GM's Comments on Roy Williams

[AbeBeta]

Does it mean that he can't recognize coverages?
Is he slow in support on cover two because he gets caught looking into the backfield?
Does he recognize coverages well, but he can't get where he needs to be because he can't turn his hips fast enough?
Can he never cover, or is it just some routes? If so, which?
*Can* he cover but you just don't recognize his responsibility for a play in question?
Are teams designing coverage beaters because our defense has tendencies that exploit the limitations of our strong safety?

I *don't* know what 'can't cover' means without context. When I say that he can cover given circumstances, so can you please be specific so that we can debate the finer points, I get 300 posts of 'you obviously knew what I meant.' I didn't. Frankly, I suspect you don't either at this point because this tail-chasing is getting boring. And I'm someone who really, really, likes to chase tail. (Now, what did that mean, exactly?).

But the issue is that instead of ASKING these questions, the initial statement was painted as a "myth" and then "debunked." An initial statement that EVERY person on this board knows was not intended literally. You want clarification, ask. You want to look like a dweeb -- tear down an argument that is obviously not correct when taken in a completely literal manner.

And again -- you need to **** with the what "I" meant stuff -- show me where I made extreme statements like that.

 

[Idgit]

Oh lawd.

Quit trying to be some sports talk personality douchebag, by making false blanket statements that are INTENDED to aggravate people and generate a strong reaction. Say what you mean, exercise your right to type and express yourself to the best of your abilities. If you don't, you're going to continue to get embarrassed when people who are capable of expressing themselves with clarity take issue with your written word.

The choice is clear. And it's not that difficult.

Thank you. It's the 'INTENDED to aggravate' part I hadn't put my finger on, but that's exactly what chafes my thighs.

By the way, by responding to abersonc, you've given me the opening I so desperately needed to bail on this thread. Tag, you're it! And good luck.

 

[superpunk]

I'd add that there also exists a choice to not be a douchebag and take everything so literally.

Everyone has to take things literally on the internet. Not expressing yourself clearly is just being dumb and lazy. An aversion to stupidity and laziness could save us all alot of time. If you "know" what you mean, then type THAT - not some half-assed inflammatory remark that is intended to aggravate the other party, rather than spark intelligent discussion - which if you're dumb and lazy, is the very thing you don't want.

Which is why I guess people use those sort of lazy comments. They're dumb, they're lazy, and if someone calls them on it, they can just resort to "I meant something else." Say what you mean, or *** off. It's a simple concept.

 

[Idgit]

But the issue is that instead of ASKING these questions, the initial statement was painted as a "myth" and then "debunked." An initial statement that EVERY person on this board knows was not intended literally. You want clarification, ask. You want to look like a dweeb -- tear down an argument that is obviously not correct when taken in a completely literal manner.

And again -- you need to **** with the what "I" meant stuff -- show me where I made extreme statements like that.

Rats. This one I have to clarify. Superpunk's still 'it,' though.
Several times I almost put this in a post, but thought we were on the same page. I'm just using the collective 'you' here, so it may or may not have applied to you. If it did not (I haven't checked), then please apply the sentiment to the next person in line in the knee-jerk milling herd.

 

[AbeBeta]

Everyone has to take things literally on the internet. Not expressing yourself clearly is just being dumb and lazy. An aversion to stupidity and laziness could save us all alot of time. If you "know" what you mean, then type THAT - not some half-assed inflammatory remark that is intended to aggravate the other party, rather than spark intelligent discussion - which if you're dumb and lazy, is the very thing you don't want.

Which is why I guess people use those sort of lazy comments. They're dumb, they're lazy, and if someone calls them on it, they can just resort to "I meant something else." Say what you mean, or *** off. It's a simple concept.

So here's my issue -- I'm hearing the say what you mean so we can have an intelligent conversation. Yet when I asked the poster who started the myth-mess for clarification in this thread there was a clear reluctance to do so. So much so that I had to ask my question several times, to the point where others were commenting on the lack of commentary. It runs both ways, you want to have an intelligent discussion? Then stop expending so much energy knocking down the literal argument. Get off the semantics and lets have one.

 

[AbeBeta]

Rats. This one I have to clarify. Superpunk's still 'it,' though.
Several times I almost put this in a post, but thought we were on the same page. I'm just using the collective 'you' here, so it may or may not have applied to you. If it did not (I haven't checked), then please apply the sentiment to the next person in line in the knee-jerk milling herd.

Thought we were on the same page? That applies to reasonably to your post. But it also applies as well or better to the "can't cover" issue. The only problem here is that people refuse to admit that they are on that same page.

What you have described is language not as literal but as a series of shared meanings that may differ from context to context.

 

[khiladi]

Anybody that confuses hyperbole with not expressing things clearly is an idiot... And let me add, anybody complaining about the usage of hyperbole in an internet forum is an idiot as well... And let me further add, anybody that calls a hyperbole a myth isn't that smart either... And let me further add to my list, anybody that is complaining abuot the usage of hyperbole, they might as well invent their own language, because any person on the street would damn well not want to engage in a conversation with them... Oh yeah, I forgot one... Anybody that thinks they made a point by shooting down a hyperbole falls in the above categories as well...

 

[superpunk]

So here's my issue -- I'm hearing the say what you mean so we can have an intelligent conversation. Yet when I asked the poster who started the myth-mess for clarification in this thread there was a clear reluctance to do so. So much so that I had to ask my question several times, to the point where others were commenting on the lack of commentary. It runs both ways, you want to have an intelligent discussion? Then stop expending so much energy knocking down the literal argument. Get off the semantics and lets have one.

It's not semantics, and there is clearly no way to make you understand. If you want to know why Adam didn't answer your "attempt for clarification" then you need to ask him why - not me.

Idiots need hyperbole to express their point - because as idiots, they are incapable of doing anything else. But it remains dumb and lazy.

 

[dargonking999]

Anybody that confuses hyperbole with not expressing things clearly is an idiot... And let me add, anybody complaining about the usage of hyperbole in an internet forum is an idiot as well... And let me further add, anybody that calls a hyperbole a myth isn't that smart either... And let me further add to my list, anybody that is complaining abuot the usage of hyperbole, they might as well invent their own language, because any person on the street would damn well not want to engage in a conversation with them... Oh yeah, I forgot one... Anybody that thinks they made a point by shooting down a hyperbole falls in the above categories as well...

anyone that writes this kind of crap is an idoit, and fails even worse.

 

[AdamJT13]

The only thing that makes this a "small but significant" difference is the obstinate refusal of posters to acknowledge that everyone understands what people who say "can't cover" mean.

That statement IS obviously false on the surface -- and that is EXACTLY how we understand that the literal meaning is not what was intended. You can be sick of over-reaction all you want but lining up lame-*** straw man arguments to knock over the fence does not prove anything. All it does is make those focusing on those arguments look like they are refusing to address legitimate issues.

The ONLY side that is focusing on that myth is the side that uses it even though they know it's false and claims it's true even though they know it's false.

 

[AbeBeta]

Idiots need hyperbole to express their point - because as idiots, they are incapable of doing anything else. But it remains dumb and lazy.

Or you could say that intelligent posters are smart enough to know hyperbole when they see it. All this amounts to is a "look at me, I'm so smart, I out argued a moron" situation. Is that something you can really be proud of?

 

[AbeBeta]

The ONLY side that is focusing on that myth is the side that uses it even though they know it's false and claims it's true even though they know it's false.

Really. From my vantage point, you clearly are focusing more energy and weight on the meaning of the words expressed in that myth than anyone else.

 

[superpunk]

Or you could say that intelligent posters are smart enough to know hyperbole when they see it. All this amounts to is a "look at me, I'm so smart, I out argued a moron" situation. Is that something you can really be proud of?

It's dumb and lazy, and intended to be inflammatory. It's embarrassing that a poster like you (who I enjoy) would attempt to justify or defend being dumb, lazy and inflammatory.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

 

[AdamJT13]

So here's my issue -- I'm hearing the say what you mean so we can have an intelligent conversation. Yet when I asked the poster who started the myth-mess for clarification in this thread there was a clear reluctance to do so. So much so that I had to ask my question several times, to the point where others were commenting on the lack of commentary.

Excuse me for not being at your beck and call 24 hours a day. I responded as soon as I could.

 

[AbeBeta]

It's dumb and lazy, and intended to be inflammatory. It's embarrassing that a poster like you (who I enjoy) would attempt to justify or defend being dumb, lazy and inflammatory.

And I find it embarrassing that a poster like you (who I also enjoy) would attempt to justify lame-*** semantic posturing.

 

[Kilyin]

And I find it embarrassing that a poster like you (who I also enjoy) would attempt to justify lame-*** semantic posturing.

I think you should both hug and then go on a nice picnic.

 

[superpunk]

And I find it embarrassing that a poster like you (who I also enjoy) would attempt to justify lame-*** semantic posturing.

It's not semantics. And it's not posturing.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I think you should both hug and then go on a nice picnic.

I hate to do it, but...



Go hug it out, guys. Srsly.

 

[AdamJT13]

Really. From my vantage point, you clearly are focusing more energy and weight on the meaning of the words expressed in that myth than anyone else.

Your vantage point must not have a mirror nearby, because you have more than twice as many posts in this thread as I do.

 

[AbeBeta]

Your vantage point must not have a mirror nearby, because you have more than twice as many posts in this thread as I do.

Says the guy who started the myth thread that clung so tightly to the literal meaning of the words