The belief system assumes that all people carry sins from previous lives at at one stage or another we will all experience disabilities, misfortune, suffering as well as fortunes, riches, success and greed. The reality is you're offended because you think he shouldn't have the opinion he does. Thus meaning you have a preconception of how people should think and behave, and it's based on your own personal upbringing and moral compass in life. Ps. "Science is knowledge" is the most ridiculous thing you can possibly say. Even science would acknowledge that is not true. It's the pursuit of the knowledge we can acquire within our incredibly limited band of perception.

This is the same FA who we constantly claim are completely incompetent, inept, corrupt, and lack a sense of judgement. All of a sudden, when it suits your personal point of view, their decision making is spot on. A similar hypocrisy often displayed with attitudes towards our media.

Your first comment is so simplistic it's not worthy of a direct response. My original question asked to you was asked without the least bit of agitation on my part, nor with me being offended about what you said. Again, a (wrong) perception on your part.

1. When did I say I was "more intelligent than you?" I didn't, you've just chosen to take the modern day approach of "take what he said, twist it to mean what I want it to mean in order to suit my own argument." Try arguing against what I actually say, rather than creating your own thing to argue against. 2. You have no knowledge on his belief system, nor where it comes from. Read up on those belief systems that believe reincarnation to be true. Learn about how it effects their attitude to life and treatment to others, as well as their general philosophy. 3. As stated, the perception range of human beings is so comically small, to "trust in science" when it attempts to deal with anything outside of our 0.0003% perception range is ridiculous. The creation of our planet and our place within it is completely out of that perception range. Be it chance, creationism, or something unimaginable to ourselves, we will never know. For you to suggest that the concept of past lives is "total BS" is absolutely ridiculous. You have no idea. Absolutely none. And as a human, like the rest of us, you are far too unintelligent to ever know. 4. You are entitled to believe he's a pollock. I have no intention of trying to change your mind. I'm just pointing out why I think other people are wrong for criticising him without having any knowledge of the background to his opinions. 5. Nobody has really managed to tell me why what he said is so offensive. He thinks people have more than one life. So what? He thinks that any sins you commit in one life may lead to misfortune/s in future lives. So what? Had he have said "I believe in reincarnation," nobody would have blinked an eyelid. In fact, people would probably have dismissed him as some Hippie Buddhist type. For me I fail to see why this is any more offensive than telling someone they will suffer after death if they commit sins in this life, or telling someone there is definitely nothing after death.

You've answered your own question. "The idea..." Everything is an idea. You've been programmed to perceive some ideas as offensive, and some as not being. Once you deprogram this, you just accept them as ideas again. Hoddle meant absolutely no malice in what he said. It's just an idea that he subscribes to. If you're so ignorant and arrogant to believe he has no right to believe nor publicly discuss the idea, I personally would suggest that it's you with the issue, not him. Furthermore, if you choose to be offended, that's your decision. It's your right to be. Just like it's mine not to perceive it as offensive.

Why does the medical defect only happen in some people and not others? If you ask the question "why" long enough, the answer will eventually refer to luck. Just like if you ask the question "why am I offended" long enough, rather than going with your initial ego-led instinct of being offended, you'll soon realise that you being offended is absolutely ridiculous.

That's the most intelligent post you've ever made on here. Honoured I provoked it.

As humans every single thing that we think is. We can only perceive 0.0003% of light that exists. Us trying to understand why and how we are here or why we are how we are is infinite times more ludicrous than an ant trying to understand how the Pyramids were built. Being an atheist is just as ridiculous as being an Islamic Extremist in the grand scheme of things. When disabled people ask why they are disabled, the essence of every "acceptable" answer is "bad luck." This force (luck) is, in essence, just as abstract or real as karma. Why one is offensive and one isn't, in my opinion, seems odd. "You have bad luck and everyone else has good luck." That explication seems even more unfair and anger inducing than the "past life sins" in my opinion. Each to their own. You can only be offended if you have expectations of how other people should behave and of what they should believe.

The irony is I know a great deal about the faiths that believe such things, whereas you know the square root of sod all. Yet I'm the ignorant one.

Is it offensive to say that somebody will be punished in the next life/ afterlife if they commit sins in this life?

A long post with little or no reference to nor knowledge about my actual point. Can you explain why it's disrespectful? What exactly is it people find offensive about being potentially punished for actions from a past life? Either you believe it, or you don't. The "English Culture" supposedly endorses freedom of speech. Unless of course the great British public don't like your opinion.

I agree, but then people are simply condemning a man based on their own ignorance. Otherwise, they could retreat to a position "it sounds strange to me, but I don't know what he's talking about so I'll either research it, or form no opinion." We don't do that though do we? We form incredibly strong opinions on people and their actions based on very little knowledge. Up to now, it hasn't got us very far.

Where exactly are you speaking about? The fact that you interpret my post as me saying that a "7 year old me should have known that" only goes to demonstrate what people are up against. Of course 7 year old you wouldn't have had the mental capacity to see through such media manipulation. Twenty something year old you should have such metal capacities though to evaluate his comments with hindsight and context. Not being able able to forgive someone for something you misinterpreted as a 7 year old seems like a bad trait to carry.

It's a pretty basic belief in the oriental cultures (I won't call then religions as they don't worship any God) who believe in Karma. These are of course the principals and spiritual guidelines followed by the most peaceful, loving and compassionate nations and cultures in the world. His comments were taken completely out of context by the monotonous minded press, and of course the even denser public who were left to interpret his already manipulated comments. He has nothing to apologise for, if you read his full comments and have even a miniscule knowledge of eastern philosophical culture, you would realise his comments were absolutely not, nor meant to be, in the least bit offensive. Unfortunately 99.9 percent of people choose to go with the paraphrased uncontextualised quote in a publication they spend half of their time criticising for peddling lies. Get well soon Glenn, and fingers crossed he never comes across some of the drivel posted on Twitter in response to his heart attack. In 2018 people really do have less brain cells than characters in their tweets.

E I E I E I O.

How I long for the glory days when we didn't have to worry about West @#/? Brom stealing our players.

A tackle with excessive force is football's equivalent of manslaughter if it seriously injures someone/ ends their career. Note the word "excessive." I believe in any case when a tackle leaves a knee shattered in every perceivable place it is reasonable to assume that excessive force was used. I strongly suspect Marker intended to foul him after having had the piss ripped out of him all game. A foul is an illegal manoeuvre in football. Thus strengthening even more the "manslaughter" analogy. I have no doubt he had no intention whatsoever of ending his career, and that the haste of the tackle was made in the moment, and therefore not premeditated. Hence me not saying "football murder." I'm not sure why the analogy has caused so many difficulties and been seemingly so controversial. If you wack someone around the head with excessive force in a scrap and accidentally kill them, guess what you get charged for? My original point was "what a shame that his career was ended by such a shit house of a player." What's the problem? Are people really so offended about Nicky Sodding Marker being labelled a "shit house?" He was bang average, bit of a shit house, decent servant, left half decent memories (probably only by association taking into account his era). Feel bad for Thornley, and glad that after years of torment he's seemingly got over it. Whether or not he was "as good on the ground as Messi but a bit quicker and like Shearer in the air" we'll never know.

I've made pretty in-depth and reasoned posts to articulate and explain what I've said, and the inability to respond directly to my points suggest that they have no real answer. Just goes to show, whatever people say, the only reason people come to places like this (messageboards/ forums etc) is to be agreed with or to argue. The lack of inbetween makes such communities a waste of time for the sound minded.

ÖIt was 20 years ago. Whilst we were knocking around in the old first division I'd have been more than happy to be watching Thornley (on the presumption he would have been better than Giggs, Scholes, Best, Pele combined) ripping it up for United and England. Not entirely sure how it would have had a negative effect on Rovers? Unlike most, I guess I didn't grow up with an irrational hatred of Man United. What I would give now for a team like that (with all the contexts previously stated) to be at the top of English Football, rather than some Arab Royalty run outfit who have made football into a game of late 90's Championship Manager, when you used to cheat by going into the editor and driving your team unlimited funds.

You wouldn't like to have seen such a talent play for England? Or United? I always found the hypocracy that surrounded the hatred of Ferguson's United astounding. They achieved everything doing all the things that any fan would want their own club to do... The core of the team/ squad came through the academy, they didn't throw money at player wages nor at fees (compared to the other transfer fees of the time), and they played gung-ho attacking football. Nowadays people would cheer on the likes of Chelsea and City against that 90's United team, turning a blind eye to the suffering behind the money that has bought that particular success. I'm happy to have lived seeing what must be the greatest club team we've seen in English football, and even happier to have taken a title off them. And frankly, I'd cheer that particular team on ahead of the Middle Easten States and their blood money that are currently dominating English football and beyond. But again, each to their own.

Having read a few reports from the incident (I typed "Thornley Marker tackle" into Google before anyone moans about lack of link) the suggestion seems to be that Thornley had danced past him a few times that night and the final time it happened, Marker hacked him down. Whether or not this is 100 percent accurate I don't know, but given Marker's playing style and temperament, it's certainly believable. If you read that a tackle from Roy Keane had shattered someone's knee to a near irreparable extent, you'd probably suspect there was malice behind it. If you then read that he had been successfully sued, it would only serve to intensify your initial feeling. I stand by my original statement of "what a shame such a promising young career was ended by such a shit house of a player." If anyone disagrees, well, luckily there is room for both of our opinions. I personally would have loved to see a player "better than Giggs and Scholes" playing for both United and especially England. Of course, it could be hyperbole thrown around as a mark of respect, but we'll never know...

I have yes, for many years. As have those at Old Trafford that were so appalled by the challenge, they opted to sue Marker, and won. You seem to be struggling in accepting that somebody disagrees with you, and struggling even more to argue the points that I'm making. You can accept that we disagree and leave it there, try and debate the point with an element of intellect, or continue the futile task of trying to ridicule me through one liners. I fancy my chances whichever way you choose.

I have no doubt that it wasn't his intention. However, I have no doubt he wanted to "let him know he was there (translated into everyday English as "hurt him")." It's the football equivalent of "manslaughter." I'm not sure why people are so offended by me criticising Marker for ending someone's career? I presume the court of law saw the video and arrived at the conclusion that the tackle was not "one of those unfortunate things" but an act of excessive force that had dire consequences.

Never in a football match has a knee been shattered in every perceivable way by a tackle that wasn't made with excessive force in a dangerous manner. Marker was a decent player, but the type who would try and put skillfull players "in their place." On this occasion, by trying to do this in such a unnecessary situation, he has ruined someone's career and life. Those trying to create the impression it was some innocuous 50/50 challenge with an unfortunate ending are either incredibly biased, or lacking any knowledge of football.

No hatred for him at all. However, completely destroying a kid's knee in a reserve match is disgraceful, and the impact the injury has had on that person's life is incredibly sad. All for what? So Marker could feel hard? Not sure how anyone can defend him in this instance?