|
>Yeah, I was off by a fraction of a percent on that one
>statistic. My fault. I generally don't have time to google
>when I'm on these boards.
>
>But like you just alluded to, you're not arguing with my
>central point because my central argument is perfectly sound.
>
>
>You just felt the need to display your googling supremacy in a
>poor effort at trying to one-up-Orbit.
>
>Here's a tip:
>
>One up Orbit by actually refuting his overall point. That
>isn't very do-able. Might even be impossible, so I understand
>why you're doing what you're doing. Its the next best thing.
>
>But dog, you can have the "number-crunching" title.
>
>
>I'll take the "head nigga in charge" title.
>
>
>In fact, its a testament to my brilliance that my hand-wavy,
>faint memories of certain statistics fit the same global
>arguments as your google.com references of certain statistics.
>Think about it.
>
>
>I'm nice like that.
... in other words, you were wrong. Nice 500 word expository essay on that simple point though.
>Thanks, Professor Feynman, but knowing Phy-sics is different
>than being a Psy-chic.
>
>
>Why don't you break out the Tarot Cards and find out how I
>really feel about the world.
Thanks, Herr Heisenberg, but pseudoscientific nonsense is your thing, not mine.
>Firstly, I sincerely do not think Brooks will be a backup next
>year, as he certainly does not deserve to be, for the very
>reasons you agree with, that I stated earlier.
Ah, so what you originally wrote was insincere. Thanks for clarifying that.
>In fact, I'm confident that he'll get the Jake Plummer
>treatment and get lifted out of a bad situation into a better
>one. If it doesn't happen, well then....
If you are confident of that then WTF were you even talking about to begin with?
>Secondly, I find the Detroit Lions a laughing-stock franchise
>as a whole, both inclusive and independent of how they handle
>matters of race. This is why I mentioned Matt Millen when
>exclaiming suspicion at your suggestion -- not because I think
>Millen is a bigot, but because I think Millen is an IDIOT.
>
>Look yourself in the soul and tell yourself it don't make
>sense.
>
>Of course it does.
Uh, I didn't suggest that it's a sure thing Millen will aquire Brooks, I simply said that I think Brooks would fit in great in Detroit. Stop making up arguments that don't exist.
>As effective as I am at my far reaching race-cards, having
>proven them in everything from Madden 06 to Pulp Fiction,
Oh yeah - so how's Brooks' awareness looking compared to Bledsoe's now again? LOL
>I was making a facetious poke at how the Detroit Lions treated
>their last franchise caliber quarterback who performed
>well....in fact....I actually put more emphasis in the Ty
>Detmer part of the equation than the Charlie Batch part, to
>emphasize that the Detroit Lions make poor decisions as a
>whole....pointing out the irony in the Detmer situation.
I'm sorry, I didn't catch the rest of that - I was laughing too hard after the part about Charlie Batch being a franchise caliber quarterback.
>Uh. I'm not saying anything negative about Scott Mitchell. I
>have no opinion whatsoever about Scott Mitchell.
Funny, you had an opinion of him last time we had this same debate.
>I'm saying that Scott Mitchell's Detroit Lions were different
>than Erik Kramer's, or Charlie Batch's, or Jeff Garcia's, or
>Joey Harrington's Detroit Lions, and so comparing them or
>their statistics side by side is fucking stupid and retarded.
Uh, I only compared the stat you brought up, TD-Int ratio; the Run & Shoot offense inflates number totals, not TD-Int ratio. Nice try though.
>You brought up Mitchell to fight the idea that the Detroit
>Lions "only bench black QBs" or "only treat black QBs bad"
>which would be beautiful if I had said anything close enough
>to even build such a strawman around.
Uh, that was precisely your argument the last time you made the same exact Charlie Batch argument.
>Hell, mentioning the benching of Scott Mitchell wouldn't weigh
>in on why benching Charlie Batch wasn't racist, even if I
>*was* making the Straw_Orbit argument of "the Detroit Lions
>dislike negroes."
>
>I mean seriously.
They were both benched by the same team under the same circumstances just a few years apart, and in the first case a white QB was benched for a black QB. So crying racism, which you in fact did the last time you made this exact same argument, doesn't wash.
>A more effective way for me to win the Detroit/racism argument
>would be for me to simply mention that they are the first team
>to be punished for the breaking the rule requiring the
>interview of a minority candidate.
>
>Detroit supporters would say that they didn't interview anyone
>else because they knew who they wanted(Mooch). Smart people
>would say the lack of consideration of a black candidate from
>jump is part of the problem.
>
>You, nor anyone else would have a retort. You could try, but
>my argument would be strong.
And this has to do with Charlie Batch how?
>But I'm actually talking about the shitty Detroit Lion front
>office in *this* post, which again, is why I mentioned Matt
>Millen.
>
>
>Debate that.
And I said Millen & the Lions front office wasn't shitty when?
>Mention to me what Scott Mitchell and the Miami Dolphins has
>to do with Matt Millen being an idiot.
>
>
>I'm listening.
No, you're just flapping your jaws, because that has nothing to do with what I said.
>>... and Batch didn't produce any better in his season with
>>Barry than Mitchell did in his season with Mark Higgs.
>
>See: Year, Rookie.
See: Starting, First Year.
>Peyton Manning had Marshall Faulk and Marvin Harrison and
>wasn't much(if at all) more impressive his rookie year in
>Indianapolis as Batch was with Sanders(Sanders had an off year
>by his standards) in Detroit.
And this has to do with Mitchell vs. Batch how?
>But its fun to see you mask an overall non-argument with
>googling skills,
LOL - why don't you google up another spectrographic analysis of apples and oranges to mask your overall non-argument - now THAT was some funny shit.
>and a side debate about who was better in
>Detroit: Scott Mitchell or Charlie Batch, and its implications
>for the non-existence of racism in Detroit.
Who brought up a side debate about Charlie Batch? Oh.
>Remember the argument I originally made?
>
>How about that one?
Who brought up Charlie Batch again? Oh.
>Yo essay -- I don't disagree with this point.
>
>Not even a little bit.
Well that's all I originally said, so what the fuck is you beefin about?
>I could simply say that suggesting such a fit will happen is a
>wee bit premature, especially when you consider guys like Matt
>Schaub will be as hot, or hotter, commodities on the free
>agent market than Aaron Brooks will be.
Did I say "Detroit will be hotly pursuing Aaron Brooks as their top priority this off-season?" No. I simply said "I think Brooks would fit in great in Detroit."
>Dog, like I said.
>
>If you don't like the god, let's just box one day.
Your arms too short to box with god.
>But this gay following me around trying to correct me by
>fractions of percentage points when my global argument is not
>only harmless, but strong as fuck, is just hoe like.
LOL - that's pretty funny coming from you, stalker boy. And incidentally I was in this post first, seeing as unlike you I'm actually a Jets fan, whereas you only came in here to suck off Aaron Brooks. But here's a novel idea: stop slurping off your athlete man-crushes with wrong and/or stupid arguments, and I won't have to correct you on them.
>We both in the tri-state. If a nigga don't like me....come and
>giddit.
>
>Serious.
LOL - I already made you cry online, I don't want to make you cry in real life too.
___________________
Mar-A-Lago delenda est
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Okay Sports 
