing but a man child. Now get off our board.

comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by Wahl (U22164)
posted 6 hours, 51 minutes ago
Filtered. Hope you do the same, then you have nothing to complain about
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, you go on about ‘the mark of a man’, and then filter someone for nothing.

You’re nothing but a man child. Now get off our board.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely pathetic isnt it. Comes onto an unrelated thread, derails it completely then filters people.

Never understand why the admins keep allowing him back.

I filtered him for his sake, not mine. Instead of being upset by me, he just ignore me. If he can’t do that, then I have to enforce that.

comment by Wahl (U22164)
posted 12 minutes ago
I filtered him for his sake, not mine. Instead of being upset by me, he just ignore me. If he can’t do that, then I have to enforce that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You take this site way too seriously, you need to find something to occupy yourself in the real world ie get a life.

You take this site way too seriously
———————-
In what way?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Nobody seems to care about Klopp 'going back on his word' except wahl.

You wouldn't happen to have some sort of anti-Liverpool ulterior motive wanting Klopp to leave would you?

comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Wahl (U22164)
posted 12 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 8 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by Wahl (U22164)
posted 53 minutes ago
What bet did klopp make
-------------------------
He made an agreement. If he had to spend money and change his approach then he promised he wouldn't do so and would quit instead.


Zero other parties are impacted by him changing his mind.
-----------------------
That's true, but why does that ruin the analogy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the very premise of the example you used was a comparison. If in your analogy the issue is that someone didn't honour a bet made with another person, yet with klopp there is no "other person" then the whole thing is ruined. Like you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does there have to be another person :/ what if the person in my analogy was a ja606 user who said they would delete their account if Liverpool didn’t win the league, eventually realised that city were going to win the league and regretted their decision and thus when city did win the league, refused to follow through with deleting his account, saying that he changed his mind. It doesn’t affect anyone else that he didn’t delete his account, but It’s still wrong because he made a promise and didn’t keep it, regardless of whether his opinion changed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And would that bother you. Would you demand that the person deleted his account? If so, then the person it impacts is you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well in the same way I'm furrrrking bothered by that fat cuuunt Klopp not keeping his promise so I am impacted.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Liverpool don't deserve the success they've had. It's all founded on lies, going back on your word and hypocrisy. Tainted.

comment by Wahl (U22164)
posted 13 minutes ago
Liverpool don't deserve the success they've had. It's all founded on lies, going back on your word and hypocrisy. Tainted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Wahl (U22164)
posted 22 minutes ago
Liverpool don't deserve the success they've had. It's all founded on lies, going back on your word and hypocrisy. Tainted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by Wahl (U22164)
posted 26 minutes ago
Liverpool don't deserve the success they've had. It's all founded on lies, going back on your word and hypocrisy. Tainted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------