How many times before Carney goes?

TheGambler · 10-03-2005, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by saintswhodi

Then you must miss the guy who makes threads in an attempt to deflect blame from Brooks at every shot. I call BS on you not seeing this. With a little less respect though.

The problem with you, however,.....is that someone could create a post entitled "Boy Mitch Berger sure shanked that punt"......and you'd jump in with OH YEAH???? WELL IF AARON BROOKS HADN'T OVERTHROWN CONWELL ON 3RD AND 6, WE'D NEVER HAVE HAD TO PUNT FROM OUR OWN 20 YARD LINE!!!!

Any post closely resembling an insult to someone NOT named Aaron Brooks, in your mind, must represent someone trying to cover for his mistakes.

saintswhodi · 10-03-2005, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by TheGambler

Originally Posted by saintswhodi

Then you must miss the guy who makes threads in an attempt to deflect blame from Brooks at every shot. I call BS on you not seeing this. With a little less respect though.

The problem with you, however,.....is that someone could create a post entitled "Boy Mitch Berger sure shanked that punt"......and you'd jump in with OH YEAH???? WELL IF AARON BROOKS HADN'T OVERTHROWN CONWELL ON 3RD AND 6, WE'D NEVER HAVE HAD TO PUNT FROM OUR OWN 20 YARD LINE!!!!

Any post closely resembling an insult to someone NOT named Aaron Brooks, in your mind, must represent someone trying to cover for his mistakes.

And the problem for you is, you think Brooks walks on water. So when some says, as you put it "Boy Mitch Berger sure shanked that punt" you'd immediatley think, "Well, I don't have to cover for Brooks this week, someone else got it for me." That was evidenced by the way you ran to EVERY thread and defended him to EVERY poster, not just me, after the Giants game. Keep trying though.

TheGambler · 10-03-2005, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by saintswhodi

And the problem for you is, you think Brooks walks on water. So when some says, as you put it "Boy Mitch Berger sure shanked that punt" you'd immediatley think, "Well, I don't have to cover for Brooks this week, someone else got it for me." That was evidenced by the way you ran to EVERY thread and defended him to EVERY poster, not just me, after the Giants game. Keep trying though.

So if what you say is true......and I feel Brooks walks on water, and "that was evidenced" as you put it.............woudln't I have "run from thread to thread" defending him after the Minnesota game as well?

Theory....denied.

jnormand · 10-03-2005, 01:46 PM

OK.......Anyway, I think Carney is doing decent. He's still reliable. (Getting back to the original point of this thread. Sigh)

WhoDat · 10-03-2005, 02:29 PM

Any post closely resembling an insult to someone NOT named Aaron Brooks, in your mind, must represent someone trying to cover for his mistakes.

This is exactly right. Whodi, the argument you're trying to make in this thread is one of the worst I've heard. It sounds like a defendant on trial for murder making a "yeah, but he deserved it" defense.

There are countless threads on this board that start of with something like, "man, what's up with Deuce," or "Carney is making me nervous," or "the TEs are dropping everything," etc. Invariably, someone comes in and says, yeah, well AB sucks more! He's the bigger problem!!

You say now that my trying to limit that is an unequal application of the rules if I don't apply the same thing to the "Brooks lover threads." OK, fine. Show me ONE SINGLE THREAD ever on this board where the equivalent of what you're doing has happened. Show me one time where a thread started like this, "man Deuce had a great game," and someone came in and said, "not as great as Brooks! He's one of the major reasons the Saints won! He's one of the team's biggest assets!!"

That simply doesn't happen.

I am in no way saying that people don't start "Brooks Rules" threads. But they don't jump into the middle of other threads screaming, "Brooks is great, he's our biggest asset!" when we're talking about the damn punter.

Moreover, your next argument is equally as ridiculous. That someone starts a thread saying, "the o-line looked terrible" for no other reason that to somehow implicitly support Brooks. Again, I don't argue that people use the o-line, WRs, and whatever else under the sun as rationale for why things aren't AB's fault, but that is not akin to what you are doing. The opposite but equal of that behavior is where someone says, "AB played great," and you go rushing in saying, "but the o-line played great, and so did Deuce and the WRs caught everything in sight!"

So, I will allow you to continue to rush into threads not about AB and scream about how much AB sucks at the same rate that people rush into other threads not about AB and scream about how great AB is. I will also allow you, when people say AB is great, to respond by deflecting attention from AB and talking about how great the o-line, RB, WRs, defense, coaching, etc. is. You may also start as many threads as you want about AB. But you cannot continue to turn threads not about AB into AB sucks fests. Just remember, YOU asked for an equal application of the rules. You get one AB SUCKS post for every AB RULES post. Enjoy it.

saintswhodi · 10-03-2005, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by TheGambler

Originally Posted by saintswhodi

And the problem for you is, you think Brooks walks on water. So when some says, as you put it "Boy Mitch Berger sure shanked that punt" you'd immediatley think, "Well, I don't have to cover for Brooks this week, someone else got it for me." That was evidenced by the way you ran to EVERY thread and defended him to EVERY poster, not just me, after the Giants game. Keep trying though.

So if what you say is true......and I feel Brooks walks on water, and "that was evidenced" as you put it.............woudln't I have "run from thread to thread" defending him after the Minnesota game as well?

Theory....denied.

Um, I think after someone called you Brooks' mother, you decided your feelings about Brooks was being made too obvious. So you ducked and covered for the next week. you're still the same guy, except now cause for a week you didn't repeat your ridiculous defenses, you think that gives you some pedestal to stand on. Please.

saintswhodi · 10-03-2005, 02:57 PM

There are countless threads on this board that start of with something like, "man, what's up with Deuce," or "Carney is making me nervous," or "the TEs are dropping everything," etc. Invariably, someone comes in and says, yeah, well AB sucks more! He's the bigger problem!!

Yes, SOMEONE does, but you wanna make it seem as if it's only me. Who was it in the Stallowrth thread? It's you. Wow. And where were you in the thread I gave AB credit after week one, and the thread after this week? Still incognito huh? I guess you would be the prosecution that ignores all evidence just to get a judgment hey Darden?

OK, fine. Show me ONE SINGLE THREAD ever on this board where the equivalent of what you're doing has happened. Show me one time where a thread started like this, "man Deuce had a great game," and someone came in and said, "not as great as Brooks! He's one of the major reasons the Saints won! He's one of the team's biggest assets!!"

You must be turning a blind eye to blackonblack's posts, but why should I expect anything less? They praise Brooks, imagine that.

But they don't jump into the middle of other threads screaming, "Brooks is great, he's our biggest asset!" when we're talking about the damn punter.

Again, obviously only reading the threads you want to, and when is that something new here? Is this a new rule you just decided to make today?

Moreover, your next argument is equally as ridiculous. That someone starts a thread saying, "the o-line looked terrible" for no other reason that to somehow implicitly support Brooks.

Yeah, cause when someone says our defense sucks and what they did means nothing after one of their best performances ever really isn't trying to give one player more credit over others. Are we adding nievety as a means to push this argument through?

So, I will allow you to continue to rush into threads not about AB and scream about how much AB sucks at the same rate that people rush into other threads not about AB and scream about how great AB is. I will also allow you, when people say AB is great, to respond by deflecting attention from AB and talking about how great the o-line, RB, WRs, defense, coaching, etc. is. You may also start as many threads as you want about AB. But you cannot continue to turn threads not about AB into AB sucks fests. Just remember, YOU asked for an equal application of the rules. You get one AB SUCKS post for every AB RULES post. Enjoy it.

This should be easy once blackonblack gets here. But does this rule apply only to me, or will you apply it equilaterally across the board to all members? Otherwise, it seems kinda biased one person would have a rule and all others not. But then again, should I be surprised?

TheGambler · 10-03-2005, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by saintswhodi

Um, I think after someone called you Brooks' mother, you decided your feelings about Brooks was being made too obvious. So you ducked and covered for the next week. you're still the same guy, except now cause for a week you didn't repeat your ridiculous defenses, you think that gives you some pedestal to stand on. Please.

That line of thinking, right there, is why WhoDat is now having to "ration" your posting (which is pretty pathetic that it has to come to that). You are under the mistaken impression that you are 2 or 3 steps ahead of everyone's thought process, and that you're outsmarting everyone. A thread about Carney is a hidden Brooks defense. A thread about the play of our Defense a few weeks ago is a hidden Brooks defense. Sunshine, this might come as a complete shock to you......but maybe THEY ACTUALLY THINK OUR DEFENSE SUCKS AND CARNEY IS A BUM! Are they any less entitled to their opinion, than you are to yours? The fact that you are trying to create "AB Protection" conspiracy theories is both sad and funny at the same time. I'll bet you're one of those guys who always think the government has a spy camera on everyone as well, aren't you? You know what....don't even answer that, I don't care.

Also, you're argument that I quote above is pretty much comparing apples to oranges. Aaron Brooks, in my opinion, was unjustly criticized after the NYG game, and I let people know about it. Aaron had a good game, with some mistakes.......but, in your opinion, my being impressed with his overall play (outside of the turnovers) and not cursing him in every other post obviously means I think he walks on water and that I want to deflect blame.

Then you suggest that because I didn't defend him after the Minny game (and in fact, I made a few posts saying he played like crap, which he did).....that means I'm laying low since some mindless peon called me "Ms. Brooks". If you think I'm intellectually and socially backwards to the extent that an insult of "Ms. Brooks" is enough to completely sway my opinions and actions.......well, then you obviously don't know me very well at all.

Do you not see a difference at all???? Brooks, vs. the Giants, threw for over 300 yards and had a nice completion percentage. Therefore, I defended THAT GAME. When he had absolutely nothing to brag about against Minnesota, there was NO NEED to defend his game...because his game stunk. CAN YOU NOT SEE A DIFFERENCE? I can use large font and construction paper if I need to..

saintswhodi · 10-03-2005, 03:25 PM

Sorry sweetie, but you obviously haven't been around here enough to know this board is all about conspiracy theories. That's what it's based on. WhoDat knows this as well as I do, as well as any longtime poster on this board. Why do you think people are so confused by WhoDat's sudden switch to being so accepting of Brooks? Why do you think anytime a consiracy is mentioned, 08 is brought up? If you'd get your head out your ass, and stop trying to play this innocent card like you don't see anything, you'd know that. But again, you're above all that right, oh, I mean for the last two weeks. Right? Pitch that somewhere else. That's all BS.

that means I'm laying low since some mindless peon

Mindless peon? Think much of yourself? Your ridiculous behavior was noticed, and you are obviously still upset about it by the fact you have to namecall someone cause they called you out 2 weeks ago. Mindless peon? I guess you would know a relative when you heard one.

Do you not see a difference at all????

Yes, three costly turnovers as opposed to two. Good call zippy. Have a nice day.

Tobias-Reiper · 10-03-2005, 03:33 PM

.. I just wanna see the drunk white guy kick for the Saints..
is he from the South?!?

10-03-2005, 01:13 PM	#31
TheGambler 500th Post Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 610	Originally Posted by saintswhodi Then you must miss the guy who makes threads in an attempt to deflect blame from Brooks at every shot. I call BS on you not seeing this. With a little less respect though. The problem with you, however,.....is that someone could create a post entitled "Boy Mitch Berger sure shanked that punt"......and you'd jump in with OH YEAH???? WELL IF AARON BROOKS HADN'T OVERTHROWN CONWELL ON 3RD AND 6, WE'D NEVER HAVE HAD TO PUNT FROM OUR OWN 20 YARD LINE!!!! Any post closely resembling an insult to someone NOT named Aaron Brooks, in your mind, must represent someone trying to cover for his mistakes.
TheGambler 500th Post Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 610

10-03-2005, 01:22 PM	#32
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Originally Posted by TheGambler Originally Posted by saintswhodi Then you must miss the guy who makes threads in an attempt to deflect blame from Brooks at every shot. I call BS on you not seeing this. With a little less respect though. The problem with you, however,.....is that someone could create a post entitled "Boy Mitch Berger sure shanked that punt"......and you'd jump in with OH YEAH???? WELL IF AARON BROOKS HADN'T OVERTHROWN CONWELL ON 3RD AND 6, WE'D NEVER HAVE HAD TO PUNT FROM OUR OWN 20 YARD LINE!!!! Any post closely resembling an insult to someone NOT named Aaron Brooks, in your mind, must represent someone trying to cover for his mistakes. And the problem for you is, you think Brooks walks on water. So when some says, as you put it "Boy Mitch Berger sure shanked that punt" you'd immediatley think, "Well, I don't have to cover for Brooks this week, someone else got it for me." That was evidenced by the way you ran to EVERY thread and defended him to EVERY poster, not just me, after the Giants game. Keep trying though.

10-03-2005, 01:28 PM	#33
TheGambler 500th Post Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 610	Originally Posted by saintswhodi And the problem for you is, you think Brooks walks on water. So when some says, as you put it "Boy Mitch Berger sure shanked that punt" you'd immediatley think, "Well, I don't have to cover for Brooks this week, someone else got it for me." That was evidenced by the way you ran to EVERY thread and defended him to EVERY poster, not just me, after the Giants game. Keep trying though. So if what you say is true......and I feel Brooks walks on water, and "that was evidenced" as you put it.............woudln't I have "run from thread to thread" defending him after the Minnesota game as well? Theory....denied.
TheGambler 500th Post Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 610

10-03-2005, 02:29 PM	#35
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Any post closely resembling an insult to someone NOT named Aaron Brooks, in your mind, must represent someone trying to cover for his mistakes. This is exactly right. Whodi, the argument you're trying to make in this thread is one of the worst I've heard. It sounds like a defendant on trial for murder making a "yeah, but he deserved it" defense. There are countless threads on this board that start of with something like, "man, what's up with Deuce," or "Carney is making me nervous," or "the TEs are dropping everything," etc. Invariably, someone comes in and says, yeah, well AB sucks more! He's the bigger problem!! You say now that my trying to limit that is an unequal application of the rules if I don't apply the same thing to the "Brooks lover threads." OK, fine. Show me ONE SINGLE THREAD ever on this board where the equivalent of what you're doing has happened. Show me one time where a thread started like this, "man Deuce had a great game," and someone came in and said, "not as great as Brooks! He's one of the major reasons the Saints won! He's one of the team's biggest assets!!" That simply doesn't happen. I am in no way saying that people don't start "Brooks Rules" threads. But they don't jump into the middle of other threads screaming, "Brooks is great, he's our biggest asset!" when we're talking about the damn punter. Moreover, your next argument is equally as ridiculous. That someone starts a thread saying, "the o-line looked terrible" for no other reason that to somehow implicitly support Brooks. Again, I don't argue that people use the o-line, WRs, and whatever else under the sun as rationale for why things aren't AB's fault, but that is not akin to what you are doing. The opposite but equal of that behavior is where someone says, "AB played great," and you go rushing in saying, "but the o-line played great, and so did Deuce and the WRs caught everything in sight!" So, I will allow you to continue to rush into threads not about AB and scream about how much AB sucks at the same rate that people rush into other threads not about AB and scream about how great AB is. I will also allow you, when people say AB is great, to respond by deflecting attention from AB and talking about how great the o-line, RB, WRs, defense, coaching, etc. is. You may also start as many threads as you want about AB. But you cannot continue to turn threads not about AB into AB sucks fests. Just remember, YOU asked for an equal application of the rules. You get one AB SUCKS post for every AB RULES post. Enjoy it.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ 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.\"

10-03-2005, 02:49 PM	#36
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Originally Posted by TheGambler Originally Posted by saintswhodi And the problem for you is, you think Brooks walks on water. So when some says, as you put it "Boy Mitch Berger sure shanked that punt" you'd immediatley think, "Well, I don't have to cover for Brooks this week, someone else got it for me." That was evidenced by the way you ran to EVERY thread and defended him to EVERY poster, not just me, after the Giants game. Keep trying though. So if what you say is true......and I feel Brooks walks on water, and "that was evidenced" as you put it.............woudln't I have "run from thread to thread" defending him after the Minnesota game as well? Theory....denied. Um, I think after someone called you Brooks' mother, you decided your feelings about Brooks was being made too obvious. So you ducked and covered for the next week. you're still the same guy, except now cause for a week you didn't repeat your ridiculous defenses, you think that gives you some pedestal to stand on. Please.

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

10-03-2005, 01:46 PM	#34
jnormand 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Free State of Idaho Posts: 5,687	OK.......Anyway, I think Carney is doing decent. He's still reliable. (Getting back to the original point of this thread. Sigh)

10-03-2005, 02:57 PM	#37
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	There are countless threads on this board that start of with something like, "man, what's up with Deuce," or "Carney is making me nervous," or "the TEs are dropping everything," etc. Invariably, someone comes in and says, yeah, well AB sucks more! He's the bigger problem!! Yes, SOMEONE does, but you wanna make it seem as if it's only me. Who was it in the Stallowrth thread? It's you. Wow. And where were you in the thread I gave AB credit after week one, and the thread after this week? Still incognito huh? I guess you would be the prosecution that ignores all evidence just to get a judgment hey Darden? OK, fine. Show me ONE SINGLE THREAD ever on this board where the equivalent of what you're doing has happened. Show me one time where a thread started like this, "man Deuce had a great game," and someone came in and said, "not as great as Brooks! He's one of the major reasons the Saints won! He's one of the team's biggest assets!!" You must be turning a blind eye to blackonblack's posts, but why should I expect anything less? They praise Brooks, imagine that. But they don't jump into the middle of other threads screaming, "Brooks is great, he's our biggest asset!" when we're talking about the damn punter. Again, obviously only reading the threads you want to, and when is that something new here? Is this a new rule you just decided to make today? Moreover, your next argument is equally as ridiculous. That someone starts a thread saying, "the o-line looked terrible" for no other reason that to somehow implicitly support Brooks. Yeah, cause when someone says our defense sucks and what they did means nothing after one of their best performances ever really isn't trying to give one player more credit over others. Are we adding nievety as a means to push this argument through? So, I will allow you to continue to rush into threads not about AB and scream about how much AB sucks at the same rate that people rush into other threads not about AB and scream about how great AB is. I will also allow you, when people say AB is great, to respond by deflecting attention from AB and talking about how great the o-line, RB, WRs, defense, coaching, etc. is. You may also start as many threads as you want about AB. But you cannot continue to turn threads not about AB into AB sucks fests. Just remember, YOU asked for an equal application of the rules. You get one AB SUCKS post for every AB RULES post. Enjoy it. This should be easy once blackonblack gets here. But does this rule apply only to me, or will you apply it equilaterally across the board to all members? Otherwise, it seems kinda biased one person would have a rule and all others not. But then again, should I be surprised?

10-03-2005, 03:11 PM	#38
TheGambler 500th Post Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 610	Originally Posted by saintswhodi Um, I think after someone called you Brooks' mother, you decided your feelings about Brooks was being made too obvious. So you ducked and covered for the next week. you're still the same guy, except now cause for a week you didn't repeat your ridiculous defenses, you think that gives you some pedestal to stand on. Please. That line of thinking, right there, is why WhoDat is now having to "ration" your posting (which is pretty pathetic that it has to come to that). You are under the mistaken impression that you are 2 or 3 steps ahead of everyone's thought process, and that you're outsmarting everyone. A thread about Carney is a hidden Brooks defense. A thread about the play of our Defense a few weeks ago is a hidden Brooks defense. Sunshine, this might come as a complete shock to you......but maybe THEY ACTUALLY THINK OUR DEFENSE SUCKS AND CARNEY IS A BUM! Are they any less entitled to their opinion, than you are to yours? The fact that you are trying to create "AB Protection" conspiracy theories is both sad and funny at the same time. I'll bet you're one of those guys who always think the government has a spy camera on everyone as well, aren't you? You know what....don't even answer that, I don't care. Also, you're argument that I quote above is pretty much comparing apples to oranges. Aaron Brooks, in my opinion, was unjustly criticized after the NYG game, and I let people know about it. Aaron had a good game, with some mistakes.......but, in your opinion, my being impressed with his overall play (outside of the turnovers) and not cursing him in every other post obviously means I think he walks on water and that I want to deflect blame. Then you suggest that because I didn't defend him after the Minny game (and in fact, I made a few posts saying he played like crap, which he did).....that means I'm laying low since some mindless peon called me "Ms. Brooks". If you think I'm intellectually and socially backwards to the extent that an insult of "Ms. Brooks" is enough to completely sway my opinions and actions.......well, then you obviously don't know me very well at all. Do you not see a difference at all???? Brooks, vs. the Giants, threw for over 300 yards and had a nice completion percentage. Therefore, I defended THAT GAME. When he had absolutely nothing to brag about against Minnesota, there was NO NEED to defend his game...because his game stunk. CAN YOU NOT SEE A DIFFERENCE? I can use large font and construction paper if I need to..
TheGambler 500th Post Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 610

10-03-2005, 03:25 PM	#39
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Sorry sweetie, but you obviously haven't been around here enough to know this board is all about conspiracy theories. That's what it's based on. WhoDat knows this as well as I do, as well as any longtime poster on this board. Why do you think people are so confused by WhoDat's sudden switch to being so accepting of Brooks? Why do you think anytime a consiracy is mentioned, 08 is brought up? If you'd get your head out your ass, and stop trying to play this innocent card like you don't see anything, you'd know that. But again, you're above all that right, oh, I mean for the last two weeks. Right? Pitch that somewhere else. That's all BS. that means I'm laying low since some mindless peon Mindless peon? Think much of yourself? Your ridiculous behavior was noticed, and you are obviously still upset about it by the fact you have to namecall someone cause they called you out 2 weeks ago. Mindless peon? I guess you would know a relative when you heard one. Do you not see a difference at all???? Yes, three costly turnovers as opposed to two. Good call zippy. Have a nice day.

10-03-2005, 03:33 PM	#40
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	.. I just wanna see the drunk white guy kick for the Saints.. is he from the South?!?