Dingle Don

[Duffers]

Odd why it was shown over and over again, almost trying to show it was more then just a foul. Maybe I'm getting more synical in my old age

Your spelling isn’t getting any better...

Neither is your grammar. "Get" is a lazy word that is not in many dictionaries, and used by many who cannot articulate a better word in the given circumstances.

Incorrect, it’s perfectly acceptable in this context:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.colli...sh/getting

This is where a degree in English Language (and Literature) comes in handy...

Google is your friend here, clearly not your education. All sources here are 21st Century, and modern laziness.

Those of us with an education will not use the word. It is lazy and has no meaning. The fact you choose to use it says plenty about you. It is a substitute that is used when the writer cannot articulate any better grammar.

And the fact that you chose to pull me up on it without actually providing an alternative says plenty about you too minstrel.

I’d stick to slagging off Johnstone to be honest.

[Kit Kat Chunky]

Your spelling isn’t getting any better...

Neither is your grammar. "Get" is a lazy word that is not in many dictionaries, and used by many who cannot articulate a better word in the given circumstances.

Incorrect, it’s perfectly acceptable in this context:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.colli...sh/getting

This is where a degree in English Language (and Literature) comes in handy...

Google is your friend here, clearly not your education. All sources here are 21st Century, and modern laziness.

Those of us with an education will not use the word. It is lazy and has no meaning. The fact you choose to use it says plenty about you. It is a substitute that is used when the writer cannot articulate any better grammar.

And the fact that you chose to pull me up on it without actually providing an alternative says plenty about you too minstrel.

I’d stick to slagging off Johnstone to be honest.

"Can I get fries with that?"

Sums you up, Sunshine.

[Remi_Moses]

Duffers receives (gets) a schooling shocker, how embarrassing. I told you before about trying to look clever. Hahaha.
Kit Kat you slaughtered him, we are not worthy take a bow young man.

[Kit Kat Chunky]

Duffers receives (gets) a schooling shocker, how embarrassing. I told you before about trying to look clever. Hahaha.
Kit Kat you slaughtered him, we are not worthy take a bow young man.

I'm not so young - I remember your debut in the late 70's 

[Ampadu's Left Boot]

Watched the replay of our second and the 'foul' on Ameobi which led to us gaining possession and I'm far from convinced that it was a foul. Ameobi knocks the ball ahead of him with a bad touch, and he and the Livermore both go for the ball which is now almost a 50-50. Neither player seems to touch each other with their challenge but as Ameobi pirouette's his standing leg becomes tangled with Livermore's trailing leg. While it could easily be given as a foul, it was purely accidental and isn't anywhere near as clear-cut as some of their fans were making it out to be.

Go to 1:39:00 for the replays:

https://eplfootballmatch.com/west-bromwi...uary-2020/

Also, the 'foul' by Sawyers on Lolley on the edge of the box wasn't a foul. You can see Sawyers gets a touch on the ball with his studs first, as the ball changes direction and is pushed away from Lolley and towards O'Shea. A slight contact with the ball, but a significant one.

Go to 1:37:50 at the link for the replays of this incident.

[Kit Kat Chunky]

Watched the replay of our second and the 'foul' on Ameobi which led to us gaining possession and I'm far from convinced that it was a foul. Ameobi knocks the ball ahead of him with a bad touch, and he and the Livermore both go for the ball which is now almost a 50-50. Neither player seems to touch each other with their challenge but as Ameobi pirouette's his standing leg becomes tangled with Livermore's trailing leg. While it could easily be given as a foul, it was purely accidental and isn't anywhere near as clear-cut as some of their fans were making it out to be.

Go to 1:39:00 for the replays:

https://eplfootballmatch.com/west-bromwi...uary-2020/

Also, the 'foul' by Sawyers on Lolley on the edge of the box wasn't a foul. You can see Sawyers gets a touch on the ball with his studs first, as the ball changes direction and is pushed away from Lolley and towards O'Shea. A slight contact with the ball, but a significant one.

Go to 1:37:50 at the link for the replays of this incident.

Is there any suggestion the EFL will investigate?

[hudds]

Neither is your grammar. "Get" is a lazy word that is not in many dictionaries, and used by many who cannot articulate a better word in the given circumstances.

Incorrect, it’s perfectly acceptable in this context:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.colli...sh/getting

This is where a degree in English Language (and Literature) comes in handy...

Google is your friend here, clearly not your education. All sources here are 21st Century, and modern laziness.

Those of us with an education will not use the word. It is lazy and has no meaning. The fact you choose to use it says plenty about you. It is a substitute that is used when the writer cannot articulate any better grammar.

And the fact that you chose to pull me up on it without actually providing an alternative says plenty about you too minstrel.

I’d stick to slagging off Johnstone to be honest.

"Can I get fries with that?"

Sums you up, Sunshine.

I'm not sure what the issue is here.

The verb is an old and very broad one and often used as an auxillery verb.  The way Duffers has used it is fine ie to indicate lack of attainment "...not getting better".  Remi himself says he is "getting more synical" (sic).  I don't think either could express the attainment/lack of attainment any more simply.  One would have to re-word (eg "Your spelling shows no sign of improvement") which is prim.  Duffers is saying Remi has not gotten any better, which is ye olde English and not incorrect (bit of mischief - Remi has no ill-gotten gains; the archaic form still has currency).

Onions?

[Kit Kat Chunky]

Incorrect, it’s perfectly acceptable in this context:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.colli...sh/getting

This is where a degree in English Language (and Literature) comes in handy...

Google is your friend here, clearly not your education. All sources here are 21st Century, and modern laziness.

Those of us with an education will not use the word. It is lazy and has no meaning. The fact you choose to use it says plenty about you. It is a substitute that is used when the writer cannot articulate any better grammar.

And the fact that you chose to pull me up on it without actually providing an alternative says plenty about you too minstrel.

I’d stick to slagging off Johnstone to be honest.

"Can I get fries with that?"

Sums you up, Sunshine.

I'm not sure what the issue is here.

The verb is an old and very broad one and often used as an auxillery verb.  The way Duffers has used it is fine ie to indicate lack of attainment "...not getting better".  Remi himself says he is "getting more synical" (sic).  I don't think either could express the attainment/lack of attainment any more simply.  One would have to re-word (eg "Your spelling shows no sign of improvement") which is prim.  Duffers is saying Remi has not gotten any better, which is ye olde English and not incorrect (bit of mischief - Remi has no ill-gotten gains; the archaic form still has currency).

Onions?

Get/got/gotten - no place in the English dictionary for it (in my opinion). Use a proper word to describe yourself, not this shabby piece of Americanism. It's cheap and lazy.

[Duffers]

Google is your friend here, clearly not your education. All sources here are 21st Century, and modern laziness.

Those of us with an education will not use the word. It is lazy and has no meaning. The fact you choose to use it says plenty about you. It is a substitute that is used when the writer cannot articulate any better grammar.

And the fact that you chose to pull me up on it without actually providing an alternative says plenty about you too minstrel.

I’d stick to slagging off Johnstone to be honest.

"Can I get fries with that?"

Sums you up, Sunshine.

I'm not sure what the issue is here.

The verb is an old and very broad one and often used as an auxillery verb.  The way Duffers has used it is fine ie to indicate lack of attainment "...not getting better".  Remi himself says he is "getting more synical" (sic).  I don't think either could express the attainment/lack of attainment any more simply.  One would have to re-word (eg "Your spelling shows no sign of improvement") which is prim.  Duffers is saying Remi has not gotten any better, which is ye olde English and not incorrect (bit of mischief - Remi has no ill-gotten gains; the archaic form still has currency).

Onions?

Get/got/gotten - no place in the English dictionary for it (in my opinion). Use a proper word to describe yourself, not this shabby piece of Americanism. It's cheap and lazy.

I think KKC has just received a shoeing from the resident expert. 

Or “gotten” a shoeing if you will....

Also, in your own words, your argument is based on your opinion, nothing more, yet you’ve tried to present it as fact - seems a theme with you.

[Ossian]

Onions?

Express yourself as you choose to, them's mine (onions that is).

If others want to give themselves a thrombosis over it, let that be their concern.