Spot on.

Oh dear another one of the usual suspects in agreeance with another shocker.
Even though that was not what was said or implied but don't let that stop you licking @r5e, you do it so well.

Just my opinion, you clearly don't like it.

Dreary my. We are doing really well ATM and yet the usual suspects still try to put a downer on us. Dear oh dear

Its you, every single post you have to comment on people been negative , even when nobody is been, you love calling yourself an happy clapper. Your just an annoyance

My opinion thanks

Aah, losing the argument so the personal insults start.

You said



Which - forgive me - isn't very well worded. You appear to say that had London and Bradford not had a worse season than us then possibly we could have been relegated. That is the same as saying that if we had a better season than Hull KR and Salford we'd possibly have finished ninth. We were only a point behind them two so you could even say that either of those could have 'possibly' have been relegated.

There was no condescending comments from me in the first place.

I can comprehend basic English (now that's condescending ).

Your comment of "Realistically relegation was a possibility" is a bit of paradox. Was it realistic we could have been relegated or was it merely a possibility.

Irrelevant really, as it was not a realistic situation. It was a possibility that any one of the teams in the league could have been relegated when the season started. It turned out to be London and Bradford that season. Hull ended up 12 points off the nearest relegated side. Therefore it was neither realistic or a genuine possibility with a month left of that season.

People like you have a glass which has never seen any liquid, let alone be only half empty. Still you pretend everything is doom and gloom.

HTH (oh, yes, now, that is very condescending, isn't it)

Does anyone have any data on how many swallows it takes to make a summer?

Bombed Out wrote:Oh dear another one of the usual suspects in agreeance with another shocker. Even though that was not what was said or implied but don't let that stop you licking @r5e, you do it so well. Agreeance is a word that seems to be continually reinvented and recycled. The term first appeared in the 16th century and enjoyed its greatest popularity in the 18th and early to mid-19th centuries. Since then it has fallen into disuse. Most likely unaware of the word's history, modern writers who recoin the term seem to like how it sounds, even though it adds nothing in meaning to its workhorse counterpart, agreement. The suffix ‐ance indeed is used in English to form many nouns from verbs: for example, appearance, acceptance, performance, and remittance. So while there is no rule preventing the formation agree + -ance, the coinage may sound quaint or pretentious to some people. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agreeance

Bombed Out wrote:Oh dear another one of the usual suspects in agreeance with another shocker. Even though that was not what was said or implied but don't let that stop you licking @r5e, you do it so well. Agreeance is a word that seems to be continually reinvented and recycled. The term first appeared in the 16th century and enjoyed its greatest popularity in the 18th and early to mid-19th centuries. Since then it has fallen into disuse. Most likely unaware of the word's history, modern writers who recoin the term seem to like how it sounds, even though it adds nothing in meaning to its workhorse counterpart, agreement. The suffix ‐ance indeed is used in English to form many nouns from verbs: for example, appearance, acceptance, performance, and remittance. So while there is no rule preventing the formation agree + -ance, the coinage may sound quaint or pretentious to some people. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agreeance