Janikowski?

What exactly is it that I'm pretending not to see. Since you are the mind-reader, I look forward to getting a nice laugh at it. You're right, I haven't been around long enough....so please guide me. The only thing I can gather is that you're tyring to imply someone hacked into WhoDat's account and is now posting under his name. That could easliy be verified by e-mailing WhoDat and asking him "hey dawg, is that really you?" It's really not that complicated. Help me understand what point you're trying to make.

Actually, yes I do. I see myself as being above whomever that was, because I (unlike him) have the ability to communicate in an intelligent manner. Mindless? You bet it was, the name Ms. Brooks couldn't have taken over about 2 seconds to come up with. Just because you may have gotten a mild chuckle out of it doesn't make it any more mindless. Hey, I used to chuckle at Bevis and Butthead, but I'm not gonna sit here and get mad because somebody else might think it was moronic.

If I had called you Ms. Delhomme after you posted I WISH JAKE WERE OUR QUARTERBACK!!! last week, you would have no doubt "called me out" on how stupid and childish it was. (By the way, I know I said I didn't care to talk about Jake any more than I had to earlier.......but I'm just citing a specific example. Don't give yourself carpal tunnel trying to click backwards and find it).

You are far too bright to not see any difference in Brooks's OVERALL performance between the NYG and Minny games. At least I hope you are.

Why would I be saying that? Didn't I call you Billy when you first got here? If I thought someone else was acting as WhoDat I would say it, but you missed the boat altogether. Since I have been here, there has always been conspiracies, and hidden meanings, and hidden agendas, to the point where you couldn't even say the word agenda around here. People made posts to push their points across without directly saying it, causing you to have to read between the lines. WhoDat has called this kind of behavior previously, and even mimiced it on occasion, now he is acting as if it doesn't happen. That's what I am talking about.What I am telling you is, either you are blatantly ignoring that this happens, are you aren't as bright as you think you are. I'll go with blatantly ignoring for now.

Really? Above him huh? Mr. Brooks raped someone's goldfish, cause grandma might have been too offensive? I know you really didn't just try to go there. You need to take a step back and re-evaluate yourself bro.

Yes, looks at Brooks shiny stats, and ignore the obvious mistakes that cost us the game. Same MO since he has been here. I thought people were over that by now, I guess not. Let me clue you in, THREE TURNOVERS FROM ONE PLAYER IS NEVER GOOD IN ANY GAME. See, you can't count the last one that would havebeen 4 cause the game was over and it was meaningless so we should petition NFL.com to remove it from their records.

Last warning. I don't care how right you think you are Whodi. You're the only one arguing it. I'm telling you right now to stop. If you don't there will be consequences. I'm not going to argue with you over this b/c you're too stubborn to even hear an opposing argument. At present, no one else on this board is screaming about Brooks like you are. I don't care if you're screaming that he sucks or that he's awesome. I'm tired of threads about things other than Aaron Brooks and Jake Delhomme turning into threads about those two, regardless of the side being taken.

You post a lot here Whodi. My advice is to drop it before you put that in jeopardy and in the future, if you feel the need to talk about Brooks, start a thread about him, or post in one of the 75 that already exist at any given moment.

To be honest, you and BlackonBlack are the only 2 people I've seen posting like absolute nutjobs these days. Stop trying to pretend like "everybody does it" because they don't. Everybody, I'm sure, has been guilty of SOMETHING at one time or another...........but very few do the same exact crap with such consistency as you and maybe 1 or 2 others. Hey, when I first got here, I was warned 2 or 3 times............I soon learned that I can either (a) learn to get my point across without being a ***** or (b) get banned. If what you say is true about the conspiracies, however, getting banned certainly wouldn't be the end of the world for me.



The difference between him and myself is this: I can lower myself to certain levels, but I have ability to bring myself right back up. That person, on the other hand, seems to be stuck in permanent neutral. I anxiously await his ability to prove me wrong.


Nobody is denying that the turnovers sucked. Nobody said the turnovers were good. But in usual SaintsWhodi fashion....you don't even remember your initial point: you said I was defending Brooks for the NYG game, only to back off for the Minny game out of some sort of fear that I'd be riduculed. Umm...no, I didn't defend him because he SUCKED against Minnesota. It bears repeating: THERE WERE THINGS I FELT I COULD DEFEND AGAINST THE GIANTS, AND THERE WAS NOTHING I FELT I COULD DEFEND AGAINST MINNESOTA. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. That's why it's a DISCUSSION board........for HEALTHY debate, not for some nutjob and his conspiracies.

You say you get it....but you just don't

So, you don't prove your point then you get on a power trip? What I wanna know is, where besides this thread have I posted in a thread that wasn't about Brooks, something about Brooks, before anyone else did it? And I am not being silly here, I am being serious. The only times I recall ever posting about Brooks in a non-Brooks thread was here in this thread, and when someone else did it before me. But somehow I don't see anyone else getting any warnings cause I am the "only one." I am not gonna throw anyone else under the bus for it, but I know for a fact I am not the only one who has done it, not in a million years. But for whatever reason, you wanna take up the cause now. Good for you. If you wanna make things up, and power trip when questioned, do what you gotta do. But to make it seem like I am the only one, or as if it is constantly happening from me is a flat out non-truth, and you do what you have to do based on that non-truth. What I do know is, you yourself have said you have seen it done not by only me so the sad part is, you know I am not the only one. But i'll apologize to everyone here if I am the only one, and you can show me all these threads I alone am ruining by bringing up Brooks when noone else has. Maybe it's just that I don't see the wrong I am doing. I need it placed factually in front of me. I am sure Gambler will help. I'd like proof of what I am being accused of, which, as far as I understand it, is posting in every thread negatively about Brooks no matter who it is about. I already have two threads proving that as false.

Huh? Not in my eyes you don't. Comments like that make you no better than anyone else. Maybe you should learn that.

I get it alright, you're full of it. The above comment about lowering yourself then bringing yourself back up proves it, as you made one of the lowest class statements I have ever heard on here. Have a good day dude, I am being told to leave this alone, while you aren't, so you have no worries, while I should be should I continue. Why don't we both just let this go? I have my opinion of you, you have yours of me, and it's getting either of us nowhere arguing over it.

Do you even remember what your original argument was?

Don't bother replying if all you can do is simply take the most irrelevant parts of the post (me being above him) and argue based on that.

The original argument, in case you've forgotten, is that we don't need to hear you whine, complain, and moan every time somebody starts a thread criticizing a member of the Saints's franchise without you jumping in and demanding that they place equal, or greater, blame on Aaron Brooks.

So what in God's name would me thinking I'm above some guy who probably hasn't even posted since he tried some weak attempt at flaming me 2 weeks ago, have to do with your nutjob conspiracy theories...

Your argument was horrible.

The fact that you see everyone else as being wrong, while everything you've done is completely right, should tell you something.

The fact that I have yet to see proof of this offensive behavior means you're a liar. Now where do we go from there?

Wait, which one is it??

First, you give the impression that it's your civic duty to jump in and respond whenever you see someone "trying cover up for Brooks's mistakes" as you put it (even when they never mention his name at all)..................and now you "don't see any evidence of it?"

Go home, it's been a long day for you.