PBJTime, and ScipioCowboy...what you offer is the apex of agendas. You say format is NOT a stumbling block to both of you, yet fall all over yourselves to NOT see what was presented. That no where gives passage to insights of literature or even applications, as you fool yourself as to inherent value and even insights of others. You are so ingrained with your own value and self worth, you fail to see that there are many areas yourselves DON'T cross or even have realistic and applied working relationships to even give brain space. To yourselves, it involves purely a braincramp because you deny premises offered and would rather listen to abstract concepts and pontificate just how sophisticated that is with regards to personal bias....whooopie!
You both fall all over yourselves so intensely you fail to see the real credability involved with my initial posting...let me point out the truth, that is lost in your endless stereotype of insult. This while trying to transfer some sort of hocus pocus guilt trip for not complying with a very formal as well as archaic, stereotyped format for thought process and speech. As if you can EVEN begin to comprehend Old English, from which Shakespeare took roots.
Now, looooookie here, again, what YOU state as mumlie pegs, is just the perspective of coming out of your form of abusive slander, and then taking it back to subject matter which in fact, YOU BOTH run from the discussion of which. You keep on staring up in space...who knows, maybe an alien will lead your narrow and strictly limited eyesight upon the promised land...in the mean time, here's the real deal, which you both have no clue of which:
I posted this thread on Sunday morning....BEFORE the game was even played. This was before Tony Romo laid his SECOND consecutive egg. Now, you ask what relevance was the entire posting? Who is really playing the dumb card here? The team went from a loss at 17-SEVEN....to that all important win, at SEVEN to six. Yep, advance to the rear WITH that final series starcluster...
Private tutorship will cost you big bucks in the future, as phycological hangups have to be addressed with both of you. You try so hard to have someone teach you as to types of trees and their useage, that after someone tells you that an Oak is a hard tree, that you can't even find a forrest stretched out as far as another's eye can see...yea, go put some overly dramatic School boy class topic into a description to try and explain my ineptness and untenable effort...
Yep, I brought sources outside of a single QB rating at the close of halves...and a style that STILL doesn't COMPLY with your uptight standard of pinkie raised eloquence...and it won't...as that part is NOT yours to chose.
If that is the strength of YOUR convictions, then look who's being the fool, as who really is busting their posteriors to race back to continue their unrestrained assault upon style, AFTER stating that it was not a stumbling block....
Now, using your analytical approach, since you BOTH state that I am afraid to put credability on the line, YOU apply anything that YOU have presented to the credability of Tony Romo beyond some magical two minute period; for that matter, stand on what football you have even attempted up to here.
No, you make a poor tutor, yet imply you have vast experience. But don't appreciate when another states his format is already quite agreeable with himself.
You NOWHERE approach topic yet are assenine enough to think, although an explanation of why such a format in opening the thread was approached. No, where the high ground of both your choice plainly states instead to the contrary of what YOU stated....and then chose to ignore that as well as topic as you both try to impose your own preferences. Then have the audacity to state intent is what is needed, and provide nothing more a preppie association. So what?
Neither of you two have hit topic yet...hey, and you think responding to lame acts at instruction makes efforts tooled, acceptable. NO, you didn't hit topic once, in multiple postings. Care to try some more?
Let's see, BEFORE the game, I offered an insight that Tony Romo was off in his mechanics, and he goes out and does the very same thing for the second STRAIGHT game. Now, then was offerred a retort of HOW STRONG his closing abilities were. Hey, let's look at this specific bit of info, but APPLY the analytical approach. Maybe instead of sniffing that Shakespeare goblie de **** up so intensely, there should be ample efforts to use simple associative qualities in reasoning. More vain efforts to simile rather than topic related analysis does you little good apparently. Now, quickly do a spell check on format and then see if you can't cast a shadow on a work by your own stance, and NEVER TOUCH topic.
You NEVER even saw the time line involved, again, instead of redirecting what is discussed, you are being lead around, and are still stuck on your declared non-entity, style.
Let's apply some of MY principals here, and just SEE how rocket science induced your English motiff survives:
1. I do ALL the work presented with your and my postings - of evaluating tendencies of Tony Romo, NOT restricted to two minutes of a game...where very little change can occur to game directions.
You imply by not addressing issuethat a total lack of knowledge, if your own sense of lacking elements were applied, has been proven. Yet, YOU PRESENT NOTHING in conflict to the initial topic on thread. Instead, now in unison, have attempted to steal an entire thread with your self appointed crusade on right diction and style. Get a life of your OWN.
2. Your whole stance was that I didn't counter a stat with more stats...and yourselves did NOT even attempt to touch upon MY topic and inclusive features for discussion...heck, you never even attempted to pinpoint what it was included in those stated aspects.
Scared to match up to the topic at hand?
Now, don't be so self-serving to suggest that what was presented could NOT have been understood, if the cavalier of a biased critic had not been the sole effort. Who died and left you in charge of common sense without even attempting to touch topic? Now that's an alliteration!
You say that I did NOT understand the relevance of those majestic two minutes and there intense value. You state that I am unobjective because I didn't rush to some foreign concept and provide a negative counter to what was ALREADY an abstract tool.
That would be all too easy to do...just go to this year, and point out the number of last minute successes that did NOT happen and that alone would knock the dogpoo out of that feature's applicability to what is going on now...
3. But the clincher to the total ignoring of subject lies in that after stating that the Sporting News class evaluations showed something lacking in Tony Romo, and then the game occurred...exactly what I was talking about, REOCCURRED!
THAT WAS MISSED BY THE TWO OF YOU...maybe you should spend a thousand bucks LISTENING to someone ELSES stat sheet, and figure out how everything is fine and dandy....just don't try and spend all of them wooden nickles at once!!:laugh2:
Now, let's SEE the strength of your Shakespearean simile...maybe YOU would like to step up to the plate and offer INSIGHT as to what WILL be the direction of that same Tony Romo THIS Thanksgiving...come on! YOU CHICKEN?
Don't even be naive enough to question format and additionally imply YOUR lack of understanding to THIS challenge....to YOU!! Smart guys, huh...YOU PROVE IT!! This doesn't include diction, language, or style...you know, apply common sense and saying something other than you didn't like delivery. Get to TOPIC!! Try talking about that, instead of trying to show how good taste Charlie has....
