Cowboys, oh Cowboys, where for art thou Cowboys....?

[5Stars]

I see, after all these years...that you still have moss clinging as you depart the marsh regions.

And your comment about football was just exactly....wait, I think that needs some refining here.

No, maybe a beginnings birth...and when you provide a social reference, maybe clarity to the larger referenced group of listeners who don't have a dictionary of hidden agendas.

See, that is what a topical development involves....care to chat further, on your vision of clarity, refined with utmost taste?

Maybe, you can even throw in some sullen football talk to clarify your profuss enlightenments. Care to add some tackling form to your leaving your feet?

A slight inclination of the cranium is as adequate as a spasmodic movement of one optic towards an equine quadruped utterly devoid of any visionary context.

 

[CCBoy]

A slight inclination of the cranium is as adequate as a spasmodic movement of one optic towards an equine quadruped utterly devoid of any visionary context.

Just wondering as the 'gang' returns from their nightly romp...anyone floss before typing?

Must be the anticipation of the 'big' game on Turkey day brought out by Mom's turkey in the oven in the wee hours of the morning.

As to poetic justice, the associative aspect equivalent to a posterior anatomical's bodily orifice puckered is about on par....before release.

 

[5Stars]

Just wondering as the 'gang' returns from their nightly romp...anyone floss before typing?

Must be the anticipation of the 'big' game on Turkey day brought out by Mom's turkey in the oven in the wee hours of the morning.

As to poetic justice, the associative aspect equivalent to a posterior anatomical's bodily orifice puckered is about on par....before release.

Of course you know what that means?

 

[CCBoy]

Of course you know what that means?

You don't? You were blowing it out the backside... Don't run around to catch up...

Don't worry about a Veteran 'dogface' lacking facial character....much less cognitive or retentive qualities as well. A 'pack' has no elevating qualities as such...

 

[5Stars]

You don't? You were blowing it out the backside... Don't run around to catch up...

Don't worry about a Veteran 'dogface' lacking facial character....much less cognitive or retentive qualities as well. A 'pack' has no elevating qualities as such...

Such wisdom, and all fluff. That is what your whole thread is about. You either must be bored or trying to impress. Either way, you did a good job.


:laugh2:

 

[Cowboyfan81]

CC, You do realize that Romo has been dealing with an injury the past two games, don't you? Your quick to point out his quality of play in those games so you might want to factor that in. There, I addressed your topic.

Your posts are extremely long winded and difficult to understand. I'm an educated guy as well, and I have a hard time figuring out what your trying to say. Your point is often lost in the length of your posts. At least three people have stated this in this thread. I guess we all must just be dumb, huh?

Oh yeah, this thread makes my head hurt!

 

[CCBoy]

Such wisdom, and all fluff. That is what your whole thread is about. You either must be bored or trying to impress. Either way, you did a good job.


:laugh2:

You have a good eye, and aren't afraid to express common views...as I must compliment and give back where I see it.

I am here to share the experience of being a Cowboy fan...not so magnificent an undertaking at it's basics. If in the process, I have entertained as well, then that is something gained as well. Not really trying to be much of anything, other than dumb or JUST self serving. Tried to keep it all real, positive, and objective. I don't appreciate boringly abusive at any step of the process...so I keep adding and trying to do the work of being a supportive participant. Just trying to share being a fan, and seeing and understanding the 'Boys through discussion. That takes work, and I've tried to do my share.

Nice chatting...

 

[5Stars]

CC, You do realize that Romo has been dealing with an injury the past two games, don't you? Your quick to point out his quality of play in those games so you might want to factor that in. There, I addressed your topic.

Your posts are extremely long winded and difficult to understand. I'm an educated guy as well, and I have a hard time figuring out what your trying to say. Your point is often lost in the length of your posts. At least three people have stated this in this thread. I guess we all must just be dumb, huh?

Oh yeah, this thread makes my head hurt!

Give him time to answer! He's probably typing an 800 word post right about now.

 

[5Stars]

You have a good eye, and aren't afraid to express common views...as I must compliment and give back where I see it.

I am here to share the experience of being a Cowboy fan...not so magnificent an undertaking at it's basics. If in the process, I have entertained as well, then that is something gained as well. Not really trying to be much of anything, other than dumb or JUST self serving. Tried to keep it all real, positive, and objective. I don't appreciate boringly abusive at any step of the process...so I keep adding and trying to do the work of being a supportive participant. Just trying to share being a fan, and seeing and understanding the 'Boys through discussion. That takes work, and I've tried to do my share.

Nice chatting...

Word.

 

[CCBoy]

CC, You do realize that Romo has been dealing with an injury the past two games, don't you? Your quick to point out his quality of play in those games so you might want to factor that in. There, I addressed your topic.

Your posts are extremely long winded and difficult to understand. I'm an educated guy as well, and I have a hard time figuring out what your trying to say. Your point is often lost in the length of your posts. At least three people have stated this in this thread. I guess we all must just be dumb, huh?

Oh yeah, this thread makes my head hurt!

First, you rushed to a conclusion based upon your not grasping my giving the attention to details. Both on issue and on the slander of character that followed. Very little was added on issue by 'visitors' on the thread.

I nowhere attacked Tony Romo. You haven't listened to talk ON issue.

You weren't listening to what I HAD TO SAY...and that is understandable. Due to involved nature of stating in an analytical manner...you know, the real building block principals BEHIND the value of statistics and their use. NOT the statistics themselve. All has to be applied...and when discussion is involved, it takes reinforcement of standards, and even clarifying what those standards are.

What you haven't YET seen, is to be able to be free to use brevity of statement, reinforcement of standard has to be accomplished. That requires establishment of a standard for comparison. That is the work, and tedious aspect of discussion in process. This itself, whether observed or not...requires some repetitiveness as well as intensity and depth. That's all.

Once something is learned, the energy in it's aquisition is no longer required. It also is not lost...as in many things in life, to gain knowledge requires the toil and energy in it's acquisition. Having to do all the work yourself, is even more demanding and requires much more observation and association to analyze and integrate yourself. That is an advantage of communication itself. It allows expansion of experience and also it's application. The discussion elements that benefit both participants...in benefit of pleasure or reference.

This requires participation for benefit and even appreciation as well. When the process is circumvented with a biased agenda, then that restricts the flow and directions as well. If you become anoyed, cut to the chase and define specifics of actual contribution and direction of participating contributors.

Cut the bullshyte from the core communication...as the facts are already gleaned if you don't ignore what was said.

Mood associated doesn't always do justice to intent or content. I trade very little mood enhancement, as I am a Veteran long suffering. I do trade genuineness and a true love of Tony Romo, the Cowboys, and the very rich tradition that it brings to it's fans. That is real..and I will share every ounce of that with you or anyone wishing that kind of exchange. I won't in the process, lie fact, fiction, or something of a personal advantage or perspective in the process...I leave my own bullshyte at the door when entering site. I give straight up...straight shooting comments. If insulted, I can either take or leave it...but I AM ABLE to defend if desired.

You were wrong in your assessment of my attacking Tony Romo or being a doubting 'Thomas'..a Biblical reference. I in NO sense put up with a whole crowd of 'Give us Barabas' fans...but that is another storyline. I tend to give it real. Don't like the journey...then stay off the path.

As to injury...did YOU say injury? I played at normal levels, at the Air Force Academy, with a cracked elbow for three games. After the season was OVER, they put a cast on it. Emmitt Smith carried the team with a broken clavical. In full misery and suffering. If one is going to play INJURED, then play...don't make excuses. That comes with the territory of responsibility...not wive's tales.

 

[CCBoy]

Give him time to answer! He's probably typing an 800 word post right about now.

No need to await foolishness...you chained to the principal? Insult requires little sophistication, preparation, or even clarifying qualities...loose your patience? That is another juvenile aspect demonstrated, care to continue in retribution, a circle jerk, or even boring brevity? Go for your own enrichment then...

 

[CCBoy]

Word.

IF you possessed the guts to serve, you would but spend hours in the front leaning rest, before you defined intelligence....WORD.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

The reason for discussion is lost here...as what good does it do to provide a one liner of quick retort? That only will go in one ear and out the other. No, to develop talk about a subject...one does not dominate the totality of topic and allows for imput that nutures the debate and brings out through intercourse, the intended information. This happens when topic and not just lame style is dominant.

Know why such keystone religious or philosophic person talked in generalities? They were going for topic development and the challenge of direction and involvement as opposed to social prestige or doing all the work.

Look again at the trail of what has been stated outside the distraction of personal assaults...and much has been offered, and very little real discussion returned on topic. Don't like form, then don't participate...simple.

My effort was to bring a reference to add to board knowledge. This I did. I then added my perspective of how it applied...and that has been shown by subsequent play by the Cowboys. I presented as I did, not to be definitive, but to bring to light some areas that could allow a casual fan to see through the hype and negative spray by fans and media alike. I focused on aspects that would be definitive as to status involving Tony Romo, Wade Phillips, and even the role of Jerry Jones as GM...all on the table for consideration as this very season runs it's course. Hey, maybe you guys are right...we should be more concerned with the two minute offense and style presented.

Two long winded self defensive and at the same time denigrating treatises, when the question standing as before is what methodology did you use to arrive at your rankings of the quarterbacks?

When broken down beyond your rhetoric, all you've said is "I think Romo sucks and it's because I say he does." You've not substantiated your opinions in any regard.

Again, as before, what methodology did you employ?

 

[SaltwaterServr]

IF you possessed the guts to serve, you would but spend hours in the front leaning rest, before you defined intelligence....WORD.

Ah, we are beneath you because you assume none of us has served in the armed forces. Very telling indeed.

 

[CCBoy]

Ah, we are beneath you because you assume none of us has served in the armed forces. Very telling indeed.

Lame acts don't go to deeds...and telling is lieing about another's words. One of the ten commandments is THOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS...and if you are referring to a crowd that would additionally join in a chorus of Give us Barabas, then join in that group.

Ha, YOU saying YOU were a hero? Let's here the tale...I referenced actually having served, but requiring service experiences to really understand the statement....and what was presented here, was another direct attack as to style, with misquote, stupid assumption of misdirection and a total lack of approach to topic beyond an attachment for insult use ONLY.

What rock you been hiding under? As to military experiences, let's hear some, if you HAVE some....I don't name toss and play around here. You some kind of real fool tool?

You stuck your foot up to the heel in your mouth this one...let's here your explanation WITHOUT just aborting mission and returning to your lame act that would not fly anywhere around Vegas, where the real SHOWS go.

Let's hear a war story, hero...for the record, I respect the sacrifice of us Veterans too much to denegrate with your type of we are the world insults.

You think slicked up cement is so appealing, carry on with YOUR mission, Son.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Lame acts don't go to deeds...and telling is lieing about another's words. One of the ten commandments is THOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS...and if you are referring to a crowd that would additionally join in a chorus of Give us Barabas, then join in that group.

IF you possessed the guts to serve, you would but spend hours in the front leaning rest, before you defined intelligence....WORD.

You think slicked up cement is so appealing, carry on with YOUR mission, Son.

You've insulted long before you were insulted, and long before the post I pasted.

Again, provide your methodology or continue dodging the issue, Richard Head.

 

[CCBoy]

Two long winded self defensive and at the same time denigrating treatises, when the question standing as before is what methodology did you use to arrive at your rankings of the quarterbacks?

When broken down beyond your rhetoric, all you've said is "I think Romo sucks and it's because I say he does." You've not substantiated your opinions in any regard.

Again, as before, what methodology did you employ?

First, arrive at a basis for discourse...methodology. Did YOU say methodology, as if YOU have insight into the concept. Methodology is sequenced procedure.

No, what you ARE talking about is responding to a low profiled insult presented solely to demean and INTENDED to further be a response, which you suppose is denegrating to another.

This really ignorant form of an attempted brow beat isn't discussion. YOU circle jerk all around insult, and nowhere approach a direct exchange on topic at ANY point.

Long winded is your continual intrusion to offer ONLY insult.

I brought a topic AND source, established in strength of credability...and here, you NEVER approached TOPIC, much less credability, which you ASSUME possesion of which. Now, be ignorant some more...and NEVER touch upon topic. Methodology, state ONE that YOU have even touched upon. I don't have to go through a course of posts to define term, when a ton of supportive FACT, AND STATISTICS have already been provided. You completely devoid beyond an anal retentive state? Pick up one or two of the provided information and start discussing. By the way, other than an attitude, what have YOU offered beyond insult?

Go back to the Sporting News information presented, and disprove...you FIRST have to have grounds upon which to stand.

 

[CCBoy]

You've insulted long before you were insulted, and long before the post I pasted.

Again, provide your methodology or continue dodging the issue, Richard Head.

You claim foul, but introduced nothing more than an insult tied abstractly to a concept, get your facts straight first....try talking subject without out just knee jerking with emotion, Son...and you wouldn't identify Dodge if one ran over you in the street. Get your story straight first...and attempt a discussion on topic. All you do is express attitude....with NO filler on content. Prove what anyone ELSE stated on topic, as you have no case here.

But this time, stick to some facts presented on topic. What, you think a half time evaluation PROVES the degree of success SHOWN as being DOMINANT by the Cowboys to present? You think your rush and rerush to foolish attachment to METHODOLOGY means you touched upon CONCEPT of function? Get real....Show me anywhere, where the ability to count any variable of numbers provides application of physics and character qualities that ARE the necessary aspects to success in the NFL. What, you trying to reinvent reality and look smart?

Stick to trying to talk football first....

 

[SaltwaterServr]

First, arrive at a basis for discourse...methodology. Did YOU say methodology, as if YOU have insight into the concept. Methodology is sequenced procedure.

No, what you ARE talking about is responding to a low profiled insult preseneted solely to demean and INTENDED to further be a response, which you suppose is denegrating to another.

This really ignorant form of an attempted brow beat isn't discussion. YOU circle jerk all around insult, and nowhere approach a direct exchange on topic at ANY point.

Long winded is your continual intrusion to offer ONLY insult.

I brought a topic AND source, established in strength of credability...and here, you NEVER approached TOPIC, much less credability, which you ASSUME possesion of which. Now, be ignorant some more...and NEVER touch upon topic. Methodology, state ONE that YOU have even touched upon. I don't have to go through a course of posts to define term, when a ton of supportive FACT, AND STATISTICS have already been provided. You completely devoid beyond an anal retentive state? Pick up one or two of the provided information and start discussing. By the way, other than an attitude, what have YOU offered beyond insult?

Go back to the Sporting News information presented, and disprove...you FIRST have to have grounds upon which to stand.

Methodology, where is the methodology you used in your original post? Dance all around the issue you want, using as much verbage as you want. The point being you've got no more credibility than the troglodyte who screams from the steps of his rented trailer, "Romo sux" until you do provide said methodology. No matter how profuse your writings, you've continually reinforced the fact that you've only said with meandering thoughts "Romo sux".

You do certainly sound like a certain somebody I know from somewhere else, went by Xavier. Claimed to be about the age you mention here, supposedly had tons of military service time as well. Next I suppose you'll mention the tail numbers on your Gulfstream.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

You claim foul, but introduced nothing more than an insult tied abstractly to a concept, get your facts straight first....try talking subject without out just knee jerking with emotion, Son...and you wouldn't identify Dodge if one ran over you in the street. Get your story straight first...and attempt a discussion on topic. All you do is express attitude....with NO filler on content. Prove what anyone ELSE stated on topic, as you have no case here.

But this time, stick to some facts presented on topic. What, you think a half time evaluation PROVES the degree of success SHOWN as being DOMINANT by the Cowboys to present? You think your rush and rerush to foolish attachment to METHODOLOGY means you touched upon CONCEPT of function? Get real....Show me anywhere, where the ability to count any variable of numbers provides application of physics and character qualities that ARE the necessary aspects to success in the NFL. What, you trying to reinvent reality and look smart?

Stick to trying to talk football first....

Methodology. No matter how you dress it up or dance around it, you've said nothing in all of that other than you have no methodology for arriving at your unsubstantiated opinion, and it's obviously bothering you. Dance, little man, dance.