Do you think the Dallas Cowboys could beat Jacksonville Jaguars?

[peplaw06]

You've proven several things in this thread:

1: Your lack of reading comprehension

How can my reading comprehension be questioned when I quote exactly what you say and refute it?

2: Your lack of common sense

Because I didn't make an assumption that your statement required? How is that a lck of common sense.

3: Your lack of hindsight in regards to your posts

Do you even know what this means? Am I supposed to go back on my posts when you haven't refuted one thing in them?

4: You inability to know when you yourself are making an assumption

Says the guy who doesn't know the meaning of assumption.[/QUOTE]

Because you lack the common sense to realize that no one in their right mind would claim that Tom Landry's teams have any impact opn Parcell's teams.

Let me lay this out for you in 2nd grade terms, maybe you can understand it. If Tom Landry's teams have nothing to do with Parcell's teams (which I agree with), what do Dave Campo's teams have to do with BP's teams?

[insert crickets chirping... gears spinning in HH's head]

Let the spinning begin.

 

[The30YardSlant]

How can my reading comprehension be questioned when I quote exactly what you say and refute it?

Simple, you did not grasp what I meant. I can quote ye olde english all day long, that doesnt mean I understand half of what they are saying. Not only do you lack reading comprehension, but you don't even know what reading comprehension is. Interesting....

Because I didn't make an assumption that your statement required? How is that a lck of common sense.

Because my statement did not require an assumption to understand, just common sense, which you apparently lack. This isnt hard, come on now.

Do you even know what this means? Am I supposed to go back on my posts when you haven't refuted one thing in them?

You should have reviewed your own posts before contradicting yourself midway through your "arguement".

Says the guy who doesn't know the meaning of assumption.

No, I'm fairly confident in my ability to understand an assumption. You, however, I'm not so sure.

Let me lay this out for you in 2nd grade terms, maybe you can understand it. If Tom Landry's teams have nothing to do with Parcell's teams (which I agree with), what do Dave Campo's teams have to do with BP's teams?

Read (I know, tough, but at least try):

Players and coaches are still here from those years. Again, using 2003-2005 really is the only fair comparison for this years team, however if Hos believes that our all-time history proves his point, I was simply pointing out that our recent history does not.

Basically, 2000-2002 doesnt prove my point, it simply disproves his.

Making sure you read the whole thread helps prevent you getting made a fool of later.

[insert crickets chirping... gears spinning in HH's head]

Actually, despite what you may think, this does not require much thinking on my part. You are offering this arguement up like drunken pitcher, I'm just sitting back and knocking these beachballs out into deep center.

Let the spinning begin.

Indeed. Let's see how creative you really are. I cannot conceive a way to weasel out of this one, but hey, you have already surprised me numerous times in this thread, so I'll give you a shot. Let's hear it, bar exam.

 

[Hostile]

Because you lack a great degree of common sense?

Seriously, I KNOW you are smarter than that. You wanted a reason to jump down my throat, and you found it in a grammatical technicality

Oh boy, drama.

Let's re-enact the truth shall we?

Not to mention the fact that, save last season, we don't tend to fair well in road openers

Okay, you now contend I found a grammatical technicality. Here was my response to the above thread.

HH, you tend to spout off at times like you're some kind of authority on subjects. This is one of those times.

The Dallas Cowboys are the most successful team in NFL for opening games of the season.

Maybe I'm going blind (mama warned me about that) but I don't see one single attack of your grammar. I mean I see errors, I just don't see where I pointed them out.

Now let's qualify this. You did not say the "Parcells' era Cowboys." You didn't say the "21st Century Dallas Cowboys." You said "we" and I took that to mean the "Dallas Cowboys" collectively struggle in "road openers."

That simply isn't true, and I pointed that out. The Dallas Cowboys, for all intents and purposes this means "we," are the most successful team in NFL History for opening the season on the road, at home, and overall. No one comes close to our winning % in these areas. That's all I said.

From there, you flew all over the place squawking about what you meant to say and changing the parameters. You wanted to add home games. You wanted to have it just be Campo and Parcells.

Your statement was what is called an "absolute." It was stated as a fact. The only problem with your premise is that it "absolutely" is not true.

As for your premise now that I just wanted to "jump down your throat," hogwash. Why would I take the time to point out that your statement was rash? Why wouldn't I just start whipping you unmercilessly? Why would I simply make a contradictory statement instead of throwing out the statistics that back up my claim?

You talked about common sense, use some yourself. How long have you known me? If I want to jump down someone's throat I don't hem, haw, and beat around the bush. I simply jump and yell Geronimo. True or false?

I pointed out your statement was rash in the hopes that you'd clarify what you said. In other words I left it open for you to save face.

Instead you reacted like your manhood was questioned and flew off the handle never to grasp the broom again. Hell you even managed to give me some groupies in the process just because others chimed in that you were off base. Once again I took you to school, and it had nothing to do with a premeditated desire on my part to do so.

 

[The30YardSlant]

Oh boy, drama.

Let's re-enact the truth shall we?

Okay, you now contend I found a grammatical technicality. Here was my response to the above thread.



Maybe I'm going blind (mama warned me about that) but I don't see one single attack of your grammar. I mean I see errors, I just don't see where I pointed them out.

Now let's qualify this. You did not say the "Parcells' era Cowboys." You didn't say the "21st Century Dallas Cowboys." You said "we" and I took that to mean the "Dallas Cowboys" collectively struggle in "road openers."

That simply isn't true, and I pointed that out. The Dallas Cowboys, for all intents and purposes this means "we," are the most successful team in NFL History for opening the season on the road, at home, and overall. No one comes close to our winning % in these areas. That's all I said.

From there, you flew all over the place squawking about what you meant to say and changing the parameters. You wanted to add home games. You wanted to have it just be Campo and Parcells.

Your statement was what is called an "absolute." It was stated as a fact. The only problem with your premise is that it "absolutely" is not true.

As for your premise now that I just wanted to "jump down your throat," hogwash. Why would I take the time to point out that your statement was rash? Why wouldn't I just start whipping you unmercilessly? Why would I simply make a contradictory statement instead of throwing out the statistics that back up my claim?

You talked about common sense, use some yourself. How long have you known me? If I want to jump down someone's throat I don't hem, haw, and beat around the bush. I simply jump and yell Geronimo. True or false?

I pointed out your statement was rash in the hopes that you'd clarify what you said. In other words I left it open for you to save face.

Instead you reacted like your manhood was questioned and flew off the handle never to grasp the broom again. Hell you even managed to give me some groupies in the process just because others chimed in that you were off base. Once again I took you to school, and it had nothing to do with a premeditated desire on my part to do so.

I agree with the first part of this post, and have lerned in the future to be 100% exact in posting things that, apparently, make less sense to you than me.

That does not, however, change the true meaning behind what I was saying. My "squaking" was not "spin, as you say, simply me clrifying what I REALLY meant in my original statement. Whether or not you chose to believe that really doesnt bother me, I know what I meant, and I'm betting you do as well.

 

[Hostile]

I agree with the first part of this post, and have lerned in the future to be 100% exact in posting things that, apparently, make less sense to you than me.

That does not, however, change the true meaning behind what I was saying. My "squaking" was not "spin, as you say, simply me clrifying what I REALLY meant in my original statement. Whether or not you chose to believe that really doesnt bother me, I know what I meant, and I'm betting you do as well.

Long after the fact and hystrionics, yes I do.

Tip of the day. When you speak in absolutes, you will get challenged. Rather than jumping around like a barefoot kid on hot asphalt, simply clarify yourself.

Example, "I meant to say lately, or in recent years, not all time."

I will most likely respond, "no problem."

Instead you went off on tangents and invited the slapstick routine. If you can't see that, go back and look at your reponse to my original friendly rejoinder.

A wise old cowboy once told me, "if you don't want your butt whipped, don't show your ***."

Free advice.

 

[peplaw06]

Simple, you did not grasp what I meant. I can quote ye olde english all day long, that doesnt mean I understand half of what they are saying. Not only do you lack reading comprehension, but you don't even know what reading comprehension is. Interesting....

Once again... I can't read something that isn't there. Sad to say this entire thread is based on something you neglected to mention. That's not a lack of reading comprehension on our part. That's a lack of being able to express yourself coherently. Seriously, go find one person who has backed up your statement for what it was... ONE. We'll wait.

Because my statement did not require an assumption to understand, just common sense, which you apparently lack. This isnt hard, come on now.

OK wise guy, if we need common sense to understand what you mean, that would NECESSARILY mean that we would read your statements with outside knowledge (that's what common sense is)... and make ASSUMPTIONS that what you wrote isn't what you meant. So basically your statement was asking us to make an assumption, yet you rail us for not making that assumption?? Flip flop much? You can call it "common sense" if you want to spin it that way, but using common sense requires making assumptions. You're using the terms interchangeable, which is incorrect.

You should have reviewed your own posts before contradicting yourself midway through your "arguement".

Here's an example of superior intellect for ya. Argument doesn't have an "e" after the "u." A "grammatical technicality" I know, but I wouldn't mention it if you didn't mess it up everytime. And remind me where did I "contradict" myself. By saying your statement required an assumption to get your meaning? That in no way means we made an assumption, because (say it with me now) we didn't get your meaning... That means that we DIDN'T make an assumption. I know it's complicated. I'll pause so you can take some Advil.







OK are we better now?

Actually, despite what you may think, this does not require much thinking on my part.

Yeah, tell us about it. It usually doesn't take much thinking to do spin control. You're just replying to what everyone says and automatically arguing it, name calling, etc. without COMPREHENDING what we're saying. Again, we've laid it out for you umpteen million times, yet it's not sinking in. Go back and read it objectively. Don't read what we say with that scowl on your face, with your eyebrows furrowed, saying WOAH he said assumption!!

You are offering this arguement up like drunken pitcher, I'm just sitting back and knocking these beachballs out into deep center.

Ahh, there it is again... "argument."

Indeed. Let's see how creative you really are. I cannot conceive a way to weasel out of this one, but hey, you have already surprised me numerous times in this thread, so I'll give you a shot.

If you can't conceive a way to argue against you, you're obviously not thinking... hence why this argument isn't taking much thinking on your part. A good arguer/debator always thinks a step ahead and knows what the opposing side is going to say before they can say it. For instance, you're going to say something yet again about me picking on your grammatical technicalities... probably not now since I called you on it, but you were thinking about it. You'll also make generalities regarding common sense and assumptions, trying to differentiate between the two. Or say our reading comprehension once again fails. Maybe you mean we can't read your mind and comprehend it... OH it's OUR fault we didn't read your mind?? Gotcha.

Let's hear it, bar exam.

Yeah, if you don't believe me, just try me. I'll bring you one of my questions, maybe you can help me with your "superior intellect."

 

[The30YardSlant]

Long after the fact and hystrionics, yes I do.

Tip of the day. When you speak in absolutes, you will get challenged. Rather than jumping around like a barefoot kid on hot asphalt, simply clarify yourself.

Example, "I meant to say lately, or in recent years, not all time."

I will most likely respond, "no problem."

Instead you went off on tangents and invited the slapstick routine. If you can't see that, go back and look at your reponse to my original friendly rejoinder.

A wise old cowboy once told me, "if you don't want your butt whipped, don't show your ***."

Free advice.

Stating facts and speaking in absolutes are two seperate entities.

Fact: We are 1-2 under BP in openers

Speaking in absolutes would be me saying something like "Dallas will not win this years opener because we havent been good in openers lately". I did not say we WONT win, I said I have my doubts, in my opinion, it will be tough to win. I dont think we will, I hope they prove me wrong.

 

[SkinsandTerps]

HH , If you think they will lose the first game, I am willing to predict that they will lose the second game also. Starting out rough, with 2 weeks to prepare for the Titans. At least that should be a win.

 

[The30YardSlant]

Once again... I can't read something that isn't there. Sad to say this entire thread is based on something you neglected to mention. That's not a lack of reading comprehension on our part. That's a lack of being able to express yourself coherently. Seriously, go find one person who has backed up your statement for what it was... ONE. We'll wait.

I don't need one, I know what I meant, I don't need you or anyone else telling me what I said. And it was there, but like you say, you just cant see it.

OK wise guy, if we need common sense to understand what you mean, that would NECESSARILY mean that we would read your statements with outside knowledge (that's what common sense is)... and make ASSUMPTIONS that what you wrote isn't what you meant. So basically your statement was asking us to make an assumption, yet you rail us for not making that assumption?? Flip flop much? You can call it "common sense" if you want to spin it that way, but using common sense requires making assumptions. You're using the terms interchangeable, which is incorrect.

Thanks for proving my point (you are making a habit out of this, though I wont complain). The outside knowledge needed to make this, as you say, assumption, is you knowing that most of our great opening day record was compiled years ago and has no bearing on this years team. You should then be able to use that knowledge to figure out that I would have no reason to refer to those long gone teams, and thus I must mean the only teams that have bearing on this years squad, BP's teams. I can call it common sense because that is what it is, but then again, if you lack it, I can udnerstand how that makes little to no sense.

Here's an example of superior intellect for ya. Argument doesn't have an "e" after the "u." A "grammatical technicality" I know, but I wouldn't mention it if you didn't mess it up everytime. And remind me where did I "contradict" myself. By saying your statement required an assumption to get your meaning? That in no way means we made an assumption, because (say it with me now) we didn't get your meaning... That means that we DIDN'T make an assumption. I know it's complicated. I'll pause so you can take some Advil.

Being the head of the CZ grammar police does not make you this intellectual giant you seem to view yourself as. If correcting my typing is what helps you get through your rigorous study sessions, then by all means, go right ahead.

As for you contradicting yourself:

HH, maybe you need a little English lesson. If we quote you exactly and then refute your quote, that is not an "assumption"

That's an "omission" that would require the reader to make an assumption to get what you really meant.

Websters couldnt come up with a more accurate description of the word.

Yeah, tell us about it. It usually doesn't take much thinking to do spin control. You're just replying to what everyone says and automatically arguing it, name calling, etc. without COMPREHENDING what we're saying. Again, we've laid it out for you umpteen million times, yet it's not sinking in. Go back and read it objectively. Don't read what we say with that scowl on your face, with your eyebrows furrowed, saying WOAH he said assumption!!

Even Hostile has acknowledged he understands what I meant, though it took longer than it should. That so called "spin control" was me trying to convince a mental midget of what was pretty obvious to someone without an agenda and a little common sense.

BTW, "umpteen" is not a word. OMFG I ARE SO MUCH SMARTER THAN YOUZ!!!!!!!!

Stupid, isnt it?

Ahh, there it is again... "argument."

Grammar smack is that last resort of the hopelessly owned. Continue....

If you can't conceive a way to argue against you, you're obviously not thinking... hence why this argument isn't taking much thinking on your part. A good arguer/debator always thinks a step ahead and knows what the opposing side is going to say before they can say it. For instance, you're going to say something yet again about me picking on your grammatical technicalities... probably not now since I called you on it, but you were thinking about it. You'll also make generalities regarding common sense and assumptions, trying to differentiate between the two. Or say our reading comprehension once again fails. Maybe you mean we can't read your mind and comprehend it... OH it's OUR fault we didn't read your mind?? Gotcha.

Pot, kettle....you know the drill

Yeah, if you don't believe me, just try me. I'll bring you one of my questions, maybe you can help me with your "superior intellect."

I never claimed to have a superior intellect, that would be your stance. I'm simply pointing out your obvious shortcomings in comprehension and simple logic. But hey, being intelligent has never been a prerequisite to becoming a lawyer, so at least we're keeping that dream alive.

 

[The30YardSlant]

HH , If you think they will lose the first game, I am willing to predict that they will lose the second game also. Starting out rough, with 2 weeks to prepare for the Titans. At least that should be a win.

Nah, week 2 at home, the national stage, the revenge factor, etc. We will reclaim our rightful place as Washington's daddy and make everyone forget the momentary hiccup. The Commanders scare me far less than Jacksonville on the road.

 

[Stash]

Just wondering:

Is there an icon to ban someone?

Or a place to vote on it?

 

[parchy]

Now let's qualify this. You did not say the "Parcells' era Cowboys." You didn't say the "21st Century Dallas Cowboys." You said "we" and I took that to mean the "Dallas Cowboys" collectively struggle in "road openers."

I'm fairly certain everybody on the planet read it that way. It is almost impossible not to.

That said, the 2005 team is the closest product to the one we currently have, so that one carries more weight than any other. 2003 and 04 matter, but only in the context that the Cowboys outplayed the defending AFC West champs from the previous year and got a tough road win to show for it. I don't see why anyone would ignore that win and go to the other two losses other than for the explicit purposes of 'fishing for losses.' In that case, I'd say all credibility flies out the window.

 

[Hostile]

All my favorite threads end up out here in left field.

 

[The30YardSlant]

All my favorite threads end up out here in left field.

Was just thinking the same thing

 

[peplaw06]

This is a contradiction...

I never claimed to have a superior intellect, that would be your stance.

you are not very bright.

This on the other hand...

HH, maybe you need a little English lesson. If we quote you exactly and then refute your quote, that is not an "assumption"

That's an "omission" that would require the reader to make an assumption to get what you really meant.

... is a definition of two completely different words. Assumption and omission... see the quote marks?? Still not a contradiciton, keep trying.

Even Hostile has acknowledged he understands what I meant, though it took longer than it should. That so called "spin control" was me trying to convince a mental midget of what was pretty obvious to someone without an agenda and a little common sense.

The reason it took longer than it should is because you couldn't admit that you needed to clarify your statement... which is what you did here...

simply me clrifying what I REALLY meant in my original statement.

And all those people who couldn't agree with your original statement, those "mental midgets" as you call them... yeah that's basically everyone who has posted on this board. If that's not questioning everyone else's intellect as inferior to your's, I don't know what is? I asked you to find one person to back you up, and your reply was

I don't need one, I know what I meant, I don't need you or anyone else telling me what I said.

That's the epitome of arrogance and stubbornness. Can't see the forests for the trees... et cetera et cetera.

And it was there, but like you say, you just cant see it.

Link? How is it "there" if you can't see it? Do we need another dictionary.com definition for "there?"

This thread is quite a piece of work you got going here. You're accusing everyone of making assumptions and backpedaling when in fact that's what you have been doing since the original statement. It's desperate. I admit we all have a morbid sense of curiosity. It's like a train wreck we've all gotten involved in. Although it's painful to watch you do all this spin doctoring we keep watching to see if the "mental giant" HH will be brought down by all these "mental midgets" and suffocate him. It's like an anaconda slowly strangling its prey. :laugh1:

 

[The30YardSlant]

This is a contradiction...

No it isnt, that is me calling you out for your lack of reading comprehension and other english language intricacies. I never claimed to be more intelligent, for all you know I could have had a pole shoved through my head as a child and have half a brain left (cue smart*** remarks).

... is a definition of two completely different words. Assumption and omission... see the quote marks?? Still not a contradiciton, keep trying.

No it isnt, it's you thinking you have a point when in fact you are just turning the coin over and claiming it isnt the same coin.

And all those people who couldn't agree with your original statement, those "mental midgets" as you call them... yeah that's basically everyone who has posted on this board. If that's not questioning everyone else's intellect as inferior to your's, I don't know what is? I asked you to find one person to back you up, and your reply was
That's the epitome of arrogance and stubbornness. Can't see the forests for the trees... et cetera et cetera.

See the first part of this post for clarification

How is it "there" if you can't see it?

Because it's obviously implied for anyone with a little common sense, which, again, you obviously lack.

This thread is quite a piece of work you got going here. You're accusing everyone of making assumptions and backpedaling when in fact that's what you have been doing since the original statement.

And yet, here we are, back at square one, with it now being obvious that what I was claiming I meant all along is, in fact, what I meant. Go figure, right? My ground has been held, and the point it's blatantly obvious. You hopped on the "He didnt specify, I'll just play dumb and crucify him" bandwagon and are still clinging to it long after it was driven off a cliff.

 

[Stash]

And yet, here we are, back at square one, with it now being obvious that what I was claiming I meant all along is, in fact, what I meant. Go figure, right? My ground has been held, and the point it's blatantly obvious. You hopped on the "He didnt specify, I'll just play dumb and crucify him" bandwagon and are still clinging to it long after it was driven off a cliff.

No it hasn't. You're still looking like a child who can't admit a mistake. Just like always. When everyone thinks you're wrong, you usually are. You'd be doing yourself and everyone else a big favor by realizing that and growing up.

:flipflop:

 

[peplaw06]

No it hasn't. You're still looking like a child who can't admit a mistake. Just like always. When everyone thinks you're wrong, you usually are. You'd be doing yourself and everyone else a big favor by realizing that and growing up.

:flipflop:

The car has gone off the cliff, but HH still thinks he's driving.

 

[The30YardSlant]

No it hasn't. You're still looking like a child who can't admit a mistake. Just like always. When everyone thinks you're wrong, you usually are. You'd be doing yourself and everyone else a big favor by realizing that and growing up.

:flipflop:

know what I meant, and I'm betting you do as well.

Check....

Long after the fact and hystrionics, yes I do.

....and Mate

He accepts it, why can't the rest of you? How can I be proven wrong when there is nothing to be wrong about? I know what I said, and I know what it meant.

 

[peplaw06]

Check....



....and Mate

He accepts it, why can't the rest of you? How can I be proven wrong when there is nothing to be wrong about? I know what I said, and I know what it meant.

Dude, you ******* called Hos specifically a "mental midget" because he read your statement for what it said instead of reading something into it. If you tell me the sky's red, don't fault us for calling you an idiot, instead of doing you a favor, and reading into it thinking, "Well he must have meant blue."

The moral of the story is don't speak in absolutes when you don't mean to. Or at least when you do, as apparently happens pretty often, be a man, own up to it, clarify it and move on. Don't start slinging mud around hoping to get everyone dirty while you're sinking. We really care less if you're wrong, if you own up to it. I know this thread would be about 5 pages max.