DMN BLOG...roy williams S telling it like it is

[bbgun]

I especially like how your pulling out the victim card in this one

Another glorious day for illiteracy.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Foolish to whom? To you and those who agree with you on the T.O. issue?

I would look foolish to them anyway, just like you look foolish to people who want T.O. gone.

That's not much of a barometer is it?

If you want to crow I look foolish, be my guess. Who am I trying to impress? You? Woe is me, Khiladi made me look foolish. :laugh1:

LOL! Please with the self importance. That's why this forum is anonymous. People say all types of things foolish or wise. At the end of the day, we're all still anonymous, to some degree.

It appears you place more emphasis on some esteem that comes with posting on the Internet. Knock yourself out.



You do understand sarcasm don't you? In fact, I already addressed that way back when when I said that sarcasm and asking questions aren't mutally exclusive.



Because you chose not to respond that way, that's why.



Well, that's why the smilie faces are there, to be used in their full glory.

Of course, you did say you were done with this. I wonder why you keep re-emerging. Maybe there's some validation you seek in proclaiming yourself the winner of Internet debates.

Long live Khiladi ... the winner of Internet debates.

Is that good enough for you? Good. Now run along and tell your family and friends how victorious you are arguing over the Internet.

That is, if you're done after proclaiming so for the umpteenth time.

Oh and ... (That's a sarcasm smilie)

Of ... course ... you ... knew ... that.

well played, sir

the black man - 1, khiladi - 0

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you even understand what a red herring and a straw man is?

I can't be offering a straw man because a straw man is assigning to another an argument the other didn't make.

I'm using my question as the basis for this discussion. Clearly, that's not a straw man.

A red herring is diverting attention from a particular issue. The original issue was my question about whether Roy Williams can suck and yet be right about T.O.?

It's really not that hard to follow. But if you merely grab terms and have no understanding what they mean, I'm sure it's hard for you to follow the topic.

Hence, your bewilderment.

a strawman is trying to portray someone making an argument they are not. that is the whole deal in regards to him answering the question. A red herring is an argument that has nothing to do with the argument at hand that tries to distract what the real argument is about. That is what youre whole discourse for the past two pages is. I literally have to go back 3 pages to see you actually address the topic.

 

[5Countem5]

How about the 10 posts where you wrote something about the Cowboys and not about the fellow posters?

That's much more important.

And I would never bet anything that doesn't involve what I say directly or that would have WG as the determining factor.

So drop the bet talk.

But...

Why don't you put your account here on the line tough guy.

You are so sure Terrell Owens will be a Dallas Cowboy in 2009 right?

Well then state it right here that if he is cut then you are gone and that you will never return to CZ.

Most of us admit that we are not sure what will happen. That's where I am at.

But not you. You state time and time again that you are positive he's going to be here.

Put it in writing 5countem5. Put in writing that if Terrell Owens gets cut then you will leave CZ forever.

We are all waiting.

LOL...

So how about if he goes- I go. If he stays, you go?

I'll agree to that right now...

 

[tyke1doe]

Another glorious day for illiteracy.

They toss out foolish with such liberality and yet are clueless to basic grammatical rules.

And repeatedly.

Sigh.

Swallow camels and choke on gnats.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Another glorious day for illiteracy.

that is so weak, unfounded and misapplied. illiteracy implies inability to read which is pretty stupid to accuse someone of on a message board.

hey i didnt capitalize or use apostrophes try and make something out of that....

 

[Vintage]

They toss out foolish with such liberality and yet are clueless to basic grammatical rules.

And repeatedly.

Sigh.

Swallow camels and choke on gnats.

Its ok JJT.

I like your articles.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They toss out foolish with such liberality and yet are clueless to basic grammatical rules.

And repeatedly.

Sigh.

Swallow camels and choke on gnats.

yeah and then there is the whole issue of diction which you apparently lack. calling someone illiterate makes sense if they are going for the hukt on foniks routine which he wasnt. nice red herrings though.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

that is so weak, unfounded and misapplied. illiteracy implies inability to read which is pretty stupid to accuse someone of on a message board.

hey i didnt capitalize or use apostrophes try and make something out of that....

retahd!

 

[tyke1doe]

a strawman is trying to portray someone making an argument they are not. that is the whole deal in regards to him answering the question. A red herring is an argument that has nothing to do with the argument at hand that tries to distract what the real argument is about. That is what youre whole discourse for the past two pages is. I literally have to go back 3 pages to see you actually address the topic.

What argument did I assign to khiladi?

I'm glad you pulled a definition for straw man so tell me where the straw man is?

Second, what is the real argument?

My question was this?

Can Roy Williams suck as a player but be right about T.O.?

I offered the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Then I said of course you knew this.

The question still stands. Now, if you have an answer then by all means answer.

Otherwise, you know the answer and if so please stop trying to diminish what Roy Williams is saying by arguing he sucks. The fact posters accused Roy of blaming others for his own faults has NOTHING to do with what Roy Williams is now saying about T.O. Nothing.

Roy William isn't even a factor in the locker room, so why would he need to "blame" T.O.? Does that make sense to you?

It would be different if he himself were talking and chatting about players throughout the season and then at the end of the season said ... "T.O. divides this squad."

But you didn't hear a peep out of Roy Williams until now.

This is really quite simple. But if you want to make it complicated and try to detract from what he's saying by pointing to his play on the field or what others have said previously about Roy Williams, you are the one who is engaging in a red herring.

So, in summary, the final issue is this:

Can Roy Williams be right about T.O.'s impact on the locker room and does the fact he sucks on the field detract from his comments?

Again, it's really simple.

 

[tyke1doe]

Its ok JJT.

I like your articles.

LOL! :laugh1:

 

[bbgun]

that is so weak, unfounded and misapplied. illiteracy implies inability to read which is pretty stupid to accuse someone of on a message board.

hey i didnt capitalize or use apostrophes try and make something out of that....

Wrong. Literacy implies the ability to read and write, and illiteracy the exact opposite. Seeing as how you're one of the worst offenders on this board when it comes to butchering the English language, you might want to recuse yourself from this matter altogether.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What argument did I assign to khiladi?

I'm glad you pulled a definition for straw man so tell me where the straw man is?

Second, what is the real argument?

My question was this?

Can Roy Williams suck as a player but be right about T.O.?

I offered the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Then I said of course you knew this.

The question still stands. Now, if you have an answer then by all means answer.

Otherwise, you know the answer and if so please stop trying to diminish what Roy Williams is saying but arguing that he sucks. The fact posters accused Roy of blaming others for his own faults has NOTHING to do with what Roy Williams is now saying about T.O. Nothing.

Roy William isn't even a factor in the locker room, so why would he need to "blame" T.O.? Does that make sense to you?

It would be different if he himself were talking and chatting about players throughout the season and then at the end of the season said ... "T.O. divides this squad."

But you didn't hear a peep out of Roy Williams until now.

This is really quite simple. But if you want to make it complicated and try to detract from what he's saying by pointing to his play on the field or what others have said previously about Roy Williams, you are the one who is engaging in a red herring.

So, in summary, the final issue is this:

Can Roy Williams be right about T.O.'s impact on the locker room and does the fact he sucks on the field detract from his comments?

Again, it's really simple.

whatever. youve been trying to pin him on implying something by not answering the question and the entire argument has been about that for several pages. i dont care what the original argument was its really immaterial when youre trying to push minutiae based on a perceived intent for not answering a question that may or may not have been rhetorical.

 

[tyke1doe]

yeah and then there is the whole issue of diction which you apparently lack. calling someone illiterate makes sense if they are going for the hukt on foniks routine which he wasnt. nice red herrings though.

Sigh.


il·lit·er·a·cy (ĭ-lĭt'ər-ə-s&#275 Pronunciation Key
n. pl. il·lit·er·a·cies

The condition of being unable to read and write.
An error, as in writing or speech, made by or thought to be characteristic of one who is illiterate. See Usage Note at literate.
The condition or quality of being ignorant or unknowledgeable in a particular subject or field: cultural illiteracy; scientific illiteracy.
-----------------

il⋅lit⋅er⋅a⋅cy   /ɪˈlɪtərəsi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [i-lit-er-uh-see] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -cies for 3. 1. a lack of ability to read and write.
2. the state of being illiterate; lack of any or enough education.
3. a mistake in writing or speaking, felt to be characteristic of an illiterate or semiliterate person: a letter that was full of illiteracies.

 

[bbgun]

Sigh.


il·lit·er·a·cy (ĭ-lĭt'ər-ə-s&#275 Pronunciation Key
n. pl. il·lit·er·a·cies

The condition of being unable to read and write.
An error, as in writing or speech, made by or thought to be characteristic of one who is illiterate. See Usage Note at literate.
The condition or quality of being ignorant or unknowledgeable in a particular subject or field: cultural illiteracy; scientific illiteracy.
-----------------

il⋅lit⋅er⋅a⋅cy   /ɪˈlɪtərəsi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [i-lit-er-uh-see] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -cies for 3. 1. a lack of ability to read and write.
2. the state of being illiterate; lack of any or enough education.
3. a mistake in writing or speaking, felt to be characteristic of an illiterate or semiliterate person: a letter that was full of illiteracies.

Only an illiterate person would make such a colossal mistake.

 

[tyke1doe]

whatever. youve been trying to pin him on implying something by not answering the question and the entire argument has been about that for several pages. i dont care what the original argument was its really immaterial when youre trying to push minutiae based on a perceived intent for not answering a question that may or may not have been rhetorical.

You just invalidated your claim about a straw man and a red herring.

How can you claim someone has created a straw man or a red herring when you don't consider the original argument or don't care what the original argument was?

That's why I say you guys grab a few phrases you've heard off the Internet and try to apply them in discussions here.

And you have yet to answer my question - or do you know the answer already?

Can Roy Williams be telling the truth about T.O. being divisive AND suck as a player?

Or do you not want to answer the question because you know the answer?

That was the entire point of this exercise.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wrong. Literacy implies the ability to read and write, and illiteracy the exact opposite. Seeing as how you're one of the worst offenders on this board when it comes to butchering the English language, you might want to recuse yourself from this matter altogether.

im well aware of that. now explain how substituting your for youre implies the inability to read or write. you dont even grasp what i was saying.

again he did not put 'bbgun iz gut at speekin all uf dis stuffs.' these are the types of things you see when someone is learning to read. yours does not demonstrate that. if anything it shows that he does read a lot because your is much more common than youre and as such it becomes mentally substituted.

oh and youre now the grammar police? oh really based on whose standards? yours? spare me. wellspring of knowledge you are not. as if the fact that you hit the shift key makes your argument superior.

the bottomline is i do not care about grammar as you can probably tell and to be honest if youre too stupid to interpret without capitalization and apostrophes then youre too stupid for me to waste my time with.

really what you demonstrate is that you are old and unused to the new standard that has been introduced due to texting where delivering the message is more important than punctuation because quite frankly having to hit three keys to put in an apostrophe is tedious.

you want to be intractable to what is very obviously a trend and rail for the sanctity of grammar you go right ahead. you try and fight that fight and ill think youre a ****** because the english language is an evolving thing and is not set in stone by the freshman comp grammar guidebook of 1968.

 

[mmillman]

can anyone explain the differnce for a SS in a 3-4 versus 4-3?

How would a 4-3 help him cover better?

 

[Vintage]

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You just invalidated your claim about a straw man and a red herring.

How can you claim someone has created a straw man or a red herring when you don't consider the original argument or don't care what the original argument was?

That's why I say you guys grab a few phrases you've heard off the Internet and try to apply them in discussions here.

And you have yet to answer my question - or do you know the answer already?

Can Roy Williams be telling the truth about T.O. being divisive AND suck as a player?

Or do you not want to answer the question because you know the answer?

That was the entire point of this exercise.

Dude shut up i placed in the quarterfinals on the TFA debate tournament. I would have gone into law if not for the fact that i love math and subsequently engineering.

Not caring does not imply not knowing. think about that for a bit and get back to me.