OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Woops, I hope that wasn't over the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 But I've offered factual evidence to question his seemingly earnest comments. But I've countered with other experts who happen to agree with me. Man, what are you the copier boy at the firm? Uhhh, what other experts are those, skippy. And if I were the copier boy, I'd be taking your promotion away from you. Keep those burgers hot for me, now. Good Lord, you're a riot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Well, Oakton, why don't you try what you do when you're losing -- PMing a message laced with four letter words throughout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Uhhh, what other experts are those, skippy.And if I were the copier boy, I'd be taking your promotion away from you. Keep those burgers hot for me, now. Good Lord, you're a riot. Is that an attention span problem you have? Or reading comprehension? See the earlier post referencing other expert commentary about CS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Jeez, Samuels was such a bust that Brunell racked up a rating of 94.6 tonight. Hey Oakton, man you're right. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Is that an attention span problem you have? Or reading comprehension?See the earlier post referencing other expert commentary about CS. Uhhh, the other "expert" commentary was about Samuels a long time ago. That's inapposite because (1) it's temporally remote and (2) you were offering it to show that experts can be wrong, a theory we've visited and debunked a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Uhhh, what other experts are those, skippy.And if I were the copier boy, I'd be taking your promotion away from you. Keep those burgers hot for me, now. Good Lord, you're a riot. You know, that was almost funny. But there's no relationship between copier boy and burger boy. Now back to making copies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Jeez, Samuels was such a bust that Brunell racked up a rating of 94.6 tonight.Hey Oakton, man you're right. :laugh: Wow, another false premise. You are on a roll, copy boy. Reductio ad absurdum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 You know, that was almost funny. But there's no relationship between copier boy and burger boy. Now back to making copies. Yeah, I've got to make copies of the burger orders I send to you. I've got to have some proof of the orders I make when you screw them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Wow, another false premise. You are on a roll, copy boy. Reductio ad absurdum. Is that on your sixth grade list of "rhetorical flaws"? Jeez, yeah, that fact was really a "false premise" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean in this argument. :stupid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Uhhh, the other "expert" commentary was about Samuels a long time ago. That's inapposite because (1) it's temporally remote and (2) you were offering it to show that experts can be wrong, a theory we've visited and debunked a long time ago. Oh, but it only works when you can use that logic. I see. Did they teach you double standards at Harvard too? Yeah, the scouting report was from 2000. Then trade proposal was last year, and I believe the other article was more recent as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Is that on your sixth grade list of "rhetorical flaws"? Jeez, yeah, that fact was really a "false premise" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean in this argument.:stupid: Yeah, ok - Brunnell played well, therefore Samuels played well. I mean, it is sixth grade material. Shame that a Harvard boy uses that. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Oh, but it only works when you can use that logic. I see. Did they teach you double standards at Harvard too? Yeah, the scouting report was from 2000. Then trade proposal was last year, and I believe the other article was more recent as well. Ummmm, no, you don't seem to get the point, sonny. My point is that, while experts can be wrong, you can't just prop that point up with every expert. You've got to explain why both Bugel and Scouts, Inc. are wrong. You haven't done that, smart guy, and have only gone about saying that you know as much as Bugel. :insane: As to the trade thing, try offering any evidence that it was done because the 'Skins thought he was slacking. If you're paying attention, Bugel's statement completely nukes any theory like that. Wow. I feel sorry for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Ok, seriously. I'm out for now. Some of us have challenging jobs. And that's not pressing the big green start button over and over again. See ya copier boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Yeah, ok - Brunnell played well, therefore Samuels played well. I mean, it is sixth grade material. Shame that a Harvard boy uses that. :laugh: Uhhhh, let's see here: if Samuels is so bad as you say he is, no way does he do pull of that type of game. You're right, that is sixth grade material: it's called common sense, which is something else you're lacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Ok, seriously. I'm out for now. Some of us have challenging jobs. And that's not pressing the big green start button over and over again. See ya copier boy. Awwww . . . when you go back to the fry bin tomorrow, try thinking about offering some evidence as to why Bugel is wrong. Oh yeah, you know as muc as he does right? And anytime you'd like for me to pony up my creds, meet me at DC's Harvard Club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Ok, seriously. I'm out for now. Some of us have challenging jobs. And that's not pressing the big green start button over and over again. See ya copier boy. Oh, while you're at it, why don't you try one of those white trash, four letter word PMs again? Say hi to your sister errrr wife for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 17. Do not create “call out” threads. Threads whose intention is clearly to "call out" another particular member on a personal matter. These forums are not to be used as a medium for personal and/or private vendettas. To the extent personal exchanges/conversations are necessary---and desired by BOTH parties---those members are encouraged to pursue them via Private Messaging. Feel free to question members as to past comments you’d like them to explain in the spirit of good debate. Do not use private messaging to badger or intimidate other members. Substantiated instances of such behavior will result in the immediate loss of private messaging privileges for the instigator, and may result in permanent banning from Extremeskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 17. Do not create “call out” threads. Threads whose intention is clearly to "call out" another particular member on a personal matter. These forums are not to be used as a medium for personal and/or private vendettas. To the extent personal exchanges/conversations are necessary---and desired by BOTH parties---those members are encouraged to pursue them via Private Messaging. Feel free to question members as to past comments you’d like them to explain in the spirit of good debate. Do not use private messaging to badger or intimidate other members. Substantiated instances of such behavior will result in the immediate loss of private messaging privileges for the instigator, and may result in permanent banning from Extremeskins. Well, you should've seen the nice little PM he sent me that was littered with a lot of four letter words beginning with "s" and "f." Hey, but I get that kind of stuff everyday, so it ain't a thing. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Uhhhh, let's see here: if Samuels is so bad as you say he is, no way does he do pull of that type of game. You're right, that is sixth grade material: it's called common sense, which is something else you're lacking. You mean the type of game where he gets steamrolled on one play leading to the ball being stripped from Brunnell? You mean the kind of game where, once again, Portis doesn't have much success running to his side? Or you missed my post detailing that play? Just curious - selective filtering, attention span issues, lack of focus, a details problem? All of the above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Awwww . . . when you go back to the fry bin tomorrow, try thinking about offering some evidence as to why Bugel is wrong. Oh yeah, you know as muc as he does right? And anytime you'd like for me to pony up my creds, meet me at DC's Harvard Club. Great, more goldenboy logic: "I am associated with Harvard; therefore, I am superior to all that challenge me on this board." 1) I already have, and threw in tidbits from various sports media outfits confirming my views. Of course, you know this, but it's far easier to ignore and employ double standards with respect to using "expert testimony." 2) Your creds are worthless in this forum. In fact, you should probably consider using them as toilet paper because they have not served you well here. Another wanna-be elitist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 You both are retarded. TK -- obviously they DIDN'T "get it." There are like 7 or 8 pages of you two going back and forth like school girls...one of you is 33 and the other one is 40; I can't believe it. Get over yourselves and agree to disagree. Sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amm11387 Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 what do u expect SI predicted wed go 4-12 so unless we can go back in time theyre stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 You both are retarded. TK -- obviously they DIDN'T "get it." There are like 7 or 8 pages of you two going back and forth like school girls...one of you is 33 and the other one is 40; I can't believe it. Get over yourselves and agree to disagree. Sheesh. You're right. My point has been made. I'm done with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctorfro Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 crack on lavar all you want. I don't think the eagles would agree with si's assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.