Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > NOLA

PFW reports - Saintfan edition

this is a discussion within the NOLA Community Forum; You wanna be a bully here with a badge..........Go ahead! I\'ll be the bigger man and dismiss everything you say. That time of the month for Saintfan already ??? How time flys ... :rauch06:...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-30-2004, 11:45 PM   #21
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,020
PFW reports - Saintfan edition

You wanna be a bully here with a badge..........Go ahead! I\'ll be the bigger man and dismiss everything you say.
That time of the month for Saintfan already ???

How time flys ... :rauch06:
saintz08 is offline  
Latest Blogs
REFUND Last Blog: 12-07-2014 By: xan




Saints: A glimpse of the future Last Blog: 11-19-2014 By: lee909


Old 09-30-2004, 11:52 PM   #22
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
PFW reports - Saintfan edition

http://www.blackandgold.net/site/mod...hread&tid=6433


I submit this thread as the first of what I\'m sure will be many to come as proof that there is merit to the claim that Saintfan attacks peolpe, not posts.

In two separate messages 08 posted statistics about AB.

Saintfan\'s reply?

\"Of course we all know this. 08 does too, but his agenda won\'t allow him to conceed it. \"

WhoDat is offline  
Old 10-01-2004, 09:35 AM   #23
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 11,260
Blog Entries: 5
PFW reports - Saintfan edition

Did you fail to notice the very title of the thread you\'re typing in? It appears as tho you missed that entirely. Maybe you missed that because your bretherin\' 08 typed it. Did you ignore it or are you just not being very observant?

I disagree with your tactics on nearly everything Whodat. There\'s a history here you fail to acknowledge...and you\'re a great big part of it. I could post links all day. You don\'t wanna go there...at least I don\'t think you do. Bottom line is there\'s only one of us that managed to get himself banned...long before I moderated anything. Defend this \"type\" if you must, but the proof is right here for all to see.

If you\'re trying to get me banned you will fail. If you and Gator need to hash things out with me then take it to the everything else board where it belongs.


I am the Genie of Sound. Everybody get down!
saintfan is offline  
Old 10-01-2004, 02:24 PM   #24
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
PFW reports - Saintfan edition

I don\'t want you banned - I want you to stop attacking people. I want you to wake up and see that your way is not the right way. Two people can disagree with one of them having an agenda. Now, you can hold yourself to the standards the rest of us are held to, or I\'ll hound you in every thread like you hound 08, Gator, or myself. I will point out over and over that you attack certain people on this board and make suggestions about our character simply b/c we disagree with you.
WhoDat is offline  
Old 10-01-2004, 04:31 PM   #25
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 11,260
Blog Entries: 5
PFW reports - Saintfan edition

OK. First, I appreciate you taking this off the main board. This is where this discussion belongs. I am going to reduce my response to your most recent reply here as much as possible.

First things first. I don\'t attack people. You and I and 08 in particular have a history. \'Til now it\'s always been in fun. That was my impression. I was (and am) under that impression because you (and 08) have never failed to play along. If that had been the case this wouldn\'t have been going on for 2+ years between a handful of us here. If you think I attack people, then I\'d like you to name them. You don\'t have to do it here. Send me a private msg. I\'m curious to know. I\'m nearly certain that along with yourself there are 2 other names on the list.

What is the \"Right\" way? I\'ve argued statistics with you \'til I\'m blue in the face. If I have an \"agenda\" (a word you seem to detest) it\'s that I want to see players judged fairly. What is \"fair\"? When some of you assume things that may or may not be accurate I\'m usually there to assume the opposite. What\'s not \"right\" about that? You have done and continue to do this -- not only to me but to pretty much anyone who gives any indication that they have any level of faith for the Current coaching staff. It\'s my opinion versus yours. What is right? Is \"right\" allowing you to post whatever you want and only reply if I have a statistic to back up an opposite opinion? I\'m obviously not entirely sure of your definition of right. I know we disagree a lot. I know I\'ve made it a recent point to point out the difference in the criteria used to judge two particular players on the Saints roster. Just as you maintain with 08\'s \"opinions\", I have mine and I have a right to post them.

People CAN disagree minus an agenda, and I\'ll readily admit I poke at you often, but no more sir, than you poke at me or Billy or a few others I could name. In some specific cases even less perhaps. No more than 08 pokes at me. Again, look at the title of this very thread. \"Saintfan\" edition? Maybe my skin is just a little thicker than yours. I never noticed that before. It\'s as if the \"moderator\" tag next to my name makes some sort of difference to you now. It doesn\'t seem to matter to you that 08 calls me to the carpet from time to time and makes snide remarks. I\'ve yet to see you bring that up. At the risk of sounding sarcastic (I swear to you I\'m not) I have to assume you\'re being just a tad biased in your recent critisism.

I do hold myself to the same standards. I\'m a bit confused here, honestly, about this statement. What is it that you percieve me getting away with as a result of the \"moderator\" tag that you don\'t see yourself getting away with? Maybe you need to elaborate on this one a little more. If Gator weren\'t so sensative I\'d probably find something I could rightfully edit everytime he posts. He certainly can\'t reply to anything I\'ve posted recently without a bit of name calling. Have you noticed? If you have you haven\'t said anything to me...or to anyone else that I\'m aware of. The \"rules\" are, essentially, to play nice. There are several of us in there who have been bantering back and forth for the better part of 3 years now. Is it the moderator tag you resent? I\'d really like to know the answer to that...and there\'s not a hint of sarcasm in the question. I swear it.

What \"suggestions\" have I made about your character? Gator is the character assasin here. Again, maybe you need to elaborate a bit more. To be totally candid, I don\'t care much for Gator\'s attitude. He drops in from time to time...flames out, is necessarilly rude to people who disagree with him, and then he leaves for a while. Gator, on a previous occasion, got himself banned. I was not a moderator then. I had exactly NOTHING to do with it. I even voted for his return when the board was asked their opinion. Gator has called me every name in the book Whodat...and not just me. He can\'t debate. He takes things personally. There are any number of posts that reflect that. Gator has attempted to get me banned. He actually posted to that end before...and well before there was any \"moderator\" next to my name. I guess the reason I bring him up here is that I find it interesting that you\'d call me out the way you have been recently as if I\'m doing something terribly wrong. I have not said hamful things to you. I have not used 4 letter words to describe you. I can type your name without some sort of colorful name calling. For the record, was it you, or was it Gator, that coined the term \"Lord Vador\"? Both of you have used it in the past when replying to my posts. Honestly I think it was you, but I\'m not 100% on that.

What you ask of me you must also ask of Gator and 08 specifically if you plan to have any consistancy to what you\'re saying. That you mention me and only me is telling...at least it is in my opinion.

Again, I\'m not making any attempt here at sarcasm, and I hope you and I can resolve whatever our issues are and move on. I doubt I\'ll ever start agreeing with you on certain things. I doubt I\'ll ever think much of Gator either, but that doesn\'t mean I want him banned or even that I disregard his opinion. He can be insightful at times...he\'s just so damned obnoxious about it. Either way, we all make contributions to the board. I enjoy pointing out alternative theories to moonshine spin.

Finally, regarding what I call 08\'s agenda:

08, today, posted that he admits to thinking Aaron Brooks is in the top 30% of QB\'s in the NFL. Now, I challenge you to find one, single, solitary, individual, lone, solo, positive thing other than that one example of 08\'s having said ANYthing positive regarding Aaron Brooks. You\'ll search for a LONG time and you\'ll likely not find anything. Is this an \"agenda\". Yes, I think it is. That\'s my opinion, and I think it\'s well supported. He doesn\'t like AB. I don\'t care, and I can assure you he doesn\'t care that I don\'t care. I honestly look forward to his spin and his conspiracy theories. He\'s a funny guy AND he\'s a moderator, same as me. If you detest so much that I accuse him of an agenda (I have been doing it for nearly 3 years now) then stay out of it. Don\'t post in the thread. I genearlly try and avoid Gator to save the peace. If you can\'t play along then don\'t play. Again I don\'t mean that sarcastically. I\'m sincere. Just don\'t play if you take it too seriously.


I am the Genie of Sound. Everybody get down!
saintfan is offline  
Old 10-01-2004, 06:56 PM   #26
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
PFW reports - Saintfan edition

You and I and 08 in particular have a history. \'Til now it\'s always been in fun. That was my impression. I was (and am) under that impression because you (and 08) have never failed to play along.
No question about this, but I feel there is a difference between zinging a guy or poking fun, and what you\'ve been doing for a while. I\'ll explain in a moment.

What is the \"Right\" way? I\'ve argued statistics with you \'til I\'m blue in the face. If I have an \"agenda\" (a word you seem to detest) it\'s that I want to see players judged fairly.
OK - again, herein lies the problem. Apparently, you believe that you know what fair means uniformly. I disagree. I think you know what you think to be fair. That\'s fine. There is nothnig wrong with saying, \"you\'re being too hard on AB. Look at the TD to INT ratio over the last 20 games\" or whatever. But that\'s not what you do.

First, fair means every person\'s opinion is equal and no one more right than the other. That\'s the way I look at it. That\'s not the way I see you taking it. For example, you think you know how to judge AB fairly. You admit two people can look at the same set of facts and disagree, but somehow you still think people that disagree with you are doing so unfairly. Do you think 08 says, \"how can I spin these numbers to make Brooks look bad\" to himself before he posts? Do you think I do that?

You must, because you rarely say, \"I see something different in the numbers.\" Generally you suggest that we\'re being intentionally unfair \"agenda\" and that we should scurry off the the Panthers board. Ocassionaly you bring up a football related defense, like WRs or O-line problems, but when any of us rebutt that, it\'s right back to the agenda defense. That\'s what\'s \"not right\" about how you do things, IMHO Saintfan. Seriously, and this isn\'t a pot-shot, but do you really think that there is anyone on this board who questions other members\' motives as often as you do?

I do hold myself to the same standards. I\'m a bit confused here, honestly, about this statement. What is it that you percieve me getting away with as a result of the \"moderator\" tag that you don\'t see yourself getting away with?
Exactly what I mentioned above. If I followed Danno around the board and everytime he posted I jumped in saying things like \"Danno, you\'re simply the most miserable person I\'ve ever known\" - something I think you said to me in the past, though it might have been someone else - and made statements to a) question his intelligence and b) attack his motives or character without ever making any statement about football, I\'d get banned. Maybe not immediately, but I would. The difference b/w what you say, on a number of ocassions, and what a guy like swampdog says is two-fold: 1) eloquence, 2) mod. That\'s it.

He certainly can\'t reply to anything I\'ve posted recently without a bit of name calling. Have you noticed?
I do not want to get into Gator and I\'m not defending anyone here. I\'ve used 08 as an example b/c he\'s the best case. Gator did get shafted in the past, IMO, but he\'s not, at present, a positive influence on this board. Like you said, his comments are sporatic and generally hostile. I hope that he will come back and start posting again like he used to, but I for one, understand why he is upset. He did get held to a different standard, again, IMO.

What \"suggestions\" have I made about your character?
I\'ll take this as an honest question and I will answer it in as straightforward a fashion as possible. By consistently suggesting that I am a) miserable (which should be clear is a direct assault on the type of person that I am) and b) have an agenda, you are attacking my character. Saying that I intentionally skew things attacks my integrity or at very least makes question of my intelligence or loyalty. How is that not obvious? Saying, \"I\'m not questioning your character, I\'m just saying you have an agenda\" is tantamount to me saying, \"I\'m not calling you a liar, but I\'m pretty sure you\'re not telling the truth.\"

Lord Vador\"? Both of you have used it in the past when replying to my posts. Honestly I think it was you, but I\'m not 100% on that.
Gator dubbed you that, and if you can find more than a handful of times I called you that I\'d be very surprised. I never liked that name in the first place.

Listen man, I don\'t know how to make my grievances more clear. I mean, I take early last season when I was comparing AB\'s efficiency numbers to others in the league. I looked at stats like QB rating, comp %, yard per attempt, TD to INT ratio, etc. etc. etc. to combat the contention that you and Billy were making that he was undoubtedly one of the best QBs in the league simply b/c he had good stats in Total Yards and TDs. Now, I won\'t say either was right or wrong, but my assessment was not without merit. Suggesting that efficiency measures were as important as raw stats is not so ridiculous that the only possible explanation is bias - but that\'s exactly what you said - something about counting only stats for away games on grass with overcast skies and below 50 degress might translate into an agenda. Do you recall that? To me, that has been your general party line since that moment. You no longer talk football when it comes to me, 08, BMG, Gator, etc... You more often attack us than our arguments. That is what is wrong, IMO, with your behaviour on this board. You want to disagree with me about the numbers, fine. You want to argue about whether Deuce is more to blame for a poor running game than the line, fine. But do it by focusing on the players, coaches, and games and not by what you assert to be my true intentions.

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\"
he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"
WhoDat is offline  
Old 10-02-2004, 10:26 AM   #27
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 11,260
Blog Entries: 5
PFW reports - Saintfan edition

Apparently, you believe that you know what fair means uniformly. I disagree. I think you know what you think to be fair.
Define fair for me Whodat. Show me where you\'re not guilty of using the very same \"style\" that you accuse me of. If you can show me that you don\'t throw zingers around like beads during Mardi Gras then I\'ll conceded your point. Otherwise you might just have to (a) take it like you dish it or (b) not participate. To me that\'s fair. What\'s \"fair\" to you?

First, fair means every person\'s opinion is equal and no one more right than the other.
I could quote you over and over and over agian telling me and Billy in particular just how ignorant you think we are...and it hasn\'t always been within in the framework of football statistics. Not that you care, but I will loose a TON of respect for you if you even approach denying that.

You admit two people can look at the same set of facts and disagree, but somehow you still think people that disagree with you are doing so unfairly.
Points here for trying to prove your point, but that\'s all you\'re doing...trying to prove a point, because you know full well the \"facts\" we debate aren\'t so much a particular \"Fact\", but rather you use a \"fact\" or \"opinion\" to determine the level of Brooks\' play, as an example. I provide an alternate \"stat\", or \"fact\" or \"opinion\" in an attempt to show you that the info you\'ve provided isn\'t the end all determination to a particular thing. This is how it\'s been here for years. This never seemed to be the biggest of deals until Gator got all wadded up. \"Fair\" has exactly zero to do with it.

Do you think 08 says, \"how can I spin these numbers to make Brooks look bad\" to himself before he posts?
You better believe I think that. Absolutely. And I\'ll be right there pointing out his agenda the next time he does it. You don\'t get to decide whether I do that or don\'t do that. Period. You don\'t have to jump into the thread and run to his rescue. You can if you\'d like. It\'s a free country. Knock yourself out.

Do I think you\'ve done that. Yes. You\'re not the Jedi 08 is in that regard, but I do think you judge Brooks at a higher standard than you do other players. Your argument against him has shifted gears from leadership to ability to smarts to salary etc. If you don\'t want your opinions speculated upon...don\'t post them.

If I followed Danno around the board and everytime he posted I jumped in saying things like \"Danno, you\'re simply the most miserable person I\'ve ever known\" - something I think you said to me in the past, though it might have been someone else - and made statements to a) question his intelligence and b) attack his motives or character without ever making any statement about football, I\'d get banned.
I don\'t EVER recall saying you\'re a miserable person...a negative one perhaps...but miserable, no. At any rate, if I did the above as you mention, how would that make me any different that what you have done to me, or to Billy? The answer is we\'d be brothers of a kind, you and me. At the risk of being a bit sharp here, Whodat, man, have you looked in the mirror lately?

I do not want to get into Gator
Neither do I. There\'s a post in here for him too. He\'s failed to respond but chooses to take his cry of foul to the main board where it doesnt\' belong. Moving forward...

I\'ll take this as an honest question and I will answer it in as straightforward a fashion as possible. By consistently suggesting that I am a) miserable (which should be clear is a direct assault on the type of person that I am) and b) have an agenda, you are attacking my character.
First, again, I don\'t know that I\'ve ever called you \"miserable\" and doubt serisouly that \"consistantly\" is anywhere near the right word. The \"agenda\" talk seems to upset you. I\'ll drop it where you\'re concerned if that\'s what the peace required...but not where 08 is concerned because (a) I think he stirrs the pot on purpose and (b) I think he enjoys it. But he\'s a big boy and quite capable of defending himself.

Saying that I intentionally skew things attacks my integrity
It would have the same affect on me. In fact it does. But \'til now I have been under the impression that it was all in good fun.

Suggesting that efficiency measures were as important as raw stats is not so ridiculous that the only possible explanation is bias
No, it surely is not, but in all your attempts to drag Brooks down early last year you refused to acknowledge dropped passes...at all...which I saw as a factor. It was convenient to your argument NOT to acknowledge them.

but that\'s exactly what you said - something about counting only stats for away games on grass with overcast skies and below 50 degress might translate into an agenda. Do you recall that?
You, of all people, should recognize sarcasm...especially when used to make a point, which is what I was doing. This is different that the tactics YOU use here exactly how? Exactly none.

You no longer talk football when it comes to me, 08, BMG, Gator, etc... You more often attack us than our arguments. That is what is wrong, IMO, with your behaviour on this board.
Three guys...of how many? And for what it\'s worth I disagree with you on this statement. I attack your arguments at every turn. That I point out that you and Gator in particular skew things negatively is probably accurate. If you\'re taking it personal then I\'m not sure what to tell you. There is not a thing you have said here about me that you are not yourself quilty of. That\'s my primary point. Where do YOU get off trying to prove these things about me?

My opinion is :

We have all been cyber buddies for too damn long to be hammering at you . Does that mean as a moderator I allow a little more leash for the likes of WhoDat , Gator , Saintfan and Billy ? YES

I will assume that you guys have been here long enough to know that you can PM any moderator if you are feeling as though you are being attacked .

Do we really want this to be some sanitized version of a Saints forum ??? I have seen these sanitized forums before and they aint much to look at .
Amazingly, I\'m quoting 08. I feel as he does in this instance. Look Whodat. I said recently that those in glass houses shouldn\'t throw stones. In my opinion you just hurled a bag of rocks. Up \'til now I was unaware that this debate hit so close to home for you. I\'m quite willing to leave your posts mostly alone. However, when I attack 08 for his latest agenda can I expect you to stay out of that discussion as well. Do you really want to?

I am the Genie of Sound. Everybody get down!
saintfan is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 10:09 AM   #28
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 11,260
Blog Entries: 5
PFW reports - Saintfan edition

Hey Whodat. You\'re doing a lot of chirping, but not here. Why is that.

I\'m waiting.
saintfan is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 12:39 PM   #29
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
PFW reports - Saintfan edition

If you can show me that you don\'t throw zingers around like beads during Mardi Gras then I\'ll conceded your point. Otherwise you might just have to (a) take it like you dish it or (b) not participate. To me that\'s fair. What\'s \"fair\" to you?
Joking with someone or poking at them is one thing. When I see an article or stat that supports my point I may call you out to comment on it, but I don\'t attack YOU. I will not deny that I have been guilty of going too far in the past. It was more prevelant on this board in general two years ago. But we\'re not talking about the past, we\'re talking about what goes on right now. Show me the last time I directly made a comment about someone\'s intent or intelligence on this board. The only person I question directly at all is you, and that in response to your attacks.

Points here for trying to prove your point, but that\'s all you\'re doing...trying to prove a point, because you know full well the \"facts\" we debate aren\'t so much a particular \"Fact\", but rather you use a \"fact\" or \"opinion\" to determine the level of Brooks\' play, as an example. I provide an alternate \"stat\", or \"fact\" or \"opinion\" in an attempt to show you that the info you\'ve provided isn\'t the end all determination to a particular thing.
To quote the Vice President, \"that just simply isn\'t true.\" I\'ll provide two pieces of evidence from the last week or two.

First, I made a response to someone\'s post, I forget who, in which I cited FACTS about this team. Facts are undisputed or externally verifiable. The stats I used included Deuce\'s rank in the NFL as an RB last year (4th), Horn and Stallworth\'s rank as WRs at the time this year (5th/20th), and the number of sacks allowed by our line this year (7). Those are statistics, facts... My post, albeit sarcastic, was about football. Your response was about ME and what YOU believe my intent to be in making the post and what MY record had been in YOUR eyes (which you passed of as FACT) on this board.

Second, 08 posted STATS about Brooks\' completion percentage quarter by quarter. From that set of unbiased statistics, he made an inference on what he believed was the cause (opinion). Your response did not attack the stats or the opinion. It did not raise any contrary numbers or facts. It simply said that 08 had an agenda. Now, there\'s two very clear examples of you not addressing the football argument using facts or stats like you just claimed to do, but rather by attacking the poster. I would love to hear you a) deny this, or b) show me where I\'ve done that to anyone other than you (which I admit to doing on purpose) in the last few weeks or even months. GO find \'em Saintfan.

No, it surely is not, but in all your attempts to drag Brooks down early last year you refused to acknowledge dropped passes...at all...which I saw as a factor. It was convenient to your argument NOT to acknowledge them.
It might have been - but you didn\'t say anything like that. You might have suggested that I failed to take that into account, or that you saw that as a large part of the problem, but you did not simply leave it at that. You always go farther. You suggested that I did not take drops into account because I had an agenda. Not simply b/c I didn\'t see it as a big problem early in the year, or b/c I didn\'t agree with you on the reasons for many of the drops, but b/c I had a specific purpose in mind that trumps all others. That simply isn\'t true and it\'s as ridiculous for you to suggest as it is for me to suggest that the only reason you post is to support Haslett b/c you secretly have some personal interest in Haslett.

Most importantly Saintfan, I have to go no farther to prove that you attack PEOPLE rather than ARGUMENTS than to quote YOUR OWN WORDS:

However, when I attack 08 for his latest agenda can I expect you to stay out of that discussion as well. Do you really want to?
Again - why must you attack the man? Why can you not attack the arguments? I\'m not going to stay out of football debates, but where you\'re concerned, expect from now on, if you attack me, I will attack you back directly. If you can say I have an agenda, I guess it is fair for me to call you naieve or ignorant or so totally blinded by hopeful optimism as to not be able to see anything for what it is. I guess those types of statements don\'t offend you or speak to you personally beyond your argument, IYO, huh?

Funny thing is I remember critizing Brooks only after his worst games and sticking up for him on a few more.
That\'s an interesting statement Gator, and one that hits home. Saintfan knocks me for being unfair to AB early in the year when I wasn\'t bashing the WRs for dropping passes - however I was supporting AB at that point. 2nd or 3rd game of the year I was the FIRST guy to rush in when others were blaming a loss on him. I said I though AB would be a Pro Bowler this season. I said he isn\'t going anywhere and really shouldn\'t - yet this guy still talks about my agenda. If I\'ve \"come around\" on Brooks, what\'s the agenda?

Further, if you want to \"classify me as negative\" than maybe you should look as to why that is. If I believe that this team is more talented than it ever has been and is chronically underachieving, why is being upset or feeling \"negatively\" about that a bad thing? Are we to feel blessed that we\'re not 2-14? How long are we expected to believe what the team/coach/players say when their play shows otherwise?


\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\"
he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"
WhoDat is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 02:43 PM   #30
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 11,260
Blog Entries: 5
PFW reports - Saintfan edition

Joking with someone or poking at them is one thing. When I see an article or stat that supports my point I may call you out to comment on it, but I don\'t attack YOU. ...It was more prevelant on this board in general two years ago. But we\'re not talking about the past, we\'re talking about what goes on right now.
So YOU get to decide who\'s joking and who isn\'t? When were you given this power? Where can I get me some? I also gather from this that you admit to having done these things you acuse me of doing, but that you don\'t do it anymore? Oh really? What goes on right now is necessarilly no different that what has been going on for a LONG time, and your part in the play hasn\'t changed. You just recently got your panties in a wad, that\'s the only difference. You insinuate regularly with respect to my football \"knowledge\". Shall I wear my feelings on my sleeve too? You\'re actin\' like a friggin\' baby is what I think.

Your response was about ME and what YOU believe my intent to be in making the post and what MY record had been in YOUR eyes (which you passed of as FACT) on this board.
Was it about you? Congradulations!!! You win the \"I can read\" award. I regularly point out to you that you are negative...you don\'t have to like it, plain and simple. Your \"agenda\" when it comes to Brooks has spun from the intelligence argument to the talent argument to the contract argument. The 7 sacks you refer to were 2 sacks in your origianl post. I may point out that a mobile QB might just have something to do with it and \"infer\" and that you conveniently forgot to throw that into the mix. When you REFUSE to acknowledge ANYTHING other than your stats or someone else\'s opposite view what does that tell you about you? You may not like the way I disagree with you, that you take it personal isn\'t my problem.

Second, 08 posted STATS about Brooks\' completion percentage quarter by quarter. From that set of unbiased statistics, he made an inference on what he believed was the cause (opinion). Your response did not attack the stats or the opinion. It did not raise any contrary numbers or facts. It simply said that 08 had an agenda.
You choose ONE of 08\'s posts in an effort to show that I don\'t argue facts but rather accuse him of an agenda even tho he posts accurate, unbiased information??? By the way, the KEY word there is \"inference\". Doode, what are you smokin\'? That you feel it necessary to defend 08\'s CLEAR agenda, and that you harp on ME for snide remarks while failing to call out the very people you\'re in here defending is, again, very telling. I\'m staring to think you have an AGENDA!

Again - why must you attack the man? Why can you not attack the arguments?
I thought this was about you? What do you care about my conversations with 08? Are you really THAT paranoid? Mind your own business k? And if 08 has a problem with me pointing out that he manipulates reality then he can discuss it with me. Oh, one last thing about 08 and his agenda...I\'m not the only one that notices it. You wanna step out on that limb and defend his snake oil comments go right ahead.

If you can say I have an agenda, I guess it is fair for me to call you naieve or ignorant or so totally blinded by hopeful optimism as to not be able to see anything for what it is.
You\'re free to do whatever you wish. In fact you\'ve been doing that very thing for YEARS. I\'d recommend tho, that you don\'t pull a Gator, cause if you do it won\'t be me you have to worry about. I encourage you to knock yourself out in that regard.

That\'s an interesting statement Gator, and one that hits home. Saintfan knocks me for being unfair to AB early in the year when I wasn\'t bashing the WRs for dropping passes - however I was supporting AB at that point. 2nd or 3rd game of the year I was the FIRST guy to rush in when others were blaming a loss on him.
Hey Whodat, the dropped passes argument being discussed was referencing LAST year. Oh, by the way, for someone who fought so hard for Brooks\' removal from the team it was a bit surprising to see you call him pro bowl caliber. That you acknowledge his development when you claimed he wasn\'t smart enough to develop is very big of you.

Finally, this isn\'t an argument for or against Brooks or Deuce. You got your feathers ruffled up when I started calling Deuce out and pointing out the FACT that you guys were more than ready to rush in and place blame elsewhere. You\'ve gone so far as to indicate our line \"excels\"...after last Sunday do you really think so? Maybe you\'ll side with 08 and blame the line\'s performance SOLELY on Aaron Brooks. Remember, I\'ve been griping about our line for the better part of two years now -- not so much in an effort to defend Aaron Brooks but rather to show that he\'s not the issue...at least more often than not. This is a discussion about my style of posting which you obviously don\'t like. You\'re focused on me, yet you defend 08 who, by the way, is a guilty as I\'ll EVER be. He\'s gotten famous for it. You give props to Gator who, short of swampdog, has done more name calling on this site than me and you and 08 combined! Yet you focus on me. Why is that? I think I know why, and I think YOU know why, and when you\'re ready to admit it I\'ll be here. Until then do what you feel you need to do regarding calling me ignorant or anything else you mentioned. Again, it won\'t be me you\'ll have to deal with. It wasn\'t me Gator had to deal with either. If you wanna know how it\'ll all come down, ask your boy. He can tell you.

I am the Genie of Sound. Everybody get down!
saintfan is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:30 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2014 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts