Hitman21ST Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 You are beyond pathetic. I don't have time at the moment, but we can do a nice thorough post review over the past 4 years on the subject and see who has been right more often. Intarweb arguing 101: When losing an argument over the intarweb, resort to namecalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 +1,000,000SoCal is a completely clueless chump. This post coming from a guy who posted this: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?p=7086380#post7086380 Fair enough. I'm biased, obviously. Always been a Campbell supporter. What a shock, I offend Campbell groupies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Intarweb arguing 101: When losing an argument over the intarweb, resort to namecalling. I have yet to lose an argument here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 You are beyond pathetic. I don't have time at the moment, but we can do a nice thorough post review over the past 4 years on the subject and see who has been right more often. Ooooh, I've moved on to "BEYOND" pathetic! That's fun! You're all about being right in the past, but you're wrong now. That must kill you. YOU are WRONG. My opinions change with the facts, while you are just a zealot who's got to be RIGHT all of the time without looking at the reality of the situation. Still believe that the world is flat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I have yet to lose an argument here. You've lost this one. You've lost your precious Campbell argument right here in this thread. You lose. Maybe you'll learn that "winning" an internet argument doesn't mean anything and that, at 35, you should have other successes in your life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Still believe that the world is flat? Wait. It's not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Ooooh, I've moved on to "BEYOND" pathetic! That's fun!You're all about being right in the past, but you're wrong now. That must kill you. YOU are WRONG. My opinions change with the facts, while you are just a zealot who's got to be RIGHT all of the time without looking at the reality of the situation. Still believe that the world is flat? I base my opinions on facts. I also support the scientific method. You base yours on your perceived observations. Your background in psychology probably has you believing in magic and the earth being flat etc. You've lost this one. You've lost your precious Campbell argument right here in this thread.You lose. Maybe you'll learn that "winning" an internet argument doesn't mean anything and that, at 35, you should have other successes in your life. I don't base my successes in life winning arguments here. Why don't we take to PM at this point if you want to continue the non-Redskins conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I base my opinions on facts. I also support the scientific method. You base yours on your perceived observations.Your background in psychology probably has you believing in magic and the earth being flat etc. The facts: 92.5 QB rating over the last 5 games, were it not for Suisham, we would be at least 4-1 rather than 2-3 over the same span. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassSkinsFan Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I have yet to lose an argument here. Provide specific proof that JC is 100% responsible for our failure to make it to the SB since he's been QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passizle Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Which hot streak has JC been on exactly?8-13 his first 21 games in the NFL in which he played a half or more, 6-15 his last 21 games in the NFL in which he playted a half or more. This is a PRIMARY example of hedging. Paint a partial picture to bring to light only the supportive aspects of your agenda, while obscuring the truth. 8-13 + 6-15 = 14-28. Thats a total of 42 games. Seeing that JC has 49 starts, I would be inclined to ask the questions: Where is the missing data? (My bet ,without looking it up, is the missing data was the 6-2 start) Why choose a 21 game cut-off? Why not use the past 30 games? What about the rest of the team? Injuries? Lack of run game in 2009? Lack of defense in 2006? Lack of good, consistant offensive line play for the past 3 years? Coaching carousel? Different playbooks? I guess the underlying question to all this is: Where is the science behind your random fact generator that arbitrarily brings the "far out facts" to the table. None of that is included in your watered own version of the facts. And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously... Lastly. The genious behind this facade is that technically you keep yourself free from being called incorrect (even thought your view is VERY slanted) by using partial facts to essentially get away with lying. Perhaps lying is too strong a word. I cant find the fit yet... but I will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 The facts: 92.5 QB rating over the last 5 games, were it not for Suisham, we would be at least 4-1 rather than 2-3 over the same span. We are 4-9. 6-15 over the past 21. Those are facts not what ifs. 0 wins against 10 or more win teams since the start of 2007 with JC. 2 without him. This is a PRIMARY example of hedging. Paint a partial picture to bring to light only the supportive aspects of your agenda, while obscuring the truth.8-13 + 6-15 = 14-28. Thats a total of 42 games. Seeing that JC has 49 starts, I would be inclined to ask the questions: Where is the missing data? (My bet ,without looking it up, is the missing data was the 6-2 start) Why choose a 21 game cut-off? Why not use the past 30 games? What about the rest of the team? Injuries? Lack of run game in 2009? Lack of defense in 2006? Lack of good, consistant offensive line play for the past 3 years? Coaching carousel? Different playbooks? I guess the underlying question to all this is: Where is the science behind your random fact generator that arbitrarily brings the "far out facts" to the table. None of that is included in your watered own version of the facts. And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously... Lastly. The genious behind this facade is that technically you keep yourself free from being called incorrect (even thought your view is VERY slanted) by using partial facts to essentially get away with lying. Perhaps lying is too strong a word. I cant find the fit yet... but I will. JC's overall record puts him as the worst Redskins QB in history in terms of losing percentage for a QB who played in as many or more games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 SoCal, you should be in politics. I honestly believe you missed your calling. I plan to go to law school after I finish this semester and I would love to have your talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passizle Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I have yet to lose an argument here. Not conceding to a loss does not mean you did not actually lose. You should take a lesson in humility. Your pride is boundess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Provide specific proof that JC is 100% responsible for our failure to make it to the SB since he's been QB. I have to run and don't have much time, but here are numbers I ran prior to the Oakland game (they will slightly improve JC's numbers once I run them again with the Oakland win): Since Campbell became a Redskin, the Redskins are 1.5 times more likely to win a game without Jason Campbell playing a half or more than with him playing a half or more. 58.62% without him, 38.30% with him. In games played after November 1st, the Redskins are more than 3 times as likely to win without Jason Campbell playing a half or more than with him playing a half or more. 73.33% without him, 23.08% with him. The Redskins are also 6.5 times more likely to score over 30 without him than with him. 27.59% without, 4.25% with. Same team during the same span. SoCal, you should be in politics. I honestly believe you missed your calling. I plan to go to law school after I finish this semester and I would love to have your talent. I am a member of the California Bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passizle Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 We are 4-9. 6-15 over the past 21. Those are facts not what ifs. 0 wins against 10 or more win teams since the start of 2007 with JC. 2 without him.JC's overall record puts him as the worst Redskins QB in history in terms of losing percentage for a QB who played in as many or more games. Jesus. How many hedges can you fit into one sentence? You pobably confuse yourself alot dont you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassSkinsFan Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I have to run and don't have much time, but here are numbers I ran prior to the Oakland game (they will slightly improve JC's numbers once I run them again with the Oakland win):Since Campbell became a Redskin, the Redskins are 1.5 times more likely to win a game without Jason Campbell playing a half or more than with him playing a half or more. 58.62% without him, 38.30% with him. In games played after November 1st, the Redskins are more than 3 times as likely to win without Jason Campbell playing a half or more than with him playing a half or more. 73.33% without him, 23.08% with him. The Redskins are also 6.5 times more likely to score over 30 without him than with him. 27.59% without, 4.25% with. Same team during the same span. I'll hand it to you that I'm impressed that you're breaking this down and keeping a running total. Kudos to you. However, you still fail to address my request. I'm not a lawyer but I've heard the old axiom to ask questions for which you know the answers, so when I challenged you to provide evidence that this is 100% on Campbell, I did it knowing that there is no way you can definitively prove that. The only possible way would be if Jason Cambpell were playing all positions for all games. Otherwise, there is no way to provide evidence that failure to get to the SB is 100% his fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passizle Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I have to run and don't have much time, but here are numbers I ran prior to the Oakland game (they will slightly improve JC's numbers once I run them again with the Oakland win):Since Campbell became a Redskin, the Redskins are 1.5 times more likely to win a game without Jason Campbell playing a half or more than with him playing a half or more. 58.62% without him, 38.30% with him. In games played after November 1st, the Redskins are more than 3 times as likely to win without Jason Campbell playing a half or more than with him playing a half or more. 73.33% without him, 23.08% with him. The Redskins are also 6.5 times more likely to score over 30 without him than with him. 27.59% without, 4.25% with. Same team during the same span. I am a member of the California Bar. You seem like a pretty smart guy SoCal. But your only constant you are using in these formulae is JC. There are many other factors that you simply cannot manifest in your numbers. Such as the value of the line play, or run game, injuries, weather propensities, value of opponent, all of the above of the opponent, etc... That list to get "real" numbers is nearly impossible to create for the average person. Just makig up an quation ans sticking in Campbell as your only variable and equating that variable as the source of the issue is too simplistic approach IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassSkinsFan Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 You seem like a pretty smart guy SoCal. But your only constant you are using in these formulae is JC. There are many other factors that you simply cannot manifest in your numbers. Such as the value of the line play, or run game, injuries, weather propensities, value of opponent, all of the above of the opponent, etc...That list to get "real" numbers is nearly impossible to create for the average person. Just makig up an quation ans sticking in Campbell as your only variable and equating that variable as the source of the issue is too simplistic approach IMO. I believe they call it a fallacial argument (does that sound lewd)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I am a member of the California Bar. It shows! For the record: SoCal followed his suggested advice and actually PMed me to drop the tension level a bit. A completely classy (Campbell-like ) move that got a lot of respect from me. Not one insult, not one crazy comment in the whole thing. SoCal, I'll tone it down. Hell, I just may drop out of Campbell arguments with you altogether (doubtful!). I did, however, want to point out that SoCal made such a move, and I hope that more posters on either side of any debate can follow suit. Just need Shilsu to show some kind of humanity and my top three will be off my "list" . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passizle Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I have to run and don't have much time, but here are numbers I ran prior to the Oakland game (they will slightly improve JC's numbers once I run them again with the Oakland win):Since Campbell became a Redskin, the Redskins are 1.5 times more likely to win a game without Jason Campbell playing a half or more than with him playing a half or more. 58.62% without him, 38.30% with him. In games played after November 1st, the Redskins are more than 3 times as likely to win without Jason Campbell playing a half or more than with him playing a half or more. 73.33% without him, 23.08% with him. The Redskins are also 6.5 times more likely to score over 30 without him than with him. 27.59% without, 4.25% with. Same team during the same span. I am a member of the California Bar. Pubs dnt count... At least now I know why you like to argue so much... and why most posters dont like debating with you. Damn lawyers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passizle Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I believe they call it a fallacial argument (does that sound lewd)? Nah. Not lewd. Its called "lawyer speak". And SoCal's got it down pat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shilsu Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Just need Shilsu to show some kind of humanity and my top three will be off my "list" . . . Poor baby. You keep a "list" of ExtremeSkinners that upset you now? Get a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Poor baby. You keep a "list" of ExtremeSkinners that upset you now?Get a life. Case. In. Point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassSkinsFan Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Poor baby. You keep a "list" of ExtremeSkinners that upset you now?Get a life. Hahaha. Do you remember the M_SF "List of Doom" or whatever he called it? That was hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shilsu Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Case.In. Point. The point is you think about me and use my name in threads that I don't even post in. Just shows what a baby you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.