Hate Cliches' used to Thwart Opponent Perspectives ...Whether True or False!

[Phoenix-Talon]

Understand something ...I just don't arbitrarily insult people I don't know or have never met. Look, I don't have the backup support system that most of you have here, and that's perfectly understandable. But what many of you aren't getting is that this is supposed to be fun.

Sure, I'll say things that you don't agree with, I'll get it wrong (like none of you have), but despite all that, none of you are idiots, I'm in the mental health field, so I would dare make a statement about your mental stability.

Fun! Clean, honest competition against you! I'll doubt you, I'll disagree, I may even embellish a point here or there just to keep you on your toes.

But you'd better believe that for every lewd remark you make, there are retorts ...it's just not my style to sit up here on my computer and insult anyone personal. Am I capable; sure, but it is against many things that I've learned in life.

Most here at the Zone can tell you that I'm not going to run away from a lyrical battle; until it becomes personal.

It"s just not my intent to insult you personally ...sarcasm ...no problem; I use it too. But check all of my posts, you won't find me saying anything viciously to personal attack anyone. That's not why I'm here.

It's supposed to be fun ...We're talking about a team of millionaires that very few of us if any, know personally. That said, lighten up. I'm only one person -- admitedley, I don't understand why I don't have some support.

I'll see you around on a different thread/post ...some of you have just ruined my fun on this one.

 

[Vintage]

You made the original post.

You were called out on it.

People presented facts saying otherwise.

You vehemently denied anything logical.

People, myself included, lost patience with you bec. you wouldn't address anything, but regurgitated the same spiel over and over. Like somehow, it would convince us.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

You made the original post.

You were called out on it.

People presented facts saying otherwise.

You vehemently denied anything logical.

People, myself included, lost patience with you bec. you wouldn't address anything, but regurgitated the same spiel over and over. Like somehow, it would convince us.

That is NO excuse for personal attacks!

If you find yourself getting annoyed at some of his posts, put him on ignore or walk away.

Whatever you do knock off the personal attacks.

He did NOT attack anyone in his threads like he was attacked.

 

[superpunk]

True, but i really think you expect too much out of Owens. Is he going to change the way defenses play you? Of course, but he's not so good as to negate a bad o-line. He will help, but until your O-line proves it can hold it's own, defenses will attack it in hopes of getting to Bledsoe before Owens can shake off single coverage (Owens doesn't do that instantaneously). If you can survive a blitz for 2 seconds, you'll make a defense pay and only then they'll back off.

It's nearly impossible to evaluate him. He played for two garbage franchises, and no matter how much skill you have, if you're surrounded by trash, you're not going to look so hot. Take Ogden last year for example. He's a phenomenal player, but the rest of the team was terrible. His reputation has already been established, though, so noone points the finger at him. Fact is with Kosier in last year the Lions gave up about 0.7 less sacks than they did without him. Is it a direct correlation? Impossible to know - in either direction.

So with him, we just have to go with the fact that he is definitely more athletic than Allen, while not as strong. This just in - NOONE is as strong as Larry Allen. Unfortunately, Allen's strength is often gone to waste, since he can't get his mighty paws on the more nimble defenders to lock them down in the first place. I think consensus (reputations aside) is that Kosier is at least as good as Allen, and has the potential to be better.

 

[Vintage]

At the very least, Kosier will be a mobile roadblock for 2 seconds.



In all seriousness....Allen's play was erratic bec. you never knew if he was going to be able to make the block or wiff completely.

In Kosier, we get someone who will at least get his hands on the defender and not just get ran by on.

 

[superpunk]

True, but i really think you expect too much out of Owens. Is he going to change the way defenses play you? Of course, but he's not so good as to negate a bad o-line.

He'll undoubtedly affect it - noone can negate it.

In 03 McNabb was sacked 43 times.

In 04 only 32.

Coincidence? Or did the attention Owens demands open everything up?

 

[superpunk]

Oh sure. I take the time to address the ridiculous myths, and now it's "bail-time."

BP - you're a nice, smart fella. Most people on here are. Most of them see straight through the veiled insulting tone in the first post - it comes with the OP's reputation. Counseling Cowboys fans on how they should present their arguments, on their own forum? How many of us roll over to an Eagles board and reprimand them for their posting style?

The thread is clear. Points were made, in response to the original post. The only ones that were acknowledged were the ones that could remotely be perceived as agreeing with the OP. The rest, ignored for what they are, rather responded to by ridiculous, circular logic.

No doubt name-calling is uncalled for, in any situation. But people's frustrations ARE understandable. Why make a post that is indeed inflammatory to a fan base, if you're going to ignore your own mistakes, and people's counterpoints that address the flimsy original argument? Is there a point? I think there is, and I don't think it has anything to do with open, respectful exchange of ideas.

 

[CIWhitefish]

True, but i really think you expect too much out of Owens. Is he going to change the way defenses play you? Of course, but he's not so good as to negate a bad o-line. He will help, but until your O-line proves it can hold it's own, defenses will attack it in hopes of getting to Bledsoe before Owens can shake off single coverage (Owens doesn't do that instantaneously). If you can survive a blitz for 2 seconds, you'll make a defense pay and only then they'll back off.

I don't think Owens does anything himself. As I said in my post, it's all the pieces together. Owens makes us better true. But he won't single handedly change the way a D will play us. His presence will allow all the other pieces of the O to work better however.

Take Flo as an example last year. By himself he is a good player but you wouldn't say he is a game changer. Take him away and the dominos topple. That loss showed just how exposed we really were on offense. My point was this year there are many more pieces in place. We will not be exposed as easily. I do not think one can argue that.

 

[CIWhitefish]

He'll undoubtedly affect it - noone can negate it.

In 03 McNabb was sacked 43 times.

In 04 only 32.

Coincidence? Or did the attention Owens demands open everything up?

Right on the money!

 

[CoCo]

Oh sure. I take the time to address the ridiculous myths, and now it's "bail-time."

BP - you're a nice, smart fella. Most people on here are. Most of them see straight through the veiled insulting tone in the first post - it comes with the OP's reputation. Counseling Cowboys fans on how they should present their arguments, on their own forum? How many of us roll over to an Eagles board and reprimand them for their posting style?

The thread is clear. Points were made, in response to the original post. The only ones that were acknowledged were the ones that could remotely be perceived as agreeing with the OP. The rest, ignored for what they are, rather responded to by ridiculous, circular logic.

No doubt name-calling is uncalled for, in any situation. But people's frustrations ARE understandable. Why make a post that is indeed inflammatory to a fan base, if you're going to ignore your own mistakes, and people's counterpoints that address the flimsy original argument? Is there a point? I think there is, and I don't think it has anything to do with open, respectful exchange of ideas.

I think the problem is that PT didn't offically step over the line. But he sure did dance all around it, again and again.

He didn't help the cause to have calm debate amongst fans of opposing teams if he indeed desired that.

 

[DWelch1775]

Ok everyone get off Talon. We gotta give the guy credit, his posts are right probobly 90% of the time, and he's got some balls posting in here everyday. He's a true fan, and no-matter what team he's rooting for you gotta respect that. So stop with the name calling and lets all grow up

 

[Stash]

Rookie Zone members are simply fascinating! I was scanning through some of the one-sided perspectives (completely understandable from an opponent's point of view), when I realized how some members like to pontificate information for their own benefit or to catch the respect of other Zone at the expense of opponent fans on board.

How refreshing it would be to have someone say ..."While I agree with your perspective, I hate your team more because of it!" Or, "let's leave our fandoms (not condoms) on the table and breakdown some difference we have about each other's team to get a better macro understanding."

Unrealistic ...perhaps, but I'd bet that somebody here knows where I'm coming from. Alright, that said, I'd like to re-table just a couple (for now)some of these old cliches' that many buy into because they are used so frequently

Seems a bit unrealistic to come to an opposing team's message board and expect to hear what you want to......

Myth#1: McNabb's Injury Not a Factor

Dang, what does a QB have to do to convince someone that he's incurred a debilitating injury earlier into the 2005 season than most people want to believe.

McNabb nursed three seperate injuries: chest and shin contusions and an abdominal strain. If the chest contusion were not problematic enough another worry for the Eagles is centered around the "abdominal strain", which indeed turned out to be the infamous sports hernia. The sports hernia posed problematic difficulties for both his performance mobility and motion-wise. The reoccuring nature of his chest contusion made D-Nabb struggle.

The rest is History! Sports hernia placed McNabb On the operating table while McMahon carried (or not) the team into the basement of the NFCE. Say what you want, but if Bledsoe was in a similar situation, you'd be singing a different tune.

No, the "myth" is started by the apologists who try to write off the Eagles' 2005 debacle merely due to injury. That's where the true myth lies.

McNabb was just fine in great games against San Francisco, Oakland, and Kansas City - injuries were somehow not a factor then?

Yet, when he struggled it was somehow because he was "injured"?

And the fact of the matter is that the Eagles were merely 4-4 before McNabb was hurt!

And they were lucky to have that record!

The true "myth" is the belief that the Eagles will somehow magically be back in the playoff hunt.

Myth#2: Cowboy's OL good enough to stop NFC-East defensive Squads!

The Cowboys GM focused on ...and received exactly what they wanted ...TO! In fact, signing Kosier, and having him start at LG in place of Allen, allowed the Cowboys to have enough money to sign Owens.

The Cowboys OL is (I could be wrong, I'm not a Cowboys fan, but I've been here long enough to know your team better than most rookie Cowboy fans):

LT - Flozell Adams

LG - Al Johnson

C - Andre Gurode

RG - Rivera

RT - Fabini

The COwboys are dangerously weak at OL; especially with the loss/release (how ever you want to spin it) of Allen.

Backups ...Pettitti - RT and rookies (not worth mentioning is Torrin Tucker).

I'll bet I know what the Cowboys will do in the 2007 draft ...OL!

Well that's all I've got for now. I'm certain I'll hear from the usual suspects, but I'd really like to hear from the experience cadre of Cowboy fans (the silent minority).

Again, the vain hope to hear what you want to hear.....

You show your lack of knowledge on the subject by not even knowing who the Cowboys are starting, rendering your argument baseless immediately.

Your Eagles couldn't get close enough to Bledsoe to positively identify him when the "weak" Cowboys' line was intact. And now a rookie and a "3-sack free agent" should scare everyone?

Sorry, not this fan.

You be scared.

Scared of the rest of the division passing you by.

Scared of losing the league's best receiver.

Scared of the internal turmoil still surrounding your team.

Scared of missing out on your Super Bowl window.

Scared that the hated Cowboys will win the championship your team couldn't.

But please spare us the tired "hopes and dreams" campaign based on your fervent wishes rather than reality.

:trophy:

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

Your Eagles couldn't get close enough to Bledsoe to positively identify him when the "weak" Cowboys' line was intact. And now a rookie and a "3-sack free agent" should scare everyone? You be scared.

Why? If we're as fragile a team as you claim we are ...we're basement bound anyway ...what's there to be afraid of?

Au contrar ...it's YOU that should be afraid! Why? You claim the Eagles defense is nothing to be concerned about ..."a rookie and a "3-sack free agent."

Uncertain of the DL you speakth of ...but this isn't the same 2005 Eagle DL. Kearse will now have more penetration into the backfield with the help of Howard, Cole, McDougle, and occasionally Dawkins. Do you seriously believe that the Cowboys OL can stop that type of defensive threat?

BTW ...don't need your endorsement (not looking to convince you), just letting you Know that if you're Looking for the same Eagles team you saw In 2005, you're going to be greatly disappointed.

 

[Stash]

Why? If we're as fragile a team as you claim we are ...we're basement bound anyway ...what's there to be afraid of?

You come here and run your mouth (or keyboard) as if your Eagles are some "force to be reckoned with" and give utter nonsense and wishful thinking in a weak effort to support your argument. And you are basement bound. If I'm wrong about that, feel free to come back here and tell me all about - after the season is over. Not after the early-season cupcakes, when all is said and done. I'll gladly admit I was wrong if it happens - it won't.

=Phoenix-Talon]Au contrar ...it's YOU that should be afraid! Why? You claim the Eagles defense is nothing to be concerned about ..."a rookie and a "3-sack free agent."

Uncertain of the DL you speakth of ...but this isn't the same 2005 Eagle DL. Kearse will now have more penetration into the backfield with the help of Howard, Cole, McDougle, and occasionally Dawkins. Do you seriously believe that the Cowboys OL can stop that type of defensive threat?

Howard had 3 sacks all of last year!?!?

The Saints benched him before they let him walk out of town!

You act like people should be concerned?!?!?

Kearse has 15 sacks in two years!

You act like oeople should be concerned?!?!?!?!

Bunkley hasn't played a single down of NFL football!

You act like people should be concerned?!?!?!?

Last year's Cowboys shredded your team last year and in case you missed it, the 2006 version is even better, as is the rest of the division! The Eagles are the least improved team in the NFC East.

BTW ...don't need your endorsement (not looking to convince you), just letting you Know that if you're Looking for the same Eagles team you saw In 2005, you're going to be greatly disappointed.

And I'll let you know that you're not going to get away with posting this nonsense here uncontested either. Save it for your two buddies on the Eagles' board (if they even have one).

:trophy:

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

If I'm wrong about that, feel free to come back here and tell me all about - after the season is over. Not after the early-season cupcakes, when all is said and done.

You are wrong...uncertain at least! You just cannot arbitrarily say something
about something you can't possibly know the end result about. You can speculate, give your one-sided conjecture, or even pontificate about how you think the Eagles will perform, but you really have no inkling of an idea.

BTW, I'm not trying to get away with anything ...the owner, and mods here have granted me the right to come here and dialogue. The board has hundreds of members (uncertain of the exact number) ...some will listen and agree, some will listen and disagree. I think you need to reflect about getting away with things ...you're saying the same old things about developing occurrences as we roll into our respective training camps.

 

[Stash]

You are wrong...uncertain at least! You just cannot arbitrarily say something
about something you can't possibly know the end result about. You can speculate, give your one-sided conjecture, or even pontificate about how you think the Eagles will perform, but you really have no inkling of an idea.

What do you think this message board is for? Everything we post is based on opinion, speculation, and conjecture! If we don't do that, we may as well shut the place down!

I've got a better "idea" than some wishful-thinking Eagles fan who tries to post his propoganda on a Cowboys message board! And unlike some "fans" I know who actually plays for each team!

I have the same right to voice my anti-Eagles posts as you have to post yours!

More in fact, since this is a Cowboys message board - in case you missed that.

BTW, I'm not trying to get away with anything ...the owner, and mods here have granted me the right to come here and dialogue. The board has hundreds of members (uncertain of the exact number) ...some will listen and agree, some will listen and disagree. I think you need to reflect about getting away with things ...you're saying the same old things about developing occurrences as we roll into our respective training camps.

And notice I'm saying them on my team's message board. I'm not stirring things up in Eagle-land trying to talk up my team. I'm doing my posting here amongst my fellow Cowboys fans.

And I will continue to say them.

I will continue to refute your uninformed "wishful thinking" whenever I see fit.

You can try to downplay the facts in an effort to support what you wish would happen.

And I'll be here to present the cold hard facts to refute them.

:suxiggle:

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

What do you think this message board is for? Everything we post is based on opinion, speculation, and conjecture! If we don't do that, we may as well shut the place down!

Perhaps you haven't been here long enough to know that the Zone does way more than give opinions. I've seen the Zone sponsor activities and programs for youth, provide assistance to members; regardless of their fandom affiliation, and provide football savvy to those who lack it. If you think for one moment that the Zone is just a guessing game of opinions ...then you're wrong again!

I have the same right to voice my anti-Eagles posts as you have to post yours!

That's the biggest difference between us ...you post anti-Eagles posts (not threads), and I don't post anti-Cowboy posts. That's your whole profile ...anti-Eagle or anti-opponents fandom. You never let an opportunity go by without saying something negative ...even if it's in a positive way. You need to separate hate for a fandom, versus having fun. Now that ordinarily is not difficult, but for some reason you target opponent fans in everything you post, even if it is unrelated, you slip in something inappropriate. You're appear to be your own worse anti-fan.

More in fact, since this is a Cowboys message board - in case you missed that.

After more than 2 years here at the Zone with more than 2,800 posts, you'd think I'd know that the Zone is a Cowboy's MB.

And notice I'm saying them on my team's message board. I'm not stirring things up in Eagle-land trying to talk up my team. I'm doing my posting here amongst my fellow Cowboys fans.

I could care less where you go to flame opponent fans ...sometimes it's good to dialogue with opponent fans to get their perspectives. Apparently you don't see it like that.

And I will continue to say them.

And ...?

 

[Stash]

That's the biggest difference between us ...you post anti-Eagles posts (not threads), and I don't post anti-Cowboy posts. That's your whole profile ...anti-Eagle or anti-opponents fandom. You never let an opportunity go by without saying something negative ...even if it's in a positive way. You need to separate hate for a fandom, versus having fun. Now that ordinarily is not difficult, but for some reason you target opponent fans in everything you post, even if it is unrelated, you slip in something inappropriate. You're appear to be your own worse anti-fan.

"My whole profile"? If I'm anti-anything, it's that I'm against your campaign of talking up an average football team every chance you get. Your constant threads promoting your Eagles on a Cowboys message board. If you want to "dialogue" or learn more about football, that's fine. But that's not what you're about - as this thread clearly indicates. You try to take shots at other posters and then try to play innocent? Sorry, not buyin' the act. The very subject of this thread attacks other posters.

After more than 2 years here at the Zone with more than 2,800 posts, you'd think I'd know that the Zone is a Cowboy's MB.

One would think..............

I could care less where you go to flame opponent fans ...sometimes it's good to dialogue with opponent fans to get their perspectives. Apparently you don't see it like that.

I don't flame opposing fans anywhere or troll other boards. I prefer to talk Cowboys with other Cowboys fans. That's the point.

I don't see how constantly campaigning for your team on a rival's board or attacking certain posters who don't write what you want to read is a "dialogue". You question others' knowledge and credibility when it is you who is in fact uninformed.

And this is in no way any personal attack, but don't expect to spout Eagles propoganda and take shots at the Cowboys without having it refuted.

:trophy:

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

"My whole profile"? If I'm anti-anything, it's that I'm against your campaign of talking up an average football team every chance you get.

Wouldn't say my team is "average" ...nor would I say your team is average. I would either slam dunk your team, or say nothing at all if I was uncertain about your team's capability. BTW, you are anti-Eagles ...but I can live with that - you, and thousands of other fans across the football fandom spectrum.

Your constant threads promoting your Eagles on a Cowboys message board.

I'm sure you don't really care, but if you took time to read my posts (and my threads); you'll find they are usually contructed to stimulate dialogue. But more Often than Not, I find myself defending against posters who are only interested in hearing one-sided perspectives. Posters Like that are on every message board ...willing to hear only the "flowery" upscale messages, assuming that anything to the contrary is an attack on their soverenty.

The very subject of this thread attacks other posters.

That's preposterous! The subject titled thread comes no where close to attacking anyone or anything. Are you fishing or what?

I don't flame opposing fans anywhere or troll other boards. I prefer to talk Cowboys with other Cowboys fans. That's the point.

Your point is skewed ...what you say and what you do are two totally different things. Other Cowboy fans are willing to dialogue, but certain fans barge into the dialogue with insults that are generally off-topic. I don't believe that all Cowboy fans agree with your perspectives.

And this is in no way any personal attack

Perhaps this post isn't, but you are full of personal attacks; versus none from me. Be careful how you define personal attacks; there's no ambiguity!

Here's one final point, them I'm moving On. In the following picture, you
might say I'm promoting an Eagles player...but I am merely tring to say that if (small word with a Big meaning) Buckhalter is Indeed healthy (he says he's 90% healthy), then this picture clearly shows why he stayed injured so much during the last 3 years. He's a "total" FB ...that if healthy, we be a great benefit to our team. I'm not attacking you, nor would I think you were attacking me if you sent a Picture of TO or Glenn catching a pass over one of our CBs. That said ...

 

[Stash]

Wouldn't say my team is "average" ...nor would I say your team is average. I would either slam dunk your team, or say nothing at all if I was uncertain about your team's capability. BTW, you are anti-Eagles ...but I can live with that - you, and thousands of other fans across the football fandom spectrum.

I certainly don't like how the Eagles or their fans operate. I have a lot against the Eagles. I think they're a cheap, classless organization that looks at the bottom line more than the winning line. They're more concerned with making a buck than winning a championship. Watch as this year they show Brian Dawkins - one of their all-time greats - the door rather than paying him.

Most of their fans are a hateful bunch who would rather take joy in the Cowboys losing than their team winning. They disgrace the team and the league with their dispicable behavior and treatment of opposing fans. How bad is it when you need a jail in the stadium?

I'm sure you don't really care, but if you took time to read my posts (and my threads); you'll find they are usually contructed to stimulate dialogue. But more Often than Not, I find myself defending against posters who are only interested in hearing one-sided perspectives. Posters Like that are on every message board ...willing to hear only the "flowery" upscale messages, assuming that anything to the contrary is an attack on their soverenty.

I read all of your posts and your "MO" is crystal clear. You try to slide pro Eagles and anti-Cowboys posts "under the radar" under the disguise of "dialogue". You ignore the facts for what you hope happens. When someone writes something you don't like, you fall back on the "speculation" excuse.

You tried to criticize the Cowboys' offensive line when you didn't even know who the starters are!

That's preposterous! The subject titled thread comes no where close to attacking anyone or anything. Are you fishing or what?

Here's the opening lines from your original post:

Rookie Zone members are simply fascinating! I was scanning through some of the one-sided perspectives (completely understandable from an opponent's point of view), when I realized how some members like to pontificate information for their own benefit or to catch the respect of other Zone at the expense of opponent fans on board.

How refreshing it would be to have someone say ..."While I agree with your perspective, I hate your team more because of it!" Or, "let's leave our fandoms (not condoms) on the table and breakdown some difference we have about each other's team to get a better macro understanding."

Unrealistic ...perhaps, but I'd bet that somebody here knows where I'm coming from. Alright, that said, I'd like to re-table just a couple (for now)some of these old cliches' that many buy into because they are used so frequently

No, that sounds like a real compliment........

:blind:

Your point is skewed ...what you say and what you do are two totally different things. Other Cowboy fans are willing to dialogue, but certain fans barge into the dialogue with insults that are generally off-topic. I don't believe that all Cowboy fans agree with your perspectives.

There are no insults here - only facts you don't want to see. I'm more than willing to "dialogue" on any of the points you're attempting to make. In fact I have countered your wishful thinking with what actually happened already. I'd be willing to discuss each topic in great detail.

Perhaps this post isn't, but you are full of personal attacks; versus none from me. Be careful how you define personal attacks; there's no ambiguity!

At no point in this thread have I attacked you. Don't try the "victim" routine here. I'm interested in a factual debate on the subject you started, if you can't take the fact that I have a differing viewpoint, that's on you.