Guido, you have no concept of conversational to and fro writing or grasp of “context”. Rugs made a post about his doubts on AKs upcoming availability and the quality of the depth at the RB position. He then expresses desire for a trade to bolster the position. I liked his post as I agree with him 100%. I fear the RB position may be our achilles’ heel this year (BTW that doesn’t mean I hate Kamara for pulling a jerk move or Ingram for getting old or Jones Jr for being unproven).

You then make a post that in tone and context refutes him. You express no worry about AK missing games and indicate you wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t happen this year. (Forgetting the idea he could still miss games with injury as he sometimes has). You also don’t address the concern of positional depth he brings up in his post. You could have said “There’s question marks, but the team will eventually address them” or something like that. But you don’t. You only try to show him wrong. Your post didn’t say the team shouldn’t be prepared but you sure has hell didn’t agree with Ruggs point that they should be. You made a post to invalidate his position and said nothing to agree or recognize his concerns. It’s a matter of being able to disagree with a poster without being confrontational. It’s something you sorely lack.

Sorry if I stepped on your toes Ruggs. I agree with your post fully and have expressed the same idea a couple of times. When Guido responded in the dismissive manner he did I felt like responding.

Holy crap, Boston. Go back and read my response to Rugs. Nowhere did I refute what he was saying. All I did was to expound on what he said by pointing out the unknowns involved. Nowhere did I say we shouldn't be prepared. With the speed the legal system motors it may very well be a year from now before everything is resolved and any discipline is handed down. I was simply sharing this on top of his concern.

Not only did I not say the need for RB depth doesn't need to be addressed, but I even discussed that the timing of obtaining that depth could be affected by whether or not it was a veteran that was being considered bringing into play the full season guaranteed salary if signed before week one.

I know you enjoy "offering constructive criticism" as you point out in your profile and also like playing the "devils advocate" as you have pointed out on occasion, but why must you always read things into my posts that are not there and feel the need to defend some position that doesn't need to be defended in the first place?

It is very frustrating.

I thoroughly read both your and rugbys posts Guido. But wat you did was take one small part of his post and refute it. Your double use of negatives is hilarious. I don’t care about what you didn’t not say. That’s just ignoring someone. You frequently chop one point out of another’s post and ignore everything else.

I interpreted Rugby’s post to basically break down like this:

I. There is a concern about running backs
a) Kamara may miss time
b) There is not trust in backups
c) Will/should a trade happen

In your response you ignore the overall topic and points b and c and jump to casting doubt on a. That’s all you did. But why ignore the overall topic and other points ?

First of all, Boston, I was not refuting ANYTHING that Rugs said. Nor was I ignoring anything he said. What is your problem? All I did was expound on what he said by trying to show how many unknowns there are and what other scenarios are possible. I could just as well placed a stand alone post without using a reply to his at all, but saw no reason to do so.

1. I didn't say there wasn't a concern with the RB's.
a) I acknowledged that Kamara may miss time, but mentioned that as remote as the chance may be, he may not.
b) Nowhere did I say there was a trust in the backups.
c) Nowhere did I refute the possibility of a trade occurring. I did later, however, point out that the acquisition of a vested veteran may be more logical after the first week of the season.

This is ridiculous that I should be trying to defend myself over something that you contrived. And this is not the first time, nor unfortunately, the last I fear.

<<Sigh>>you just don’t get it Guido. Nor do you even try to get it. You ignore what doesn’t fit your point of view. Fair enough. Maybe I look for the worst in what you post. I’ll do some self examination about that and maybe give you the benefit of the doubt more.

But It’s interesting that I’ve had different viewpoints with multiple users here. Just recently I had corrections/viewpoints with both Major and Shank about simple things. We were all respectful. But i’ve never had something escalate to what happens with us. And since obviously you’ve had problems with saintfan and other users here I don’t think I’m the one being difficult. Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t think you have the guts to admit that you may be wrong too.

At what point was I not respectful? At what point did I ignore anything that Rugs said?

Re-read post 16 of this thread. I clearly explained it. That post got a like so at least one other user sees my point.