Non-bb: Go Saints!

[David in Jackson]

Who dat!?

[Ty in Tampa]

Quote:
Who dat!?

Dat be de Bears defense.

[TheWizard]

The Saints pissed that game away by constantly giving the Bears' pathetic offense the short field.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Maybe it's me, but it looked like the Bears defense had something to do with that.

[pravata]

Quote:
Maybe it's me, but it looked like the Bears defense had something to do with that.

The other team was trying to win too? No fair.

[MusicMan]

The Bears' punter also had something to do with it.

And memo to Reggie: when you taunt Brian Urlacher, you're pissing into the wind AND tugging on Superman's cape.

[hostros7]

The Saints carried the ball...TWELVE times.  That folks is not how you when playoff games. on the road. in the "winter mix."

[Gizzmonic]

Quote:
Maybe it's me, but it looked like the Bears defense had something to do with that.

The field had a little bit to do with it too.  I wonder how that game would have turned out were in played in the Superdome.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:

Quote:
Maybe it's me, but it looked like the Bears defense had something to do with that.

The field had a little bit to do with it too.  I wonder how that game would have turned out were in played in the Superdome.

That's why you play for home field advantage during the regular season.

[No? in Austin]

Just a little deviation of sorts, but all this talk about "field possession" and strategy reminded me of George Carlin's unique observation on the differences between Football and Baseball:

(Paraphrasing)

In football: You *march* up and down the field (in General Patton voice)

In Baseball: You come *hoooome* (In sweet angelic-like voice)

[drew corleone]

Quote:
The Bears' punter also had something to do with it.

And memo to Reggie: when you taunt Brian Urlacher, you're pissing into the wind AND tugging on Superman's cape.

Right. And it didn't even put them in the lead. Did anyone else notice someone threw a cup or something that missed him by a couple of feet?

Pretty good day of football all around. That Chicago defense is stout, and I love the two-headed monster of a running game they've developed with T-Jones leading the way. I hope Grossman plays in the SB the way he did in the second half yesterday. If he does I think we're in for a very good game.

And hey, maybe if the Tuna is actually retiring, as was reported on the Ticket this morning, Lovie may just end up in Big D next season (though we'll see if the Bears show him some love now).

[No? in Austin]

I know nothing about football... I mean nada, zilch, zero, squat... but I'll be pulling (NTTAWWT) for Tony Dungy.  In all of sports, there are a few men (I mean MEN as in "with integrity") that I admire.  Dungy is in the top five.

Name your top five Sports Men of Integity?

[mihoba]

Quote:
The Bears' punter also had something to do with it.

And memo to Reggie: when you taunt Brian Urlacher, you're pissing into the wind AND tugging on Superman's cape.

Veteran Brad Maynard pinned the Saints inside the 20 four times, not including the 65+ yard roller into the end zone.

Berrian made one of the best adjustments from a receiver that I've seen in a while on his TD catch.

[WulawHorn]

Tony Dungy seems to be a great man.  I think he'd be up there NOE-

In no particular order, without giving it much thought I'd put him in there with coaches like Dick Vermeil, Mack Brown, Joe Paterno, Coach K, Dean Smith and John Wooden as guys that just seem to get it completely. I think that this kind of guy maybe is drawn more to College b/c of the chance to mentor and mold people- kind of a self selection type thing, and you don't have to put up with nonsense that you do for the pros.

[Ty in Tampa]

Dungy is beloved here in Tampa for obvious reasons. Of the people here who care, I think you could split them about 50/50  on the opinion of whether or not he should have been let go from the Bucs but you won't find anyone who would speak ill of him as a man. I am rooting for Indy to win it all.

[drew corleone]

Yeah, I like Dungy a lot. I just don't particularly like the Colts. And as Nate Vasher is one of my favorite college players ever I'll be rooting for the Bears.

But to answer your question... who knows? As fans we have zero true insight into a player's or coach's character. And I'm not one to usually take media spin at face value. As a local example Mack Brown has created a lot of goodwill here in Austin, but I've heard stories from people that I generally believe that paint him as an egotistical tyrant behind the scenes. As with anything I suspect the truth falls somewhere in the middle. Who knows for sure? Certainly not I, at least not enough to say with conviction either way.

Dungy does seem like a genuinely good man, though, and after losing his son I wish him all the best.

[Limey]

Quote:
Name your top five Sports Men of Integity?

Any list that does not include Jeff Bagwell, is instantly disqualified.

[MRaup]

Quote:

Quote:
Name your top five Sports Men of Integity?

Any list that does not include Jeff Bagwell, is instantly disqualified.

Can we just call it a traveling horse-shit list and move on?

[JimR]

and, please move on quickly.

[TheWizard]

Quote:

Quote:
Maybe it's me, but it looked like the Bears defense had something to do with that.

The field had a little bit to do with it too.  I wonder how that game would have turned out were in played in the Superdome.

Exactly.

The Bears scored 5 out of their 7 scores when they got the ball inside the NO 36 yard line!  That is insane.  The Saints first two fumbles (one of which was Colston not protecting the ball.. and the other was a *very* questionable fumble call on a kickoff return) gave the Bears the big lead early.  The Bears were not effective moving the ball at all, but they kept getting the short field.

While it can be said the Bears moved the ball at crucial times, especially with their running game.. Drew Brees threw for 354 yards on the vaunted defense.  His pick came at the end of the game where the Saints had fallen into a strictly pass offense because they were down with so little time left.  As a team, NO was rushing for 4.7 yards a carry too, so its not like the run was shut down.. they just abandoned it for some reason like another poster mentioned.  It was the fact the Bears kept getting short fields to get their scores (and the game was not a blowout till NO started going for it every 4th down).  

My point is simply the Bears defense didn't exactly play suffocating ball.. so we'll see how well they can do with a QB that completes 3 of 15 passes per half.  The Colts have beaten teams like the Ravens already, who have better defenses than the Chicago defense.

[drew corleone]

The Bears did what they've done all season -- they wore down the defense with the running game and asked their QB not to lose the game. It's not about throwing for 319 yards, otherwise Trent Dilfer wouldn't have more rings than Dan Marino.

Chicago is very good at what they do. And as far as Brees' yards are concerned, what does that prove? It still only netted 14 points, and seven of those came because Reggie Bush is pretty damn good in the open field. At no time did Brees look comfortable in the pocket, and that's entirely due to a suffocating performance from the Bears' D. Plus NO only ran the ball, what, 12 times? You can't win a championship game like that.

[TheWizard]

Quote:
The Bears did what they've done all season -- they wore down the defense with the running game and asked their QB not to lose the game. It's not about throwing for 319 yards, otherwise Trent Dilfer wouldn't have more rings than Dan Marino.

Chicago is very good at what they do. And as far as Brees' yards are concerned, what does that prove? It still only netted 14 points, and seven of those came because Reggie Bush is pretty damn good in the open field. At no time did Brees look comfortable in the pocket, and that's entirely due to a suffocating performance from the Bears' D. Plus NO only ran the ball, what, 12 times? You can't win a championship game like that.

You CAN NOT compare Trent Dilfer to Rex Grossman.. completely, absolutely different QBs.  Dilfer was a ball control type of QB who never was asked to/would not throw it more than 20 yds practically.  That team revolved around the run, and they were gonna pound it 40 times a game.  Their game plan was completely unique, they were hoping to win 3-0 or 6-0 because their defense was probably one of the best (if not the best) the league has ever seen, and they actually hoped to score with their defense at times.  You'll never see a gameplan like that again.

The Bears offense is actually not built around the run, they just are FORCED to go one-dimensional sometimes.  Rex Grossman is nothing like Trent Dilfer because he is not asked to do the same things that Dilfer was..  its just that lately they have have been forced to run the ball more because he is so bad.  Look at the season stats, Grossman started off throwing about 30 times a game, and that gradually was reduced to 20-23 tosses a game.  

Dilfer was not a bad QB.. he almost never turned the ball over.  Grossman is a turnover waiting to happen, he is terrible.. that is not the type of guy you get to run a ball-control offense.  While the Bears offense has somewhat converted to a running-type offense.. that is because they have been forced to be that because Grossman sucks, it isn't like that by design.  But they still look deep with some regularity.. he is looking for the big plays.  If you are insinuating they are asked to do the same thing simply because they have good defenses, I think that is wrong..  Plus, the Bears defense is nowhere on the same level as that Ravens defense was (which was what my point was by using Brees' numbers and their rushing yards per average).  The Bears can't win *solely* on defense like the Ravens did.  I'm not saying the Bears don't have a good defense... because they definately do, but they know they can't just run the ball 40 times a game every time, they won't win that way.  Grossman has to make plays, unlike Dilfer.

I do agree that a big reason NO lost was because they ran the ball so few times, particularly since they were running with effectiveness.

[Ty in Tampa]

Soooo you didn't watch a whole lot of Trent Dilfer in Tampa, did you?

[TheWizard]

Quote:
Soooo you didn't watch a whole lot of Trent Dilfer in Tampa, did you?

Actually I did, I lived in Florida at the time.  His role changed a lot between those two teams.  From my point of view, he was talking about Dilfer's time with Baltimore, not Dilfer's time with TB.

[drew corleone]

I wasn't comparing their abilities. I was just comparing their roles. And neither of them were or are being asked to win games.

Brian Billick made a pretty good statement on ESPN Radio tonight... these were the two best teams in the NFL for the majority of the season. Both deserve to be here.

[Ty in Tampa]

Quote:
From my point of view, he was talking about Dilfer's time with Baltimore, not Dilfer's time with TB.

Right. And in Dilfer's 11 whole games in BAL, his role was to not lose games. He had 12 TDs against 11 INTS and a QB rating of 76, 5 points higher than his career rating. Not good.

[das]

I went to Cal St. Fresno when Dilfer was there. The general consensus from the football-rabid fanbase when he was drafted was "huh?".  He threw wounded-ducks then and followed suit in the NFL.  Dude could not throw down field more than 25 yards his whole campaign.

[Ty in Tampa]

Needless to say, he did not go over well here. For anyone to argue he was not that bad a QB is silly. He was bad.

[mihoba]

Quote:
 The Colts have beaten teams like the Ravens already, who have better defenses than the Chicago defense.

If the Bears weren't missing two Pro Bowlers on D, I would disagree. Brown and Harris were big losses.

[TheWizard]

Quote:

Quote:
From my point of view, he was talking about Dilfer's time with Baltimore, not Dilfer's time with TB.

Right. And in Dilfer's 11 whole games in BAL, his role was to not lose games. He had 12 TDs against 11 INTS and a QB rating of 76, 5 points higher than his career rating. Not good.

I've never disagreed about Dilfer's role.  His role was to not lose game, I agree 100%.

Grossman on the other hand is what my point is about.  The Bears offense is actually not that conservative.. like I said, they are just being forced to go one-dimensional because Grossman is so bad.  Grossman is needed to make plays, something Dilfer was not required to do..

[Golden Sombrero]

Quote:
Maybe it's me, but it looked like the Bears defense had something to do with that.

To a degree, but some of those turnovers should be credited to the Saints players, not the Bears D.  They played a sloppy game and the Bears put them away. Still a heck of a season.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

I've never disagreed about Dilfer's role.  His role was to not lose game, I agree 100%.

Yeah, but you were arguing that Dilfer was not a bad QB.  That's ridiculous.  He was terrible, by any measure.  You also said he almost never turned the ball over.  That too is ridiculous.  He was a interception machine, even in Baltimore.  In his 9 games with the Ravens, he threw 11 interceptions in 225 pass attempts, far worse than he did with the Bucs.  The Ravens won that year despite Dilfer, not because of him.

[TheWizard]

Quote:

Quote:

I've never disagreed about Dilfer's role.  His role was to not lose game, I agree 100%.

Yeah, but you were arguing that Dilfer was not a bad QB.  That's ridiculous.  He was terrible, by any measure.  You also said he almost never turned the ball over.  That too is ridiculous.  He was a interception machine, even in Baltimore.  In his 9 games with the Ravens, he threw 11 interceptions in 225 pass attempts, far worse than he did with the Bucs.  The Ravens won that year despite Dilfer, not because of him.

You are truly and utterly missing the point of my post.. re-read it please.

It is about Rex Grossman, the Bears' offense, and the need of Grossman to make plays, UNLIKE the Baltimore offense.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

It is about Rex Grossman, the Bears' offense, and the need of Grossman to make plays, UNLIKE the Baltimore offense.

I've missed nothing, including your playing fast and loose with the facts.  If you don't want to get called on them, get them straight.

[TheWizard]

Quote:

Quote:

It is about Rex Grossman, the Bears' offense, and the need of Grossman to make plays, UNLIKE the Baltimore offense.

I've missed nothing, including your playing fast and loose with the facts.  If you don't want to get called on them, get them straight.

Like I said, my point is about Grossman's ROLE with his team and Dilfer's ROLE with his team.  One was asked to throw it few time a game and hand off 40 times a game, and the other is required to actually step up and make plays.  If anything you are playing "fast and loose" with the reply button and just looking to meticulously dissect a part of the discussion that was not crucial to understanding my point, why not discuss my grammar and spelling while you are at it.

You are right, Dilfer turned the ball over.. but like I said, I never disagreed with his role with the Ravens, not even once (I completely agree his role was ball-control).  What you are not understanding is Rex Grossman's role is NOT ball control.  Obviously any QB doesn't want to throw INTs, but he is definately required to throw the ball downfield and make plays.. the Bears offense is not one-dimensional by design, while that Ravens offense was.

[Ty in Tampa]

Admit you were wrong about Dilfer because you were. He was a bad QB. You ruined you're entire point by starting it off saying he wasn't.

[TheWizard]

Quote:
Admit you were wrong about Dilfer because you were. He was a bad QB. You ruined you're entire point by starting it off saying he wasn't.

Hmm, I won't agree he was a bad QB because otherwise he wouldn't have won the superbowl, you can't go the entire postseason without blowing it for your team if you are truly that bad.  I will agree he is not "turn-over" free like I originally said though.  His role changed quite drastically from TB to BAL, and he adapted to it well.

But hey, he was no Peyton Manning out there (not close), I will say that.

When I was saying you can't compare Grossman to Dilfer, I meant because of their ROLES as QB on the team.. not their level of play.  I didn't mean to imply that Dilfer is a much better QB than Grossman, but he was definately better at his role of not turning the ball over at crucial times.  Both will never have Marino type numbers, but they are/were asked to do two different things on their respective teams.

[JimR]

ok, enough.

[Ty in Tampa]

Bad but lucky. Do you recall when his contract was up with TB? He had no offers all off-season until the weak last-minute one made by BAL who were all set to have Tony Banks be their savior and even then it was only a 1 year deal. Then after he "won" the Super Bowl with BAL, he could only eek out a back-ups contract with Seattle.

Bad QBs can win a SB when they have one of the best defenses in NFL history.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:
 If anything you are playing "fast and loose" with the reply button and just looking to meticulously dissect a part of the discussion that was not crucial to understanding my point, why not discuss my grammar and spelling while you are at it.

Just some friendly advice...around here, when you list "facts" to back up a statement or opinion, they need to be correct.  We kind of insist on that, as a discussion group.  If you give your opinion and list X, Y, and Z as supporting evidence, and X, Y, and Z are wrong, expect to get called on it.  To whine about being called on it saying "you're just nitpicking" isn't exactly winning your argument over to anyone.  This is a board full of highly educated and informed people, and will not let you get away with such inconsistencies.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
This is a board full of highly educated and informed people, and will not let you get away with such inconsistencies.

Better to say "I really, really, really suck!  My bad!" and be done with it.  Because you will be called out on it.  I know... many times over I know!

[TheWizard]

Quote:
Just some friendly advice...around here, when you list "facts" to back up a statement or opinion, they need to be correct.  We kind of insist on that, as a discussion group.  If you give your opinion and list X, Y, and Z as supporting evidence, and X, Y, and Z are wrong, expect to get called on it.  To whine about being called on it saying "you're just nitpicking" isn't exactly winning your argument over to anyone.  This is a board full of highly educated and informed people, and will not let you get away with such inconsistencies.

Fair enough.  

Oh, just some friendly advice.. it is "your" not "you're" when referring to "your post".. kinda irked me.  Sorry, had to do it.

Quote:
Better to say "I really, really, really suck! My bad!" and be done with it. Because you will be called out on it. I know... many times over I know!  

Ha, yeah, I am getting that sense.  I'll take your advice from now on Noe.  Thanks for looking out for us new folk without being a jackass about it.

[homer]

Quote:

Quote:
Just some friendly advice...around here, when you list "facts" to back up a statement or opinion, they need to be correct.  We kind of insist on that, as a discussion group.  If you give your opinion and list X, Y, and Z as supporting evidence, and X, Y, and Z are wrong, expect to get called on it.  To whine about being called on it saying "you're just nitpicking" isn't exactly winning your argument over to anyone.  This is a board full of highly educated and informed people, and will not let you get away with such inconsistencies.

Fair enough.  

Oh, just some friendly advice.. it is "your" not "you're" when referring to "your post".. kinda irked me.  Sorry, had to do it.

Being the fucking grammar police doesn't score any points either.

How many days until pitchers and catchers report?

[TheWizard]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Just some friendly advice...around here, when you list "facts" to back up a statement or opinion, they need to be correct.  We kind of insist on that, as a discussion group.  If you give your opinion and list X, Y, and Z as supporting evidence, and X, Y, and Z are wrong, expect to get called on it.  To whine about being called on it saying "you're just nitpicking" isn't exactly winning your argument over to anyone.  This is a board full of highly educated and informed people, and will not let you get away with such inconsistencies.

Fair enough.  

Oh, just some friendly advice.. it is "your" not "you're" when referring to "your post".. kinda irked me.  Sorry, had to do it.

Being the fucking grammar police doesn't score any points either.

*insert Noe's reply here*

[pravata]

Quote:
...Oh, just some friendly advice.. it is "your" not "you're" when referring to "your post".. kinda irked me.  Sorry, had to do it....

Really? That's where you chose to go next? Really?

[TheWizard]

Ha, I don't think anyone got the humor in me going grammar police after I had mentioned it in my previous post.  Sorry, I just think its funny when someone tries to go preachy on someone else on a message board... this is.. a message board, right?

You guys should take some lessons from Noe, and then people wouldn't get you all riled up.  OK I'm done, won't say another word on this thread.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

Oh, just some friendly advice.. it is "your" not "you're" when referring to "your post".. kinda irked me.  Sorry, had to do it.

Please point out where I used "you're" when I should have used "your".

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:

Oh, just some friendly advice.. it is "your" not "you're" when referring to "your post".. kinda irked me.  Sorry, had to do it.

Please point out where I used "you're" when I should have used "your".

I'm thinking this thread has devolved to the point that it has become ripe for Spack to lock up.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Oh, just some friendly advice.. it is "your" not "you're" when referring to "your post".. kinda irked me.  Sorry, had to do it.

Please point out where I used "you're" when I should have used "your".

I'm thinking this thread has devolved to the point that it has become ripe for Spack to lock up.

Not quite yet.  The Wizard has to answer for his being an insolent prick here.

[homer]

Quote:
You guys should take some lessons from Noe, and then people wouldn't get you all riled up.

Don't make an ass of yourself and then blame it on me. You are the only one that needs a lesson.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
You guys should take some lessons from Noe, and then people wouldn't get you all riled up.

Actually, all I'm offering up is that I really have a firm grasp on my own inefficiencies when I state crap like it's fact and then either can choose to backpeddle, ankle-bite or troll for fights or... choose to admit that I am really not as well versed as I pretended to be in my original statement.

I know me so well.  I'm not using false humility when I say that I really, really, really suck most of the time and then at other times... ahum... I don't.

I have enough sense to know when one or the other applies.

[TheWizard]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Oh, just some friendly advice.. it is "your" not "you're" when referring to "your post".. kinda irked me.  Sorry, had to do it.

Please point out where I used "you're" when I should have used "your".

I'm thinking this thread has devolved to the point that it has become ripe for Spack to lock up.

Not quite yet.  The Wizard has to answer for his being an insolent prick here.

To be honest.. I don't understand this whole e-tough guy thing.  Before you guys jumped in, there was discussion/argument going on, but it was staying on topic completely.  I love talking about sports, so I can go on and on.

Now its devolved into this because people that weren't discussing the football aspect of the thread felt the need to get on and lecture on God knows what.  I don't see how before I was being a prick.. but obviously if someone calls me out for something, I'm gonna respond to them.  I don't understand exactly what else one would do.

[homer]

 

Quote:
To be honest.. I don't understand this whole e-tough guy thing. Before you guys jumped in, there was discussion/argument going on

I don't understand the whole 'e-playing stupid thing'. The only thing that was happening in this thread was people showing you the multiple ways in which you were completely wrong, and you were making a complete ass of yourself.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

To be honest.. I don't understand this whole e-tough guy thing.  Before you guys jumped in, there was discussion/argument going on, but it was staying on topic completely.  I love talking about sports, so I can go on and on.

And that's exactly what you got called on...your responses to the topic at hand.  Your reaction was to deflect the questions instead of addressing them.  You then dropped your pants and showed your ass.

Quote:
I don't see how before I was being a prick.

Of course you don't.  So I'll explain.  When I called you out about the inaccuracies of your football posts, you insisted I was simply nitpicking.  When I offered up the friendly advice about expecting it, you got smarmy about my misuse of the terms "your" and "you're".  Since I can't find where I misused it, I'm asking you to point it out, even though your only purpose in bringing it up was exactly to be a prick.

[pravata]

Quote:
Ha, I don't think anyone got the humor in me going grammar police after I had mentioned it in my previous post.  Sorry, I just think its funny when someone tries to go preachy on someone else on a message board... this is.. a message board, right?

You guys should take some lessons from Noe, and then people wouldn't get you all riled up.  OK I'm done, won't say another word on this thread.

Really? Now you're telling us where we need to take lessons? Really?  And by the way, funny is not when you get the joke, it's when other people get the joke.  The trickiest part of that is knowing your audience.

[TheWizard]

Quote:

Quote:

To be honest.. I don't understand this whole e-tough guy thing.  Before you guys jumped in, there was discussion/argument going on, but it was staying on topic completely.  I love talking about sports, so I can go on and on.

And that's exactly what you got called on...your responses to the topic at hand.  Your reaction was to deflect the questions instead of addressing them.  You then dropped your pants and showed your ass.

Quote:
I don't see how before I was being a prick.

Of course you don't.  So I'll explain.  When I called you out about the inaccuracies of your football posts, you insisted I was simply nitpicking.  When I offered up the friendly advice about expecting it, you got smarmy about my misuse of the terms "your" and "you're".  Since I can't find where I misused it, I'm asking you to point it out, even though your only purpose in bringing it up was exactly to be a prick.

Ok.. I've just to reply to this even though I know I'll get my head bitten off.  You say that I had my facts wrong.  I don't have any facts wrong.  Another poster was disagreeing that Dilfer was bad, which I still maintain he wasn't THAT YEAR.  He threw more TDs than INTs, albeit by 1, which was absolutely his role as a ball control QB.  Whether Dilfer was a quote on quote "bad" QB or not is a completely subjective subject, not objective.  I had no FACTS wrong, so this argument is rubbish.  Me and the other poster disagreed that Dilfer was a bad QB, and nothing else... neither of us can be proven right because its not a fact.  The guy won a superbowl with his team, so obviously he was good enough for that.

The you're and your thing was a joke, because in my previous post I had said something about correcting my grammar or whatever the hell I said.  It was said in jest, and you are taking it to a another level acting like I attacked your manhood because of it.  No harm was meant by it.. so sorry if it rubbed you the wrong way... I uhh, take it back?  Is that what you wanna hear?

[TheWizard]

Quote:

Quote:
To be honest.. I don't understand this whole e-tough guy thing. Before you guys jumped in, there was discussion/argument going on

I don't understand the whole 'e-playing stupid thing'. The only thing that was happening in this thread was people showing you the multiple ways in which you were completely wrong, and you were making a complete ass of yourself.

And I just don't get why this Homer character keeps jumping in.. I hadn't even noticed him posting till now.  None of my posts have even been directed at you.. ?

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

Is that what you wanna hear?

No.  I want to hear you point out where I confused the use of "your" and "you're".  Like I've asked for three times now.  Assuming a remedial course in reading comprehension is not on your schedule, I'll expect that your next reply will be one of the following:

1.  A quote showing me where I committed the error,
2.  A statement saying "sorry, you didn't, I was confused", or
3.  A statement saying "sorry, I was just talking out of my ass trying to be a prick".

[homer]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
To be honest.. I don't understand this whole e-tough guy thing. Before you guys jumped in, there was discussion/argument going on

I don't understand the whole 'e-playing stupid thing'. The only thing that was happening in this thread was people showing you the multiple ways in which you were completely wrong, and you were making a complete ass of yourself.

And I just don't get why this Homer character keeps jumping in.. I hadn't even noticed him posting till now.  None of my posts have even been directed at you.. ?

I can only speak when spoken to? Your 'e-ass waving' knows no bounds...

[WulawHorn]

Off topic (or on with the you're v your)

Why is it that on internet boards everywhere mongaloids continue to talk about their teams L as a loose, or how their team is loosing.  This drives me up the wall. It even happens on college message boards which leads me to shake my head in bewilderment.  

I'm about the worlds worst speller but this one drives me up the wall. Who freaking can't spell lose correctly?

[Golden Sombrero]

TheWizard44:

A belated welcome to the site.  You've probably realized by now that some posters here take themselves way too seriously.  Go 'Stros!

[TheWizard]

Thanks GoldenSombrero.

[lc_db]

Quote:
Off topic (or on with the you're v your)

Why is it that on internet boards everywhere mongaloids continue to talk about their teams L as a loose, or how their team is loosing.  This drives me up the wall. It even happens on college message boards which leads me to shake my head in bewilderment.  

I'm about the worlds worst speller but this one drives me up the wall. Who freaking can't spell lose correctly?

Losen up, Francis.

[Limey]

Quote:
And by the way, funny is not when you get the joke, it's when other people get the joke.  The trickiest part of that is knowing your audience.

I got the joke.  But then, I'm an insolent prick too.

[Limey]

Quote:
Off topic (or on with the you're v your)

Why is it that on internet boards everywhere mongaloids continue to talk about their teams L as a loose, or how their team is loosing.  This drives me up the wall. It even happens on college message boards which leads me to shake my head in bewilderment.  

I'm about the worlds worst speller but this one drives me up the wall. Who freaking can't spell lose correctly?

I agree.  Fucking loosers.

[lc_db]

Quote:

Quote:
And by the way, funny is not when you get the joke, it's when other people get the joke.  The trickiest part of that is knowing your audience.

I got the joke.  But then, I'm an insolent prick too.

Being funny means never having to type LOL.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
And by the way, funny is not when you get the joke, it's when other people get the joke.  The trickiest part of that is knowing your audience.

I got the joke.  But then, I'm an insolent prick too.

Get in line.

[AstroNut]

Coldplay tribute...

The Link