dogberry;2248815 said:Bob are you calling jobberone a criminal?
Then explain to me why the only times you ever address me are when you "catch me" saying something wrong?Bob Sacamano;2248807 said:ah, the old martyr/paranoid syndrome
seems it's always the worst posters who are afflicted w/ it
Clearly it was over your head.Bob Sacamano;2248821 said:no, just saying that peplaw is a bad lawyer
I've seen him argue, it's not pretty
peplaw06;2248843 said:Then explain to me why the only times you ever address me are when you "catch me" saying something wrong?
Do you have this "syndrome?" Cause you're easily on the list of worst posters. 31,000+ posts and counting, and I can't recall a single one from you that was substantive.
Clearly it was over your head.
I've pwned you in so many arguments it ain't funny. You're like the Commanders and I'm the Cowboys. I ***** slap you around thread after thread, then you go away... until you find some post where you think you've caught me, then like clockwork, you pop in to say, "yeah, what now??"
Ironic that you should call jobber a criminal.... How's that criminal record treating you?
Guess I should just put you back on ignore.
AbeBeta;2248865 said:I knew my Jefferson to the PS thread was going to be controversial.
Please don't put each other on ignore, watching you two slap fight is one of my only pleasures.
Saying "just kidding" doesn't mean you didn't say it.Bob Sacamano;2248858 said:1st of all, I didn't call jobber a criminal, I think I made that pretty clear when I said JUST KIDDING JOBBER
The comparison was made, and it was appropriate. Look at all the people who question Goodell now. I was just one in a group of trendsetters. Now it's common. You Goodell though, so sorry if you get all butt hurt over it.and 2nd of all, you haven't pwned ****, you once compared Roger Goodell to Mike Nifong, but I do enjoy seeing you get all emotional like a chick, threatening to put me on ignore
You just couldn't comprehend what the argument was from either side. Not surprised.you can't even read a contract, I remember you stumbling over the CBA
Bob Sacamano;2248683 said:criminals - 1
lawyers - 0
j/k jobber
peplaw06;2248879 said:Saying "just kidding" doesn't mean you didn't say it.
peplaw06 said:The comparison was made, and it was appropriate. Look at all the people who question Goodell now. I was just one in a group of trendsetters. Now it's common. You slurp Goodell though, so sorry if you get all butt hurt over it.
peplaw06 said:I'm sure the ladies on here would love your chick comment too. Again, you can't say anything substantive, so you resort to name calling. And yet here you are one more time, trying to call me out for something that you weren't even involved in. Who's being the "chick?"
peplaw06 said:You just couldn't comprehend what the argument was from either side. Not surprised.
peplaw06;2248620 said:I really wonder if that's the case... It's certainly not definitive.
1) Jefferson didn't see a snap at WR in the first game.
2) I think we knew we would be signing Bollinger before Jefferson was called up.
3) That means we knew we would have to cut someone.
I think that an argument could be made that we brought up Jefferson in case we had someone out of TO, Crayton and Stanback get hurt, but with the intent that we would be cutting that guy again after the game if everything turned out okay.
I don't think they necessarily brought up the best guy, since Jefferson didn't see a snap, at least not one I remember seeing. Maybe they think Amendola is ahead of Jefferson but didn't want to risk exposing him to waivers again, unlike Jefferson.
I certainly don't think it's open and shut that Jefferson is ahead of Amendola. It's arguable IMO.