| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stumptown
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Location: Paju: Wife beating capital of Korea
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Oh, how I miss the glorious days of XFL. Especially the player named "He hate me" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Why would anyone comment on a post they have zero credility on, |
So now it's a credibility issue and you're claiming to have more than the rest?  |
If he hasn't reviewed the game, how can he have credibility? Anyone who attempts to discuss this topic without reviewing the game can't really have any cred, can they? It was a simple observation, but, of course, you have to ry to make it more. 
And where did I use a plural pronoun? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pegpig
Joined: 10 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
If he hasn't reviewed the game, how can he have credibility? Anyone who attempts to discuss this topic without reviewing the game can't really have any cred, can they? It was a simple observation, but, of course, you have to ry to make it more.
|
I can't believe I'm responding to this childishness.
How do you define credibility? Watching the game ad nauseum? Do I need a degree in football watching? I got mine on-line. Does that qualify?
I'm still amazed at how you think you control who participates in a thread and who shouldn't. Anyone's allowed to give their opinion on any topic regardless how well they know the topic. My opinion, if that's okay with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pegpig wrote: |
I can't believe I'm responding to this childishness.
How do you define credibility? Watching the game ad nauseum? Do I need a degree in football watching? I got mine on-line. Does that qualify?
I'm still amazed at how you think you control who participates in a thread and who shouldn't. Anyone's allowed to give their opinion on any topic regardless how well they know the topic. My opinion, if that's okay with you. |
Don't act like a damned child. You watched the game one time. Period. Even after tens - literally - of thousands, if not into the hundreds of thousands, of fans (of not only the Seahawks, but of every other team in the NFL) commented extremely negatively on the SB, you think watching it one time is sufficient to deal with these issues? Christ, if I'd known that in the beginning, I wouldn't have engaged you at all. Complete waste of time.
You don't have credibility because of the lack of rigor in your approach and the dismissive way you are dealing with those who bothered to look at it in-depth. It's not an insult, it's an observation.
It's the same as any other thread/topic: if you can't be bothered to inform yourself, you really have no reason to chime in. And, it is not a matter of opinion. The rules of the NFL are explicit. Bad calls were made, good calls were made. It is a matter of JUDGEMENT. Learn the difference, then re-join the thread. Or don't. Don't really five a damn. You have no credibility at this point because you ahve not bothered to examine the issue. That's inexcusable. You want some cred, watch the game as I and others have: carefully. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stumptown wrote: |
| Oh, how I miss the glorious days of XFL. Especially the player named "He hate me" |
he is now on the panthers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| ET is confirming he "has issues." |
After reviewing this thread that one post sums it up nicely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pegpig
Joined: 10 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| I agree with pegpig wholeheartedly. |
Good. Now that that's settled I can get on with more important things. Adieu. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pegpig wrote: |
| Maybe you should take a heart pill. |
Ad homonym. Goooood technique. Impressive.
| Quote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| I've already said I don't give a whit about the call on the TD, so wy are you addressing it here? |
Because it was part of the discussion. Oh, I'm sorry. You didn't want to discuss it. Listen up everyone. |
The post in question was a response to me, not a generic post, and that issue was already dealt with. Disingenious. And yet another ad homonym. Truly, you rock. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| ET is confirming he "has issues." |
Bum, don't you have anything better to do than spray the board with ad homonyms, not unlike a common house cat? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| ET is confirming he "has issues." |
After reviewing this thread that one post sums it up nicely. |
Yeah, I'm always very impressed with ad homonyms. And here we are treated to a double. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| ad homonyms |
What is this strange thing you speak of? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pegpig
Joined: 10 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ET is apparently homonymphobic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, then the call must have been good!
The offence rests.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| ET is confirming he "has issues." |
Bum, don't you have anything better to do than spray the board with ad homonyms, not unlike a common house cat? |
one comment=spraying?
At least when I make an argument, i spell my terms correctly  .
Don't YOU have anything better to do than get all anal about a dumb football game?
Don't YOU have time to be anything better than a hypocrite?
And lastly, the term you were trying to spell, ad hominem does not fit what I just said. I was not arguing for nor against you. I was merely making an observation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| ET is confirming he "has issues." |
Bum, don't you have anything better to do than spray the board with ad homonyms, not unlike a common house cat? |
one comment=spraying?
At least when I make an argument, i spell my terms correctly . |
That is a pretty funny error. Not sure how that one slipped through except that I never spell check. 
And, yes, spraying, but in terms of marking, not spreading all over.
| Quote: |
| Don't YOU have anything better to do than get all anal about a dumb football game? |
Jesus... I joined a thread in progress, didn't start it. I called out one poster for talking out his rear when he, in fact, knew nothing about the subject at hand other than having watched the game live. And I was correct to do so. You would all be all over anyone who did that on any other thread, so the hypocrisy is yours. And what the hell is wrong with pointing out someone is not credible on a topic? This is a silly stance for you all to take.
| Quote: |
| Don't YOU have time to be anything better than a hypocrite? |
This doesn't even make sense. How do I not have credibility on this thread and where have I made ad hominem attacks?
| Quote: |
| And lastly, the term you were trying to spell, ad hominem does not fit what I just said. I was not arguing for nor against you. I was merely making an observation. |
Excuse me? Are you trying to claim that attacking the poster as having "issues", rather than dealing with the content of my original post, is, in fact, not ad hominem? Supporting it is fully equal to the original comment. You do not seem to understand the terms you are attempting to use.
You are wasting my time with tripe.
This was about football and sportsmanship. Apparently two things none of you wish to discuss. Here's my ad hominem: children. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
