Pulis in his own Write

Next Pulis will be suing Mcdonalds for burning his oversized mouth on an apple pie.

Go away.

Well turning you and your inane drivel off would be a result. Haven't you got an Everton game to watch?

Ye I do at 4 o'clock! And how am I "driveling"? You think Shawcross wanted to hurt Ramsey... A simple Yes or No answer will suffice!

@LD - I didn't bring it up!

@ Ozi Gooner - well having finished college with an honours degree I would be classifies as HIGHLY intelligent!

For a start vanilla, I'm troubled vanilla it says a lot for your intelligence that Pulis calling Wenger out of order for mentioning Shawcross kicking someone doesn't trouble you, but Wenger calling someone out of order for snapping a player's leg does. Secondly, show me the quote where Wenger said Shawcross intended to hurt Ramsey. I believe his exact words were, "Please, spare me the stories about what a good guy Shawcross is." He was probably referring to people like you, who take their cue from the media without independent thought.

I think Vanilla killed his brain with a poisonous mushroom.

Oh ye I agree with everything the media say! They only speak the truth... I never mentioned what a "good guy" he was. I just said he never meant to hurt anyone. He could be a dickhead for all I know. And (@ Ozi Gooner) judging someone's intelligence by their Vital username is pretty pathetic! Who cares what Pulis says... it's his job to protect his players from other managers. If someone said something about Fabregas I'd expect Wenger to defend him. YOU GUYS HAVE TO GET OVER THIS "THE WORLD AGAINST ARSENAL" THING. I came on to discuss an article and have gotten little discussion, more like abuse off some. You guys have to accept that maybe even Wenger can be wrong sometimes!

Like I said... THE WORLD AGAINST ARSENAL!

The article isn;t about what Wenger's done it's about what Pulis has done. Yet you didn't mention Pulis in your first five or six posts. Where have we said there is an Arsenal v the world mentality? Could it just be that Pulis is acting like a dick on this occasion? What would we have to confess to? Where in the article would we have cause to reproach Wenger? Why bring up Wenger's comments (which you fabricated anyway) in relation to the Ramsey incident? My comment was to do with the article, yours were just a hotch potch of perceived Wenger criticisms you tried to wheel out which had zero to do with the article. What did you want from the article or the comments? Just random rabbling about things Wenger might have said or done incorrectly over the last 14 years?

Ha wrong again... I'm not British. Just watched the tackle again. you guys are way off the mark. 50/50 tackle that they both went for. Funny how everyone, except Arsenal supporters, accepts that it was a terrible thing to happen but it was just an accident. And as for Wengers interview after... he talked about it being a "coincidence" that you've lost 3 players to bad injuries in 5 years. Eh did you not see the Everton injury table last year, or the Spurs one?

My God you're childish, I already said in my last comment that that had a bearing on the article, your rants against Wenger- who barely features in this piece, had zero to do with it. I saw the Everton injury table but I don't recall three Everton players in three years leaving the pitch with bones poking out of their socks. Shawcross didn't intend to snap Ramsey's leg, no. Why can't you get it into your thick skull that nobody cares if he did or didn't. Read the link I posted (with your master's degree, I'm sure you can muster up the ability to read properly), he was reckless, end of discussion. His intentions are not important and nobody has tried to debate them except for you.

@ Little Dutch - I don't thin it was reckless! I think he went for the ball. I just assumed that you boys would be open for a debate and a bit of banter but have now realised that your just idiots. Wenger is god and can do no wrong... never forget that!

But why did he go for the ball at that speed and with that force? Because if he times it right and wins it, what happens? The ball goes flying out for a goal kick and Ramsey goes flying into the air. What's the point of that? It's the same as driving at 100mph, you'll do it and get away with it 99 times, but when you travel at that speed you're not in control. So when you're driving at 100mph one time and get it wrong and hit a pedestrian stepping into the road, your intentions and how nice a bloke you are, are meaningless. It's a reckless why to drive and you'd be punished by the courts accordingly. When you say, "I assumed you would be open for a debate" what you actually mean is, "I assumed you'd agree with me." Again your asserrtions about AW in that last post are bizarre and completely irrelevant, bear no weight on the discussion at all. I invited you to tell me where you Wenger had said Shawcross intentionally hurt Ramsey, and the best you could do was the word "coincidence." Which shows you've gone with the medai reaction and not the incident itself, about which AW said almost nothing- a good deal less than Pulis did too.

Guys, have you not already been told, stop talking and feeding the trolls....he is a Stoke fan! Its like having a "masters degree" and trying to talk to a 7 year old about Law... ;-) At the end of the day, it gets dark. I love Wenger but i dont think everything he says is correct as know human being can do. I would say that Shawcross was massively slow compared to Ramsey and instead swang his leg as hard and as fast as he could (which still wasnt quick enough) and hit Ramsey instead. Accident, yes. Reckless, i think so. Ramsey had already knicked the ball away and Shawcross was still swinging at it but then i know its hard to stop what your doing while in motion. You, and obviously the management at Stoke have picked up on it more because of your player breaking a Arsenal players leg and Wenger has made comments before regarding the standard of the game. He prob said it so the ref would be aware that the media and himself will be watching him. These mind games have been going on for years, ***** me SAF has been doing it nearly all his carer. If he had said it about Stoke, your guys would of been like "whatever" but because its Wenger and there has been some previous between the clubs, you make a "complaint." What are you expecting out of it, a apology letter? or no more bad press about how Shawcross cant tackle to save his life, and just indangers someone elses?

For someone who doesn't have anything against Arsenal you sure spend a lot of time here bitching and moaning about the club and Wenger

@ Ozi Gooner - I think you'll find I usually post positive things about Arsenal. And what Pulis is doing is too sad to even discuss!

Funny article Amos..lol.

The fact that Tony Penis chose to focus entirely on Arsene's comments about shawcross but ignored his similar comments on huth says everything about Penis' motives.....

Oh ye i'm sure it was very easy for you!

Stay classy arse fans ;)

Vanilla Ice is so ******** stupid he must be a made up character or some sort of social experiment. Hey Vanilla, I'm going to get *****ed and drive like an idiot, I knock down a pedestrian and give them brain damage, do you think asking the question "Did I mean to hurt them?" is even relevant? Goddamn this debate has been done and dusted for decades, the idiots lost it and the law gives you a big clue as to why they lost it. Intention does not excuse recklessness and only an idiot who hasn't thought things through would mention this as a counter point to the thuggery of Shawcross.

True Amos. The only other man in stoke who wears a baseball cap all the time is he whose name shall not be spoken.

I agree with Pulis here. When it suits Wenger, as Red Nose pointed out, his teams can be nasty. The longer Wenger's team go without a trophy, the more of these attention deflecting comments we will see.

Clive 49, I don't think Wenger is alone in the world thinking that the way Stoke play football can be over the limit. Arsenal have finished top of the fair play league countless times but that's not even the point, you could say Wenger is a hypocrite but that's not even the point, the point is that his observation is correct regardless of what you think about him or his team. You don't have to like a person to acknowledge that their observations are correct and the person making those observations doesn't have to represent the moral high ground to give their opinions any credence. If an Arsenal player snapped a Stoke player in half by jumping in to a reckless challenge and Pulis observed that it was dangerous behavior, would Pulis' character and past track record change the facts of the observation? No. People are just looking at Wenger rather than his opinions, why? Because his opinions actually stand up to criticism and analysis so they have a go at the man instead.

Running over people while driving is as much a part of driving as breaking peoples legs when playing football when both are done recklessly and without consideration for other road users/footballers. It's not that difficult to understand really - unless you are determined not to do so.

Professor Calculus, I can be a killer and say killing is wrong.

"That's the thing Amos, they're viewing this discussion through their "Wenger whining again" filter." For the record, I never mentioned Wenger at all. All I said was Vanilla had a valid point and comparing a tackle to a drunk running over pedestrians is so far off its laughable. "Running over people while driving is as much a part of driving as breaking peoples legs when playing football when both are done recklessly and without consideration for other road users/footballers." I must have missed that section in the rules of the road when I started driving but I'm sure tackles feature in the rules of football? Football is team A vs team B. Driving isn't your car vs pedestrians. Its not that difficult to understand at all.

Zbam, it's so simple to understand you must either be stubborn and not want to understand it or stupid. Driving a car involves interacting with pedestrians (there are clues everywhere) which can be hit and killed, and so driving recklessly becomes an issue. Football involves tackles which can hurt and break people and so diving in recklessly becomes an issue. If you drive sensibly you are less likely to hurt or kill someone, if you tackle like Bobby Moore you are less likely to snap someone in half. Pretending this basic logic doesn't exist is either stupid or reckless, either way the fault sits with the denier not the person pointing out this logic which is universally accepted in every activity other than football it seems.

***** happens Aaron, get over it. Welcome to the Barclays Premier Leauge where accidents happen. I'm ******** tired of people saying "I don't believe he meant to break his leg". Who has said he did. Almost every single comment has pointed this out Zbam but you dont seem to want to get it through yout skull.

Zbam, after this post I'm done talking with you because you simply can't or won't understand some real basic truths. How many times am I going to have to repeat myself? Intentions have nothing to do with it, intention is not an excuse for recklessness. Just so that we can move on, do you get that point? Do you understand that reckless behavior is inherently dangerous in it's own right, it doesn't need intention or malice to render the results of recklessness unacceptable. If you don't agree with that then I've yet to see you or any person in existence give an example which counters this truth. The hardness of the tackle has absolutely nothing to do with it, what Shacross did was not football, any chump could jump in like he did, I could take any thug off the street and order him to do that, it took no skill or technique, the timing was terrible, nothing about it resembled a profession where people are paid more in one week than most earn in a year, it was thuggery, reckless, clumsy, dangerous thuggery endorsed by a manager who needs his consciousness raised. Accidents happen all the time which is why we try to avoid behaving in certain ways which increase the likelihood of accidents happening, most sane people don't do the exact opposite to encourage accidents. Let's apply your logic to any other world event shall we, what about the recent BP oil spill? Did BP mean that to happen? Of course they didn't so I guess all is forgiven right, and the US Government said "Oh well, it's unfortunate but BP didn't mean it therefore let's just carry on as if no harm was done". That wasn't how the real world reacted was it? BP were made to pay for their mistakes and an acknowledgment of their reckless ways was factored into the billions of compensation they had to pay. Certain behavior increases the chances of mistakes happening and some mistakes are dangerous, knowing this fact and yet still going ahead with this behavior is reckless, breathtakingly arrogant and has no regard for others. To endorse and encourage a style of play carried out by players who neither have the intelligence or skill to tackle hard and safe is openly dangerous, when the inevitable accident happens you can't bail out and say "I didn't mean it". The drink driving attitude from 30 years ago was justified in the exact same pitiful and logically flawed points as your own, "I know I can drink and drive and stay in control". " I'm a good driver, yes I drink and drive but I'm a good driver", "It's part of the driving culture". "I didn't mean it, I'm not that sort of person, I would never hurt anyone". If you don't get it yet then you don't get it, but others do get it and to them you just sound dated and stupid. Why should football function as if it's above and beyond all the logic and laws in the real world, and why do people throw all intelligence and logic out of the window when they start to analyse the game? It's pathetic.

I think its probably a futile ambition to believe any of those dissenting voices here have any real interest in understanding the point made - even one as simple as that expressed in that link. It doesn't even take a college degree to be able to absorb it - just a reasonably free mind.

For a manager and a football club that's supposed to be so uber-macho and uber-tough, manly men dontcha know, Pulis and Stoke supporters are mighty sensitive wimps, aren't they? Wenger is such a worthless, pathetic, irrelevant twit that they despise and ridicule so much, yet his comments seem to be quite important to them. I'm struck by this article and the thread because coincidentally, a couple of gooner friends and I sat down last night to re-watch that game with Stoke where Ramsey was assaulted by a talentless hack whose career of breaking ankles, knees and legs is well known to anyone who cares to research his miserable record. That same nice, gritty English lad earlier in the game whinged and moaned to the referee about a Cesc tackle, demaning the ref book him. Pulis did the same after another Cesc tackle. That's something universal about these "macho" clubs: they love to dish out the thuggery and preen about their testosterone levels but the minute they get some of their own treatment from a scrawny little gunner - WAAAAAA!!! Ref, he hit me! VI & Clive, get this thru you stupid brainless heads: INTENT IS IRRELEVANT! Repeat that a gazillion times now: INTENT IS IRRELEVANT! The rules say absolutely nothing about intent. And exactly WHICH players are "that kind of player"??? Nobody at Arsenal EVER said that Shawcross or Taylor intended to hurt anybody. But you're too stupid to talk about the real issues instead of completely irrelevant media-driven hypocritical bull*****. If that had been Gallas or any other Arsenal player (esp. a foreigner), the media would've been all over him and you would be attacking him for his recklessness and total indifference to the consequences of such wild, out of control tackles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZovQocCC0c Always worth posting.

Have you guys read Ian Holloway's recent comments re AW? Blackpool manager Ian Holloway has rubbished Sam Allardyce's comments about Arsene Wenger talking to opposition managers after games: "It was great to sit down with Arsène Wenger and talk football for a few minutes after our game at Arsenal. He had a glass of wine, I had a beer and he was lovely to speak to."

TRUTH IS YOU SHOULD ALL BE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS HA HA

Nice postscript from this article that the FA don't see anything wrong with the comments Wenger made which obliged Pulis to write off to all and sundry. Pulis is still waiting to see if his letter will be published in the agony column of Womans Weekly magazine.

Dear Deidre, I am the manager of Stoke City football club.........