Everyone is writing Randy Gregory off. I'm not

[FuzzyLumpkins]

and that policy has also been altered and approved by the NFLPA and voted on by players. I don't care when the policy was 1st put into place what I care about is players following the rules so that they are not missing games because they are too stupid to get it. There is the way you want it and then there is the way it is. The choice is on the players if they break the rules they will face the punishment and again frankly it is not tough rules. hell they allow players to have 3 failed test before they get 4 games, they give them counseling to assist them and of course the right to appeal to a Independent Arbitrator

I'm not arguing the status quo.

 

[Stash]

1. There are LOTS of meaningless stats. Passing yardage often favors the losing team. Time of possession doesn't account for special teams and defensive scores. First downs don't favor big-play offenses. And pressures are far more important than sacks because the stat is arbitrary.

2. 32 teams don't ignore good pass rushers. Even Aldon Smith got offered.

3. How? Are you hanging your hat on Jeremy Mincey and George Selvie? Those are your impact players that are gone?

1. Sacks aren't one of them, no matter how badly you wish it was the case. The higher the Sack numbers, the better the overall defense usually is. The worse those numbers are, the worse the defense usually is.

2. 31 did just that last year before Dallas took the chance. Now that it's blown up in their face, that makes 32. His issues don't mean that he's not a good pass rusher. And not better than anyone that this team still has.

3. I'm pointing out that another brash claim made by you was inaccurate and false. In your rush to make your case, you stated something that was untrue. Deal with it.

 

[Rogerthat12]

Who said I feel superior to others? You get that impression and it bothers you obviously but speak for yourself.

Ad hominem is a latin phrase that means what I said. It is interesting that you find it abusive and then I see you here doing it yourself. Wouldn't that make you abusive by your own logic?

BTW you are awful at deduction. You should look up what mutually exclusive means. For example, 'describing what I do' can be an attack when it is derisive. You are saying I act smart but really am not and that I am abusive. I think you overreact to confrontation and need to get over yourself.

I never call anyone stupid btw. I am actually very careful about that. It's the difference between discussing someone and discussing their ideas but nuance is often lost.

On a final note it is very clear that you have no clue what I am talking about regarding front brain and back brain. I am talking about a romantic versus empirical outlook. I couch it in those terms because executive function is front brain while emotional intelligence is back brain. You're the one that applies the value judgment. I find both have their places.

I know exactly what you are talking about with back brain and front brain and it further supports your approach of condescension to others.

It does not bother me at all, I am describing what you do when others disagree with you accordingly.

Ad Hominem is strictly "of the man", I know Latin well but contextually the meaning used in logic as a fallacy Ad Hominem Argumentem Abusive is attacking the man not the cogency of the argument which you do quite often.

Your deduction is poor in argumentation, see the Brugler exchange.

Further, describing what you do in disagreement and how you relate as a person to others is not a personal attack instead of dealing with your argument, more poor logic.

All one has to do is copy and paste many of your exchanges in arguments with various persons, the attitude and approach is there for all to see.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I know exactly what you are talking about with back brain and front brain and it further supports your approach of condescension to others.

Not in the context I just put it. Like I said you need to get over yourself.

It does not bother me at all, I am describing what you do when others disagree with you accordingly.

As I said your tone and crusade belie this narrative. Repeating yourself and ignoring direct rebuttals is fun I guess.

Ad Hominem is strictly "of the man", I know Latin well but contextually the meaning used in logic as a fallacy Ad Hominem Argumentem Abusive is attacking the man not the cogency of the argument which you do quite often.

Are you really going to say I don't argue on merit. Sorry if I find people's motives interesting but the above is extremely myopic. What you are claiming I'm doing is what you are doing. You're just whining about me.

Your deduction is poor in argumentation, see the Brugler exchange.

That wasn't a deduction.

Further, describing what you do in disagreement and how you relate as a person to others is not a personal attack instead of dealing with your argument, more poor logic.

You ignored the mutually exclusive argument. If you continue to ignore rebuttals I am going to just ignore you for awhile.

All one has to do is copy and paste many of your exchanges in arguments with various persons, the attitude and approach is there for all to see.

Necroing old posts you are upset about is very demonstrative of your carefree attitude. No grudge at all and it''ll sure show me like last time.

 

[Rogerthat12]

Not in the context I just put it. Like I said you need to get over yourself.

Put in the wrong context from the beginning and applied later with no relevance to a logical fallacy in argumentation.

As I said your tone and crusade belie this narrative. Repeating yourself and ignoring direct rebuttals is fun I guess

There is no substance to all your responses just more denial of the obvious to many who have ever had disagreement with you.

Are you really going to say I don't argue on merit. Sorry if I find people's motives interesting but the above is extremely myopic. What you are claiming I'm doing is what you are doing. You're just whining about me.

More denial of your own approach and your attitude/approach of condescension is without merit.

That wasn't a deduction.

Poor deductive reasoning was utilized in your argument and exposition with respect to the Brugler argument, deductive reasoning is part of the field of logic, sorry Fuzzy, I know it well.

Necroing old posts you are upset about is very demonstrative of your carefree attitude. No grudge at all and it''ll sure show me like last time.

Clearly upset that I called you out on your approach, proof is the fact that you lost the Brugler argument, I have no grudge whatsoever or reason to hold one accordingly.

You ignored the mutually exclusive argument. If you continue to ignore rebuttals I am going to just ignore you for awhile.

I handled all of your arguments with ease, please feel free to put me on ignore.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Put in the wrong context from the beginning and applied later with no relevance to a logical fallacy in argumentation.

This is new. Please tell me what my context was at the beginning since you are the expert on what I mean. I don't find emotional intelligence all bad. Sorry that doesn't jive with your vitriol.

There is no substance to all your responses just more denial of the obvious to many who have ever had disagreement with you.

That isn't even an argument. This reads like the white flag of inability to address the argument.

More denial of your own approach and your attitude/approach of condescension is without merit.

I get it. You don't think I am as smart as I think I am. This speaks to the crusade you just tried to blanket dismiss. You shouldn't be so obvious.

Poor deductive reasoning was utilized in your argument and exposition with respect to the Brugler argument, deductive reasoning is part of the field of logic, sorry Fuzzy, I know it well.

You're repeating yourself again and abandoned your previous argument. You say you know deduction well but have not demonstrated any capacity outside of bluster. You cannot even grasp mutual exclusivity or more precisely it's role in deduction. Your substitutes preclude nothing.

Clearly upset that I called you out on your approach, proof is the fact that you lost the Brugler argument, I have no grudge whatsoever or reason to hold one accordingly.

Keep on holding onto that. Maybe we can get it to two months.

I handled all of your arguments with ease, please feel free to put me on ignore.

Anything other than bluster?

 

[Rogerthat12]

This is new. Please tell me what my context was at the beginning since you are the expert on what I mean. I don't find emotional intelligence all bad. Sorry that doesn't jive with your vitriol.

Not really, you were using the word incorrectly in terms of the meaning with respect to logical fallacies in argumentation that was the context, pretty simple really.

You then argued once corrected that you were simply referring to the man, not the logical fallacy.


That isn't even an argument. This reads like the white flag of inability to address the argument.

You have no argument, just more denial and poor understanding and usage of the basic rules of logic with a condescending attitude and approach.



I get it. You don't think I am as smart as I think I am. This speaks to the crusade you just tried to blanket dismiss. You shouldn't be so obvious.

That is your adjudication but I must say that argumentation and following the rules of logic are not your strength.


You're repeating yourself again and abandoned your previous argument. You say you know deduction well but have not demonstrated any capacity outside of bluster. You cannot even grasp mutual exclusivity or more precisely it's role in deduction. Your substitutes preclude nothing.

Sorry, your poor deduction has been seen in your argumentation particulary located in your response to the Brugler exchange. Further, your lame attempt to argue what I "grasp" is more of the same without substance and proving your fundamental approach.

Mutual exclusivity is base level and does not help with your poor logic in the Brugler exchange whatsoever.


Keep on holding onto that. Maybe we can get it to two months.

More of the same!



Anything other than bluster?

This is basically your approach when you have lost an argument.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is new. Please tell me what my context was at the beginning since you are the expert on what I mean. I don't find emotional intelligence all bad. Sorry that doesn't jive with your vitriol.

Not really, you were using the word incorrectly in terms of the meaning with respect to logical fallacies in argumentation that was the context, pretty simple really.

You then argued once corrected that you were simply referring to the man, not the logical fallacy.

This is about my use of 'back brain' and what I meant. The comment first came about from the comparison of Bosa to Ellis. I posted game footage of them both and pointed out how they were not comparable beyond to say they were DE. People were remembering their disappointment thus me saying less back brain and more front brain.

Try and keep up.

That isn't even an argument. This reads like the white flag of inability to address the argument.

You have no argument, just more denial and poor understanding and usage of the basic rules of logic with a condescending attitude and approach.

You can jump and down and wave your hands all you like but youre still fixating on me pretty hard here like you have for a month now. Even here you stated that you normally don't participate in these discussions. That all supports my argument that you're a big hypocrite and are making this all about me. The term crusade fits as such.

I get it. You don't think I am as smart as I think I am. This speaks to the crusade you just tried to blanket dismiss. You shouldn't be so obvious.

That is your adjudication but I must say that argumentation and following the rules of logic are not your strength.

You say that but you still fail the mutual exclusivity test regarding your deduction. You are trying to convey that I am not as smart as I present. This is the same thing in a different form. You certainly fronting that I am not as smart as I present but what is obvious is that it's your own intelligence you are concerned about. Relativists are amusing.

You're repeating yourself again and abandoned your previous argument. You say you know deduction well but have not demonstrated any capacity outside of bluster. You cannot even grasp mutual exclusivity or more precisely it's role in deduction. Your substitutes preclude nothing.

Sorry, your poor deduction has been seen in your argumentation particulary located in your response to the Brugler exchange. Further, your lame attempt to argue what I "grasp" is more of the same without substance and proving your fundamental approach.

Mutual exclusivity is base level and does not help with your poor logic in the Brugler exchange whatsoever.

Base level? Even if true, what difference does that make other than posturing. If it applies it applies. Fact is what you claim and what I claim are not mutually exclusive. Thus me saying it precludes nothing.

Keep on holding onto that. Maybe we can get it to two months.

More of the same!

It has been a month of this from you. It certainly is important to you.

Anything other than bluster?

This is basically your approach when you have lost an argument.

I pointed out several times where your entire argument was bluster before making that statement. The "I know you are but what am I" routine is cute and all but still full of fail.

 

[BAT]

1. It's almost impossible in a quick-pass league to get sacks up the middle. Pressure from there, however, creates incompletions and interceptions. It makes QBs throw from their toes and short-arm throws. It gets in their head. We've seen it give Romo all sorts of problems. Sacks are a useless calculation because it often requires a QB be half brain-dead to hang on to the ball too long.

2. 32 teams, many of which are just as desperate as Dallas, are highly unimpressed with Hardy.

3. Mincey and Selvie. Lawrence and Tapper. Choose.

I guess JJ Watt, Geno Atkins, Gerald McCoy, Aaron Donald, Muhammad Wilkerson, etc. are doing the impossible on a regular basis. The BEST defensive player in the league is an interior pass rusher AND collects tons of sacks. Give me sacks at every angle, whether from the inside or the edges. Just get more sacks.

Pressure is nice, but sacks and takeaways are demoralizing to the opposing team. Cowboys NEED more of those to take the next step.

 

[Rogerthat12]

This is about my use of 'back brain' and what I meant. The comment first came about from the comparison of Bosa to Ellis. I posted game footage of them both and pointed out how they were not comparable beyond to say they were DE. People were remembering their disappointment thus me saying less back brain and more front brain.

Try and keep up.

The problem for you is that you have used front brain and back brain comments all over the board since while being condescending to others.

Further, you have personally attacked people and their intelligence and then claimed they were making ad hominem abusive fallacies against you.

Try to escape denial.

You can jump and down and wave your hands all you like but youre still fixating on me pretty hard here like you have for a month now. Even here you stated that you normally don't participate in these discussions. That all supports my argument that you're a big hypocrite and are making this all about me. The term crusade fits as such.

I have no fixation with you whatsoever but I am certainly not going to sit back and listen to the load of dung you threw my way when I simply asked you for clarification of something I read that you posted.

I asked you what you meant?

More attacking the man, you can not escape it!

You say that but you still fail the mutual exclusivity test regarding your deduction. You are trying to convey that I am not as smart as I present. This is the same thing in a different form. You certainly fronting that I am not as smart as I present but what is obvious is that it's your own intelligence you are concerned about. Relativists are amusing.

Incorrect, that is your adjudication of yourself, I have not questioned your intelligence one bit, only your argumentation and logic used in argumentation.

I have a Master's and PHD from Duke University in Philosophy with specialization in logic, I have absolutely nothing to prove to you!

I am not a relativist and your application makes no sense in this context and is false.


Base level? Even if true, what difference does that make other than posturing. If it applies it applies. Fact is what you claim and what I claim are not mutually exclusive. Thus me saying it precludes nothing.

It does not apply to what is material in our discussion and your entire employment of the term is under dispute.


It has been a month of this from you. It certainly is important to you.

We have not had material discussion of the Brugler topic in some time and I even joked with you about Bosa since before the draft and informed you that is what I was doing and you were fine with it until now.


I pointed out several times where your entire argument was bluster before making that statement. The "I know you are but what am I" routine is cute and all but still full of fail.[/quote]

All of this is without substance and does not correspond to reality.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The problem for you is that you have used front brain and back brain comments all over the board since while being condescending to others.

Further, you have personally attacked people and their intelligence and then claimed they were making ad hominem abusive fallacies against you.

Try to escape denial.

That doesn't preclude your hypocrisy. Again I have never insulted anyone's intelligence. I insult their ideas. Nuance is difficult but generally speaking I don't think you can gauge intelligence in this medium. You can ignore this but it still rebuts your claim.

You're doing it here. I say something and it makes you feel stupid so then that must mean I am telling you you are stupid.

I have no fixation with you whatsoever but I am certainly not going to sit back and listen to the load of dung you threw my way when I simply asked you for clarification of something I read that you posted.

I asked you what you meant?

More attacking the man, you can not escape it!

I certainly cannot escape you talking about me. It's amazing how butthurt you have gotten over me pointing out how the lack of correlation can disprove causation and how you would have done better to read the argument we were having before inserting yourself.

Incorrect, that is your adjudication of yourself, I have not questioned your intelligence one bit, only your argumentation and logic used in argumentation.

I have a Master's and PHD from Duke University in Philosophy with specialization in logic, I have absolutely nothing to prove to you!

I am not a relativist and your application makes no sense in this context and is false.

Dropping your unprovable degree. You certainly have demonstrated no expertise in logic in this thread from the very beginning. Generally speaking it is very easy to disprove a negative.

You've repeatedly told me that I am not as good at logic as I would present. Your denial is garbage in light of that. Logical thinking is a part of intelligence is it not?

Base level? Even if true, what difference does that make other than posturing. If it applies it applies. Fact is what you claim and what I claim are not mutually exclusive. Thus me saying it precludes nothing.

It does not apply to what is material in our discussion and your entire employment of the term is under dispute.

It helps to do more than just saying it is disputed then. You have no basis. The notion that you aren't being critical of me ad hominem is absurd.

It has been a month of this from you. It certainly is important to you.

We have not had material discussion of the Brugler topic in some time and I even joked with you about Bosa since before the draft and informed you that is what I was doing and you were fine with it until now.

You've trolled me with it for a month and I'm still not upset. Like I said you are hardly the first person that has come at me like this for the exact same reason. I do think I am intelligent and for zero sum relativists that is a problem.

I've been laying it on extra thick here to expose your motive. You've done a good job responding as I expect.

I pointed out several times where your entire argument was bluster before making that statement. The "I know you are but what am I" routine is cute and all but still full of fail.

All of this is without substance and does not correspond to reality.[/quote]

And you end with another mindless blanket dismissal. Congratulations.

 

[snapper]

Joey Bosa...Greg Ellis...back brain...front brain. I thought this thread was about Gregory?

 

[iceberg]

I've said it before, this is a make or break year for him. Either he puts the reefer down and becomes a stud DE or he fails another drug test and the Cowboys cut ties with him.

yep. his choice. i believe people should have their own choice and he does. play for the NFL and put that crap down, or find a job that doesn't pee test and work there. promise you'll make a lot less and get less "help" along the way on road 2.

 

[fishspill]

Joey Bosa...Greg Ellis...back brain...front brain. I thought this thread was about Gregory?

It is until 2 randos decide to unzip.

Such is off-season Zone.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Joey Bosa...Greg Ellis...back brain...front brain. I thought this thread was about Gregory?

He's been trolling me for a month so I figured I'd get down to the bottom of it. Sorry to make you guys read that. I'll stop now.

 

[Rogerthat12]

That doesn't preclude your hypocrisy. Again I have never insulted anyone's intelligence. I insult their ideas. Nuance is difficult but generally speaking I don't think you can gauge intelligence in this medium. You can ignore this but it still rebuts your claim.

More ad hominem abusive fallacies, you can not help yourself.

Yes, you have insulted their intelligence and not just their ideas.

what is obvious is that it's your own intelligence you are concerned about.

You're doing it here. I say something and it makes you feel stupid so then that must mean I am telling you you are stupid.

You have said nothing to make me feel stupid because your arguments lack any logical sense, simply words without substance and odd patterns of thinking.

I certainly cannot escape you talking about me. It's amazing how butthurt you have gotten over me pointing out how the lack of correlation can disprove causation and how you would have done better to read the argument we were having before inserting yourself.

More personal attacks, it is evident you can not stop name calling.

Second, I specifically asked you what you meant because the way it read was that you were arguing causation not correlation with relation to legalization and lower vehicle accident rates.

Dropping your unprovable degree. You certainly have demonstrated no expertise in logic in this thread from the very beginning. Generally speaking it is very easy to disprove a negative.

You've repeatedly told me that I am not as good at logic as I would present. Your denial is garbage in light of that. Logical thinking is a part of intelligence is it not?

Does not matter, when you pay the piper to go to school and earn your degree (s) you have already proven yourself.

I have shared this with others on here and actually live in RDU, you really want to deny this facts as well?

Your evaluation is rejected because you have absolutely demonstrated a poor use of logic and lack of proper argumentation with further lack of any type of specialized education in the field.

One can have intelligence but also have poor logic and argumentation.

It helps to do more than just saying it is disputed then. You have no basis. The notion that you aren't being critical of me ad hominem is absurd.

You do not even understand the term as evidenced by this exchange.

I have attacked your poor argumentation and logic with corresponding condescending approach to relating to others who disagree with your opinions.

You've trolled me with it for a month and I'm still not upset. Like I said you are hardly the first person that has come at me like this for the exact same reason. I do think I am intelligent and for zero sum relativists that is a problem.

I have not "trolled" you at all, you just got spanked in the Brugler debate, when the guy himself, proved you wrong on multiple occasions via video and audio.

I've been laying it on extra thick here to expose your motive. You've done a good job responding as I expect.

My motive is simply that you attacked me earlier for absolutely no reason and I am responding to this fantasy of self importance you have designed through our current exchange.

I have not "trolled" you one bit and if asking you for clarification of something you posted on a public forum gets this type of reaction from you, then who has the problem really?

Your narrative simply does not correspond to reality!

And you end with another mindless blanket dismissal. Congratulations.

More baseless jargon with zero substantive value to anything exchanged!

 

[Rogerthat12]

He's been trolling me for a month so I figured I'd get down to the bottom of it. Sorry to make you guys read that. I'll stop now.

Dishonest as well.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So back to the subject at hand. What does everybody think it would take to remove marijuana from the testing regimine?

Twenty states are on the ballot for legalization. Polling is pretty in favor for them all except for FL which is close to the 60% needed for constitutional amendment that would require.

If polling bears out then that means half the states in the union would have voted for legalization. That is what most people I have read are predicting what it would take to get the feds to change.

If that happens do you think the NFL would follow suit?

 

[Zimmy Lives]

yep. his choice. i believe people should have their own choice and he does. play for the NFL and put that crap down, or find a job that doesn't pee test and work there. promise you'll make a lot less and get less "help" along the way on road 2.

He can always get a job with Lowes. I hear they allow you to use heavy machinery while high.

 

[iceberg]

Not to the same extent but I smoked for many years daily and when I had to quit because of testing at work there was an urge to continue and some sleepless nights. I agree not major withdraw but ithere was some effects.

habits are in fact habits and hard to break, that is very true.