I don't want your death on my conscience.

>You open your response with a misrepresentation of something I
>said. Sort of bodes for how shitty rest of this post might
>be. No fun for me.

So you can't stand by your own words - nothing new here.

>Like I just told you, I said "Aaron Brooks might make a
>trillion worse decisions than Drew Bledsoe" to make that point
>that any claim in the universe might be true, but you actually
>must provide evidence for it.

Nigga please. You said "So, yes, Aaron Brooks might actually make a trillion worse decisons than Drew Bledsoe. I just happen to find those hard to focus on when:", and then listed your "evidence" for his awareness; that is recognizing that he makes tons of mistakes, and then making excuses for why you don't think they matter. So stop lying already.

>Over the past four years, Brooks threw less picks per
>TD, threw for more yards, threw at a comparable completion
>percentage, was sacked less per pass attempt, and loses no
>more games with an inferior defense to the one that Bledsoe
>plays with.
>
>*I* provided *SOME* evidence.
>
>Not *ALL* the evidence. But *SOME*

But is all that evidence of "awareness" specifically, or rather overall effectiveness? See, I could make the same argument for Favre - over the last 4 seasons Favre threw less picks per TD, threw for more yards, threw at a significantly higher completion percentage, was sacked half as much, and won alot more games than Brooks. Yet you said that Favre having higher awareness numbers doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all, when according to the very criteria you cited it does.

And therein lies the problem with relying on those statistics for judging "awareness"; Favre still puts up great numbers across the board, but does that mean he's been showing great "awareness" as of late? I think we can all agree that is not the case. Which means that those numbers you're basing your argument on don't necessarily make a compelling assessment of "awareness."

THAT IS ALL I WAS SAYING.

Rather simple, actually. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

>*YOU* provided *NO* evidence.

For the millionth time: my argument was not to prove that Brooks is unaware, it was to prove that your evidence was unconvincing.

THAT IS ALL.

>You see, its sort of like if someone were to say
>"40thStreetBlack is a good poster."
>
>It might be true. The problem is, he's lying,

The problem is, you keep saying that, but you can't actually show any instance where I lied.

>the same Ken O'Brien argument that has absolutely, positively,
>specifically, not a gatdamn thing to do with Bledsoe versus
>Brooks specifically,

IT'S THE SAME FUCKING CRITERIA *YOU* BASED YOUR ARGUMENT FOR "AWARENESS" ON!!!

>The real problem here is that you cannot properly provide
>evidence for the 17% difference between Bledose and Brooks.

That would only be a problem if I worked for EA Sports. When they start sending me paychecks I'll let you know.

>Hell, you say below that you can't do that, nor never said you
>were trying to.
>
>But I won't let you off the hook that easily.....

How about actually showing where I ever even made that argument? Then you can bait that hook, sport.

>>And prove how I've misrepresented one argument of yours.
>Just
>>one.
>
>Read above.

No, I said prove how *I* misrepresented your argument, not how you misrepresented your own argument because you can't stand by your own words.

>You've managed to lie in consecutive points in your retort
>post.

You've managed to repeatedly accuse me of lying and then failed to show anything that I lied about. Which makes you the liar.

>Why don't you lie and say like...I cheat on my taxes or
>something....you know...something that isn't verifiable and
>therefore hard to defend myself against. Your lies are
>ineffective and too easy to refute.

You mean like you not being a real Yankee fan? LOL

>I have several posts on the board right now, that are
>everything but discussions of "racial conspiracies." I'm
>just a regular brother most of the time.

Yeah, a regular Conspiracy Brother. Except a *lot* less funny than Chappelle was in that movie.

>Now when I encounter pussies like you, oh yea, I can breath
>flames.

Nah, that's from some shit you caught sucking Basaglia's dick.

>Uh, yeah. That is all I ever do.
>
>You win.

Is that not what you're known for on here? I'm hardly the first person to say that. Or the second. Or third. Or fourth. Or fifth. Or sixth. Or......

>Did you not just say that you don't intend to argue that there
>is justification for a 17% difference in awareness between
>Bledose and Brooks? Do you yourself not agree that is a *bit*
>high?

See, you didn't merely argue against the 17% difference, you said Brooks is *no less aware* than Bledsoe. THAT IS ALL I WAS FUCKING TALKING ABOUT. Jesus Christ you are a dense motherfucker.

>I mean, jump out of a window, and ease your burden on my eco
>system, you worthless, maginal human being.

'Twan, you seem to be dwelling on thoughts of suicide alot. Call the hotline - please. They have some very nice people there who can help you with your emotional problems.

>I never, ever, ever, ever, said that all measures of QB
>greatness were relegated to quantitative measures.

You said that awareness is, which is what we are discussing here.

>In fact, I
>INVITED YOU to provide some situations to explain the 17%
>disparity in Awareness ranking.

How about you invite the good folks at EA Sports to cut me a check, and I'd be happy to play that little game.

>In the case of Simms/O'Brien, I can point to Simms' Superbowl
>victory and exquisite playoff performances. I can point to the
>fact that actually, Ken O'Brien had TWO WIDE RECIEVERS better
>than ANY RECEIVER that Simms EVER HAD(Toon and Wesley Walker
>were BOTH better than like....Bobby Johnson and Phil
>Mackonkey).

And I can point to the fact that Simms played on a FAR superior team, had a FAR better offensive line protecting him than O'Brien, and played behind a DOMINATING defense that allowed him to play in a smart ball-control offense, while O'Brien played behind a shitty defense where he was continually forced to try to make things happen offensively.

>Its Phil Simms awareness specifically that re-invigorated the
>tight end position--Simms' best target was Bavaro.

LOL - I think Bavaro himself might have had a little something to do with it.

>Bavaro. no NFL tight end had put up big numbers since Kellen
>Winslow Sr. who was a super athlete in an electric offensie.
>Bavaro was not in Winslow's class athletically. Bavaro did,
>however, play with a smart QB who knew how to fire it
>underneath.

Oh, so Simms *did* have a great reciever who put up big numbers after all? I thought he was throwing to a bunch of scrubs.

(And btw, are you related to the Winslows or something? Cuz you jock them like they bought you a house and a Benz and shit)

>That actually isn't what I meant, but you are doing bad enough
>in this post, so allow me to say I'm sorry for not phrasing
>that point correctly.

Well that's actually exactly what you said, but I know how you have trouble saying what you mean and meaning what you say, so I'll let that one slide.

>Well, me and you BOTH AGREE that there are racial undertones
>in the rankings of NFL
>players in a VIDEO GAME.
>
>So we BOTH actually fit way on the left of the race baiter
>curve relative to most of the people on this BOARD. I'm not
>even going to discuss where we stand relative to teh average
>American.

But I thought that I "pigeonhole everyone with politics left of yours as a "radical" and fling sappy, commercial, publically approved commentary with regularity"?

See, isn't it more refreshing to just be honest?

>Just count the number of white people IN THIS THREAD who agree
>that the rankings are indicative of racism.
>
>Stop counting.
>
>Yep.

You mean counting Basaglia? LOL

>Uh. 99% of my race commmentaries are regarding the above
>topics specifically.

On here? Hardly.

>But please, continue construction of the
>Straw_Orbit.

No can do, that's your job. Union rules and such.

>Ah...there's Straw_Orbit. How you been buddy?

I'm picturing the DeNiro talking to himself in the mirror scene from Taxi Driver right now. Except your acting is much, much, much less believable.

>1) The Sosa situation in Chicago might not have been a racial
>situation, but its far from obsurd for one to want to
>speculate, given what I hear about Chicago.

Ah, so you were basing that whole argument on nothing more than conjecture and hearsay? As Lionel Hutz would say, "Well, your Honor, we've got plenty of hearsay and conjecture... those are *kinds* of evidence."

>Chicago white
>people might not be Bostonians, but they aren't Bay Area-ites
>either.

For someone who decries pidgeonholeing people, you certainly do it a heck of alot.

>Because I don't recall saying that Tony Gwynn got less pub
>than Boggs because of race alone.
>
>I recall mentioning the size of the markets, the relative
>importance of the Red Sox to baseball as compared to the
>Pardes, etc.
>
>But its more fun when you lie.

Funny, I don't recall saying you claimed race was the sole factor. But you did think race was a factor, right? You simply forgot the part where Boggs hit almost 20 points higher in that decade, which obviates any further need to explain the discrepancy. But its more fun when you lie AND make retarded arguments at the same time.

>3)You don't lie about my arguments part Deux?
>
>Oh.
>
>Because I don't recall suggesting that Aaron Brooks was more
>aware than Drew Bledose.

And I don't recall suggesting that you did, so please stop lying already.

>I only said there wasn't evidence for the MAGNITUDE OF
>DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.

No, you also said Brooks was NO LESS AWARE THAN BLEDSOE. Funny how you keep conveniently forgetting that point.

>And you just agreed with me below. You just told me that you
>don't care to argue that there is evidence for Bledsoe being
>17% more aware.

That's not agreeing with you, it's simply pointing out that I never engaged in that argument at all.

>So, have you slit your wrist yet?

1-800-SUICIDE

You don't even need a quarter, it's toll-free.

>Actually, smart people can have intelligent conversations with
>O_E.
>
>Its the "smart people" thing that seems to be your obstacle.

Sure thing, Herr Heisenberg.

>Man leaving a profession that one loves, to want to go "fight
>terrorists", voluntarily, without an understanding of the
>facts, the complications of the situation, without regard for
>his family, without questioning the swift, irrational way that
>the Afghanistan "war" was started.......that is
>"ramboesque-Machismo" to me.

Wow, that's alot of personal insider info you seem to know about someone you never met and who never made any public statements about any of that stuff.

"without an understanding of the facts, the complications of the situation" - and you know this how?

"without regard for his family" - and you know this how? (At least you've finally stopped lying about his non-existant child though)

"without questioning the swift, irrational way that the Afghanistan "war" was started"

The way it *started* was not particularly swift or irrational (more below)

And once again, he was on the Afghan-Pakistani border - are you saying there were never any terrorists there? And if not, then what the fuck are you even saying, bitch?

>But oddly, I actually *DID* say that I respect people who
>place some social situation ahead of sports. Again, this
>dosen't fit in with Straw_Orbit, so ignore.

WTF? You're really getting delusional now.

>Orbit is pissing on WWII Veteran graves by questioning the
>legitmacy of the Afghan retaliation, and the actions of
>someone I belive didn't consider the political situation into
>which he was immersing himself.
>
>HOW "UN-AMERICAN" OF ME!!!!!!

Uh, no, you are pissing on WWII Veteran graves by belittling being KIA by friendly fire - approximately 21,000 WWII Veterans' graves in fact (probably more). Not to mention WWI, Korea, Vietnam, etc, etc.

>You are officially the most spineless son of a bitch I have
>ever come across.

You're the most gutless two-faced hoe ass bitch I've ever come across.

>The fighers in World War II were actualy fighting a man that
>was dangerously close to conquering all of Europe and Asia,
>had already killed 10 million civillians(more than half
>through the deliberate genocide of ethnic Jews)

Thanks for the history lesson, professor. But Hirohito was the one dangerously close to conquering Asia, and we didn't go to war with Germany to stop Hitler from killing the Jews. Try getting your history lessons from more reliable sources than Speilberg movies.

>For you to even conjure this argument in a discussion about
>Pat Tillman and the Afghanistan situation is.......first and
>foremost just a terrible argument(that thankfully, I've shat
>on) but more importantly, is very neo-conservative. As you
>recall, ain't that how Bushy rationalized all thie bullshit
>post 9/11? That we might be dealing with our generations
>Hitler?

Your reading comprehesion skills are even more off than your history; I brought up the fighters in World War II on the basis of CASUALTIES FROM FRIENDLY FIRE, not all this bullshit your babbling about.

>Dude, you make me really want to beat your ass. Seriously.
>
>I think your in the tri-state.
>
>I might have to hop on a train and knock the terrible views
>from your soul.

LOL @ this emo-hoe ass nigga trying to get his e-thug on. Straight comedy.

>Yeah, that is what criticism of US foreign policy, and a cross
>examination of the actions of anyone who follows it blindly
>is.

"Ramboesque machismo stunt" is pissing on his grave. Other people were able to make much more eloquent and compelling criticisms of the situation without resorting to juvenile pejoratives.

>Nice way to elminate dialogue on the topic, Mr. Rumsfield.

Asking for civility in the debate isn't eliminating dialogue, Mr. Rove.

>*gasp*
>
>*gasp*
>
>*gasp*
>
>But seriously....
>
>*gasp*

So now you're a Red Sox fan I see. GO SAWKS!!!

>You talk about my ignorance in not know exactly what was going
>on in the mind of
>Pat Tillman--do you know, speficially, that he wanted to rid
>the world of evil? Or do you simply know that he wanted to go
>fight in Afghanistan? Not the same animial. In fact, there are
>lots of rich people who don't like evil in this world, and
>work tirelessly to eliminate evil in the world. Very few run
>and try to fight with their hands. Not because they are
>scared, but because....well...did anyone actually *ask*
>Tillman to fight? Or did Tillman run and fight, completely
>unsolicited?
>
>Hmm.

You certainly enjoy hearing yourself talk, don't you? Why don't you let me know when your done talking to yourself and want to discuss what I was actually saying.

>>But self-righteous douchebags like you want to exploit the
>>government's lies about his death so you can denigrate
>Tillman
>>himself and say shit like "it was a Ramboesque machismo
>>stunt"... "he died a meaningless death", as if he had
>>anything to do with the cover-up sham.
>
>Actually, it did.

"It did" what? You need to clarify here, cuz your syntax is a little off.

>The entire Afghan "war" was conocted because we needed
>someone to blame and retaliate against after 9/11. We
>figured it was an easy government to knock down, so we knocked
>it down, and the US people temporarily felt retribution.

Wait, so did or did not Al Qaeda in fact carry out the 9/11 attacks? Did or did not Afghanistan harbor Bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Did or did not the Taliban refuse to hand them over? This isn't concocting non-existant WMD in Iraq, there were in fact very logical reasons to go into Afghanistan.

>our piss poor CIA intelligence understood that the terror
>network extended far past the caves of Afghanistan. But that
>wasn't *really* the point. We needed a victory, to feel
>powerful. People light years less radical than I even
>agree....mostly because what I'm saying is right.

Wow, you actually admit that there's a terror network now! Good, that's a start. The CIA intelligence itself is actually pretty good (what's done with that intelligence is another story), and it understood that Afghanistan was in fact the nerve center of the terror network. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan was in fact a valid strategic target.

Now, the way the war in Afghanistan has been conducted is problematic to say the least, but people saying that there were no valid reasons to go into Afghanistan are either true pacifists (which I can respect) or incredibly naive (which doesn't particularly bother me either, unless they're of the obnoxious self-righteous variety like you)

>This is in refernce to friends of mine stationed in Iraq and
>Afghanistan.

Yes, and not a one of them got drafted. They all enlisted willingly with the understanding that they could be sent to war.

>In case you didn't know, a lot of kids enlist in the military
>for reasons that *DON'T* have to do with wanting to fight in
>Iraq and Afghanistan.

But they knew that the purpose of the military is to fight wars, right? They understood that's what all the guns and tanks and bullets and stuff was for, right? I mean they didn't exactly join the Peace Corps, now did they?

>Kids are like....are poor....and disenfranchised....and want
>to be a part of something....and want money for college....and
>want respect.....you know, things like that.
>
>So actually, we should feel sympathy for kids who are getting
>blown to pieces.....a lot of them want nothing to do with war.
>A lot of them want the GI Bill, or to make a good living for
>themselves.

And they were willing to take those things in exchange for agreeing to fight where the US government tells them to fight. If they wanted nothing to do with war the US military probably wasn't the best career choice for them.

>Now you're implying that we shouldn't feel sympathy for kids
>fighting overseas because "they enlisted."

I implied no such thing. I just stated the facts.

>Callous, retarded, or both.

You're definitely both.

>>... which is one of the most herbish usernames ever, btw.
>
>Orbit_Established?

Unless your name is John Glenn, then yeah. Very much so.


>Well I'm not the one with slit wrists and bad arguments.

I'm not the one crying about his childhood and defending Aaron Brooks' awareness.

>And I get hoes.

And you have to pay for them. Loser.

>>Only the 1,000,001 times or so you've called people naive
>>whiteboys over innocuous sports disagreements.
>
>Lying. Cute.

It's true. Everyone knows it, so I don't know who you think you're kidding.

>I don't even know your ethnicity, and don't care.

LOL - yeah right. You certainly knew and cared when you went cyberstalking me to dig it up and speculated on its effect on my sex life, you pervert stalker hoe.

>You are definately at least half-idiot-ese though.

Nah, cuz in half-idiot-ese they say things like 'Somalians' - LOL.

>Wait...what does Ken O'Brien have to do with Pat Tillman?

Exactly - so why the fuck did you bring Tillman into this debate again?

>Or....the Aaron Brooks debate, you know, the one where you
>just said you don't think there exists sufficient evidence to
>argue for the 17% disparity in awareness ranking?

I just said that? Don't lie - lies make the baby Jesus cry.

>Or what do any of your arguments have to do with anything?

If you stopped constructing strawman arguments and actually engaged the actual arguments I made you'd know.

>And who the fuck iz you?

Check your cyberstalker files, bitch.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Your nerd jokes mean nothing to me. I gotta go keep it real."

- Riley Escobar