if that's how you read it fair enough, and does explain a lot as to why discussions between you and other posters turn into slanging matches so quickly.
personally i don't see how modric is an attacking midfielder as it would be impossible with 2 wingers either side of him and 2 strikers or vdv + 1 striker ahead of him.

p.s i think modric would do better in either role you say (deep lying passer or box to box energy balls???) than what you have. and i was sick a little bit in my mouth trying to make the fletcher and modric question seem genuine

"If that’s how you read it fair enough, and does explain a lot as to why discussions between you and other posters turn into slanging matches so quickly."

Why are you being so antagonistic? All i've said is why i don't want Utd to sign Modric!

because you're saying i'm getting my knickers in a twist which suggests you think the tone of my message is angry.
newsflash: if i was any more laid-back i'd be lying down

Well ok then! Let's all have a Crepe and a schmoke.

PS: Fletcher FTW.

i like fletcher the player (obviously looking past him being the top graduate of the javier mascherano school of referee pestering), but as 'arry says modric is brilliant as opposed to very good (flecther) imo. has got an under-rated engine and burst of pace on him (his assist at anfield a couple of months ago being a good example) and is the king of interceptions

...the interception and engine part being why he could play in fletcher's role. ofcourse having ludicrous technique helps too

I just don't see Modric as a box to boxer myself. He's got all the attacking pernache in the world, but i'm not convinced by his defensive capabilities. Fletcher is almost the exact opposite, he destroys football, he doesn't create it like Luka.

Been doing it all season village, as well as playing left wing. Last few weeks has just taken it to the extreme. Fishing for you is far too easy btw. Go on, let's have an essay finishing with the textbook Dbronaldo smug end one liner, i'm bored.

Essay:

Last time I address this.

Nobody every disputed Rooney was playing "deeper". Pretty obvious Berbatvo was the front man and Rooney as you said left wing and support striker. This every agrees on. Months ago i linked a long long article about this (Ask Gargamel - he was gona print it off it was so long). This isnt the issue.

You didnt say the above which everyone agrees on. You compared his position to Fabregas which was utter nonsense. Hence the corrections jokes etc,

Please dont change things. Nobody ever denied he was playing deeper. It was the Fabregas comparison which was and is still the only issue.

Wow, that actually wasn't smug. Nice one. Ok last time i address this.

The Fabregas comparison was just an example of playing deeper and contributing assists rather than goals to the team, compared to the season before's spearhead of a 433 attack. I never said they were starting in the same position i'm 99% sure i said something like they were playing 'basically the same position' as an obvious example of him not being the goal poacher anymore and dropping deeper to provide assists. You took a flippant comment and ran with to a ludicrous extent. Imagine if i did the same will all your foolish posts? It would be complete Armageddon. It wasn't even until gregs lolarious post about passing positions later that you got a massive amount of sand in your vagina about it. The Key initial debate with Attila, which you continue to try and plaster over with all the fabregas comparisons was that Rooney wasn't underachieving because he wasn't scoring goals, which was the point of his blog piece. The reason as i saw it? His change in position from the previous year. The last few weeks foray into midfield just proves it even further. Zee end.

*round of applause* *flowers thrown on stage* etc etc.

Hmmm, not sure that's how anyone else remembers it!

to be fair ap you did make the sahara desert jealous with the amount of sand you crammed in your vagina over attila's article

Last time i address this - Fail!

AB - Attila quoted and mocked me personally, and the rest of the 'jerk circle' in his article, so some of the sahara was deserved imo.

Here is a few reasons that spring to mind.

- To take control of computers and use them for other purposes, controlled by the creator. They're called "zombies"

- To make people log on to their site and pay money to have it removed

- To steal information

- Because they just hate Microsoft and want to prove that their systems are crap.

Or perhaps you wanted Db's gossip? 😕

love the last one. so mean and time-consuming but funny at the same time

and what do you mean by the first one? for what other purposes?

🙂

It's probably one of the most common reasons too, at least partly, because there are basically no viruses at all for other operating systems than Windows.

They're used for DOS-attacks (denial of service) mainly, so the virus creator sends his virus/trojan everywhere and creates a "zombie army", ie a shitload of people who don't know that they have the virus.

Then he makes them all send information at the same time to a server, resulting in the server being unable to handle the information and crash.

but ddos can be caused without a virus too.
2 main reasons why viruses are made are
1) antivirus industry
2) SELLING private user information. virusmakers never use the information they gain from other peoples PC. because the root of the virus is usually untraceable, BUT usage of creditcard info etc can always be traced.