LT talks 'NFL Top Ten RB' on Irvin Show - 6/12/08

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
dcfanatic;2116572 said:
He doesn't really care, but yet he went and crunched the numbers on it. lol.

Two things.

1. You may be the biggest dork on the planet for posting this.

2. Is that you 'Rainman'?

He even uses stats to pat himself on the back, lol.

Someone is famous in their own mind.

You were the one who implied that nobody read any of my "16,000 word" posts. I know from experience that lots of people -- not just fans -- read them, and they get posted all over the internet on message boards I've never visited before. It took 15 seconds to click on three forums and see which threads had the most page views.

And not surprisingly, the facts once again destroyed whatever credibility you ever had.


Adam, you are 'salary cap guy' on a message board bro, nothing more and nothing less.

If you want to think that, go right ahead. I don't need to impress you. But remember, you have no idea who I am.
 

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
ScipioCowboy;2116977 said:
Is it your contention that these two links represent the sum total of every time DCFanatic has opened him mouth?

I never said that. I said there are people who ignore him whenever he opens his mouth (present tense), not that there are people who have ignored him every time he has ever opened his mouth (past and present).



American Heritage Dictionary
ig·nore
To refuse to pay attention to; disregard.

So, now you're saying that "billions of people" refuse to pay attention to DCFanatic every time he opens his mouth? I don't know about you, but I'm greatly impressed that "billions of people" are even aware of DCFanatic's existence. After all, billions of people can't refuse something from another person without first being aware that they've been offered something from that person.

If you want to play semantics, you need to understand the definitions of words better than using one definition out of one dictionary. To ignore also means to be ignorant of, to fail to notice, to pay little or no attention to, etc. It comes from a Latin word that means "to not know."
 

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
jterrell;2117047 said:
1. Jim Brown. Guy was a Pro Bowler every season of his career and 1st team All Pro all but one. His fewest rushing TDs in a season was 7. He averaged over 100 yards per game rushing for his career.

2. Emmitt Smith. Amazingly durable and tough. Off the charts career totals with 165 rushing TDs, over 18K rushing yards and over 21K yards from scrimmage. Was the main cog of dominant offense. 8 Pro Bowls, 4 1st team All-Pros. 3 Super Bowl Trophies.

3. Payton. 9 time Pro Bowler and 5 time 1st team All Pro. Another amazingly productive and tough back.

4. Marshall Faulk. 7 Pro Bowls, 3 All-Pros. Amazingly effective out of backfield. Had long career for a guy his size and whose strength was agility and quickness. Over a career, the very best of the scat back types.

5. OJ Simpson. 2000 yard season in a 14 game season. Amazingly productive through 6 or 7 years. Was the greatest back of his era.

6. Earl Campbell. Numbers do not do justice to the effect he had on games and on his teams. He was their entire offense. Not sure any RB in history had more asked of them. His company makes a great sausage as well.

7. Barry Sanders. Unbelievable talent who was built for SportsCenter era. Running style got himself into and out of trouble better than anyone but seemingly had more negative runs than any other "greats. 41 fumbles over 9 years is high but he was a horrid fumbler as a rookie.

8. Gale Sayers. Very much like Barry Sanders but injuries robbed him of longevity. With only 39 total rushing TDs can not push him higher than this.

9. LaDainian Tomlinson. Have to include the current best HB. Already has 3 All-Pros, 5 Pro Bowls and 115 rushing TDs(16 more than Sanders had) to his credit. Team was built around him and has been winning though has not managed to win a championship. With some longevity and a Super Bowl he moves up the list.

10. Eric Dickerson. 6 time Pro Bowler, 5 time All-Pro. Only player in league history to average over 90 yards rushing per game for more than a 10 season span. Sanders was only other guy to do so for 10 seasons.

Curtis Martin and some others are certainly worthy of consideration here and at some point you just hit preferences.

That was a post worth reading.

Totally agree on Faulk, he is underrated by most people. He was all about production, who cares whether it was rushing or receiving? He just piled up the yards. Nobody has come close to the numbers he put up in '98, '99, '00, and '01, and with two different teams.
 

TOOMBS

Active Member
Messages
351
Reaction score
105
To sum this thread up. The OP was busted by Adam for talking out of his ***, and became upset when called on it. The OP then tried to play it off as if it was a blatant exaggeration for effect when really it was just a general lack of football knowledge. His BFF Sipio *edit for spelling* tried valiantly to defend him to no avail.

the end.
 

dcfanatic

Benched
Messages
10,408
Reaction score
1
TOOMBS;2117873 said:
To sum this thread up. The OP was busted by Adam for talking out of his ***, and became upset when called on it. The OP then tried to play it off as if it was a blatant exaggeration for effect when really it was just a general lack of football knowledge. His BFF Sipio *edit for spelling* tried valiantly to defend him to no avail.

the end.

LOL. Yeah, you found me out.

I was so ashamed of myself for trying to tell people that Gale Sayers had a 80 yard TD run when he didn't that I became so angry it festered into the rage that is this thread.

There are a few people around here that have absolutely no common sense. And maybe even more that are so tightly wound up that they are forgetting that cancer is not being cured at www.cowboyszone.com.

I think it's also hilarious that Adam, 'just the fact's ma'am' JT13 chose to use hyperbole in stating that it only took him '15 seconds' to look up his info that he tried using to make himself look like a celebrity of some sort.

It's quite amusing. I tried to just let this thread die, but this act of nitwittedness just dragged me back in.

Did anyone just see what Tiger did today?
 

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
dcfanatic;2118087 said:
I was so ashamed of myself for trying to tell people that Gale Sayers had a 80 yard TD run

That's not what you said, and you know it. You said he "he would still be running for 80 yard TD's on a regular basis."

That's a lot different from saying he "had an 80-yard TD run."


I think it's also hilarious that Adam, 'just the fact's ma'am' JT13 chose to use hyperbole in stating that it only took him '15 seconds' to look up his info

What's hilarious is the suddenly rampant use of the word "hyperbole" in this forum, including when it doesn't apply.

And no, saying it took 15 seconds to click on three forums (two of which I already had opened) is not a hyperbole.


that he tried using to make himself look like a celebrity of some sort.

No, I was just proving you wrong. Again.

I could care less about looking like some sort of celebrity.
 

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
37,108
Reaction score
37,708
You were the one who implied that nobody read any of my "16,000 word" posts. I know from experience that lots of people -- not just fans -- read them, and they get posted all over the internet on message boards I've never visited before. It took 15 seconds to click on three forums and see which threads had the most page views.

And not surprisingly, the facts once again destroyed whatever credibility you ever had.
Just to make a point:

A thread view is not the same as a post view... I can involve myself in a thread without even reading the first post...

And how can facts once against destroy credibility a person ever had, when the credibility is destroyed already? Is that a statement of hyperbole?
 

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
37,108
Reaction score
37,708
I never said that. I said there are people who ignore him whenever he opens his mouth (present tense), not that there are people who have ignored him every time he has ever opened his mouth (past and present).
Actually, you qualified the words 'opens his mouth' with WHENEVER, thus including not only present tense, but past and future tense as well...

That is clearly a statement of hyperbole...

If you want to play semantics, you need to understand the definitions of words better than using one definition out of one dictionary. To ignore also means to be ignorant of, to fail to notice, to pay little or no attention to, etc. It comes from a Latin word that means "to not know."

That still doesn't take away from the fact that you clearly used the word ignore as a hyperbole... You qualified the statement with 'whenever he opens his mouth' meaning that the audience is quite aware that he has posted something, but chosen to not pay attention to it, i.e. refuse...

But I think the discussion is missing the point, which is, anybody that tries to subject these types of discussions with 'arbitrary rules' such as this not being the place to use hyperbole, is being an idiot. Hyperbole is a feature of speech, i.e. it is ingrained in language. Hyperbole is established by the usage of people, and if a person has a problem with it, they are the odd-man out.
 

Rampage

Benched
Messages
24,117
Reaction score
2
AdamJT13;2118151 said:
That's not what you said, and you know it. You said he "he would still be running for 80 yard TD's on a regular basis."

That's a lot different from saying he "had an 80-yard TD run."




What's hilarious is the suddenly rampant use of the word "hyperbole" in this forum, including when it doesn't apply.

And no, saying it took 15 seconds to click on three forums (two of which I already had opened) is not a hyperbole.




No, I was just proving you wrong. Again.

I could care less about looking like some sort of celebrity.
congrats. it must feel good that you live to do these things
 

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
khiladi;2118489 said:
Just to make a point:

A thread view is not the same as a post view... I can involve myself in a thread without even reading the first post...

Which doesn't change anything.


And how can facts once against destroy credibility a person ever had, when the credibility is destroyed already?

The loss of credibility isn't permanent. People can gain, lose or regain credibility. But when they continue to say things that aren't credible, any credibility they have is destroyed.


Is that a statement of hyperbole?

No.

Actually, you qualified the words 'opens his mouth' with WHENEVER, thus including not only present tense, but past and future tense as well...

The word "whenever" doesn't denote tense. If during the 2006 season, I had said, "I cringe whenever Mike Vanderjagt comes in to attempt a field goal," that would not have meant that I cringed every time Vanderjagt ever attempted a field goal in his life and that I would cringe every time he attempted one for the rest of his life. The tense is denoted by "comes" (present tense), not "whenever."

That is clearly a statement of hyperbole...

I do not think that word means what you think it means.


That still doesn't take away from the fact that you clearly used the word ignore as a hyperbole.

Again, I do not think that word means what you think it means. But by all means, don't let that stop you from using it.


You qualified the statement with 'whenever he opens his mouth' meaning that the audience is quite aware that he has posted something, but chosen to not pay attention to it, i.e. refuse...

And ScipioCowboy tried to apply what I said to every time dcfanatic has ever opened his mouth, "not merely when he's posting on a message board." So I explained how my statement applies in that case, too.


But I think the discussion is missing the point, which is, anybody that tries to subject these types of discussions with 'arbitrary rules' such as this not being the place to use hyperbole, is being an idiot. Hyperbole is a feature of speech, i.e. it is ingrained in language. Hyperbole is established by the usage of people, and if a person has a problem with it, they are the odd-man out.

You entirely missed the point.
 

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
Rampage;2118507 said:
congrats. it must feel good that you live to do these things

I don't "live to" do anything like that. But when someone attacks me with an obviously false statement, I won't hesitate to prove them wrong.

You should know that by now.
 

Rampage

Benched
Messages
24,117
Reaction score
2
AdamJT13;2118510 said:
I don't "live to" do anything like that. But when someone attacks me with an obviously false statement, I won't hesitate to prove them wrong.

You should know that by now.
whater you say, schwab. somebody else is messing up right now as i'm typing this. HURRY!!!!! go prove them wrong
 

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
Rampage;2118511 said:
whater you say, schwab. somebody else is messing up right now as i'm typing this. HURRY!!!!! go prove them wrong

Sure, just let me know where you posted. It shouldn't take long.
 

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
37,108
Reaction score
37,708
Which doesn't change anything.

Actually it does. Just because a threead initiated by you happens to have the most views doesn't mean the number of people viewing your thread is equivalent to the number of people reading your post.

Keep trying...

The loss of credibility isn't permanent. People can gain, lose or regain credibility. But when they continue to say things that aren't credible, any credibility they have is destroyed.

I find you quite amusing actually, how you fail to appreciate sarcasm. If you pay attention to what you originally stated, you would notice a very intriguing use of hyperbole:

And not surprisingly, the facts once again destroyed whatever credibility you ever had.

Notice how you qualified the words with 'ever'. It is quite convenient that you have chosen to not use the word 'ever' this time around. Not only that, you stated that all his credibility was destroyed, thorugh the use of 'whatever'. And your complaing when people say "Roy can't cover"... Amusing...

Keep trying...


Uh, yes...

The word "whenever" doesn't denote tense. If during the 2006 season, I had said, "I cringe whenever Mike Vanderjagt comes in to attempt a field goal," that would not have meant that I cringed every time Vanderjagt ever attempted a field goal in his life and that I would cringe every time he attempted one for the rest of his life. The tense is denoted by "comes" (present tense), not "whenever."

Actually, the statement can be taken to nclude the 2006 season, and after the 2006 season. It is only when you qualify the statement with during the 2006 season does it clearly refer to the 2006 season. Further, the reason you cringe is because of his past performance, which can be from before the 2006 season. And now that you have qualified it with the 2006 season, the whenever now includes the present and future within the 2006 season? The words 'whenever' clearly point to a temporal phenomenon, which clearly establish tense.

But that is besides the point... The point is, you engaged in hyperbole when you made the statement that you made. As I said, this is actually quite amusing.. Your penchant to argue can take you to the lengths of absurdity..

Keep trying...

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Well, you think wrong...


Again, I do not think that word means what you think it means. But by all means, don't let that stop you from using it.

Well, you think wrong. I am quite familiar with the use of hyperbole and nobody, not even you, escape from it's usage, as is evident from your posts. Your exxagerated statements are no different then when somebody says, Roy can't cover. The fact is, your zeal to defend Roy makes you go to such lengths to even try and argue about statement of hyperbole as if they are the same thing as myths.

And ScipioCowboy tried to apply what I said to every time dcfanatic has ever opened his mouth, "not merely when he's posting on a message board." So I explained how my statement applies in that case, too.

Because ScipioCowboy was being sarcastic to convey a rather obvious point, that I am quite surprised sailed right over your head. ScipioCowboy was pointing out your, to be blunt, hypocrisy.

You entirely missed the point.

Oh, I got the point. It is quite obvious that you haven't. Maybe you shouldn't be such a literalist...
 

JohnnyHopkins

This is a house of learned doctors
Messages
11,302
Reaction score
3,610
There are folks that are here to chat, have fun and not take themselves too seriously, then there are those that take this stuff very seriously, a passionate hobby if you will. When these folks start butting heads, then there simply will not be a winner because they have zero interest in seeing the other side of the coin.

This thread is full of folks whose posts I have enjoyed over the years for the exact reasons stated (although Rampage's man-love for McFadden started becoming a little like that last scene from "The Body-Guard" near the end). I enjoy reading Adams insight and appreciate his sharing of his knowledge. I also greatly enjoy DCFanatic's file sharing and his topics that he opens. Awesome posters for two very different reasons.

However, you all should adhere to something that my brother, a diehard Cowboy fan and promising athlete until females became more important than sport told me; "Joe, you are the biggest dork in the world for logging onto a message board daily about the Dallas Cowboys when football is still months away". This morning I showed him this thread and he said, "well, it's pretty obvious that you aren't King of the Dorks at least".

You see, no matter how serious you guys take this, you are all a bunch of Dorks in the eyes of someone, so you should at least be nice to the folks that share your love of the Cowboys.

Happy Father's Day! :)
 

2much2soon

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,514
Reaction score
89
Joe Rod;2118632 said:
There are folks that are here to chat, have fun and not take themselves too seriously, then there are those that take this stuff very seriously, a passionate hobby if you will. When these folks start butting heads, then there simply will not be a winner because they have zero interest in seeing the other side of the coin.

This thread is full of folks whose posts I have enjoyed over the years for the exact reasons stated (although Rampage's man-love for McFadden started becoming a little like that last scene from "The Body-Guard" near the end). I enjoy reading Adams insight and appreciate his sharing of his knowledge. I also greatly enjoy DCFanatic's file sharing and his topics that he opens. Awesome posters for two very different reasons.

However, you all should adhere to something that my brother, a diehard Cowboy fan and promising athlete until females became more important than sport told me; "Joe, you are the biggest dork in the world for logging onto a message board daily about the Dallas Cowboys when football is still months away". This morning I showed him this thread and he said, "well, it's pretty obvious that you aren't King of the Dorks at least".

You see, no matter how serious you guys take this, you are all a bunch of Dorks in the eyes of someone, so you should at least be nice to the folks that share your love of the Cowboys.

Happy Father's Day! :)

Excellent post!

However, I am almost certain there are statistics somewhere, someplace, that will prove you are wrong.
And I am even more certain they will be posted here to prove to you that you are, in fact, wrong :rolleyes:
 

ScipioCowboy

More than meets the eye.
Messages
25,331
Reaction score
17,694
AdamJT13;2117554 said:
I never said that. I said there are people who ignore him whenever he opens his mouth (present tense), not that there are people who have ignored him every time he has ever opened his mouth (past and present).

Your distinction between past and present tense is irrelevant to my point because the word whenever is a time-inclusive statement--a fact that will become apparent when we examine multiple definitions of the word "whenever" that are applicable to your particular usage:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whenever
when·ev·er
: at any or every time that

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
when·ev·er
1.at whatever time; at any time when: Come whenever you like.
2.when? (used emphatically): Whenever did he say that?

American Heritage Dictionary
when·ev·er
1.At whatever time that: We can leave whenever you're ready.
2. Every time that: The child smiles whenever the puppy appears.

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary
whenever
at any time that

As we can plainly see, regardless of the definition we use for whenever, your words have a literal meaning that you cannot prove; consequently, your statement was either hyperbolic or misleading.


If you want to play semantics, you need to understand the definitions of words better than using one definition out of one dictionary. To ignore also means to be ignorant of, to fail to notice, to pay little or no attention to, etc. It comes from a Latin word that means "to not know."

I fear you've moved from semantics to etymology.

If you would like to examine additional meanings for "ignore," we certainly can. Let's start with Merriam-Webster.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignore
ignore
Etymology: obsolete ignore to be ignorant of,
1 : to refuse to take notice of
2 : to reject (a bill of indictment) as ungrounded

Your attempting to impose a defintion for ignore that is obsolete and no longer part of modern English. Modern definitions for ignore indicate a conscious and/or deliberate refusal to acknowledge the person or thing being ignored. Consequently, people cannot ignore DCFanatic without first being aware of the item he is offering. This modern definition for ignore is validated in numerous other dictionaries.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
ig·nore
thinsp.png

1.to refrain from noticing or recognizing: to ignore insulting remarks.
2.Law. (of a grand jury) to reject (a bill of indictment), as on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ignore
ignore
1. To deliberately pay no attention to.
2. (obsolete) Fail to notice.

American Heritage Dictionary
ignore
To refuse to pay attention to; disregard.

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version)
ignore
to take no notice of; to pay no attention to
Example: He ignored all my warnings.

Even in the Kernerman defintion, which seems as if it might corroborate your purported usage of ignore, the example sentence clearly shows that the failure to take notice is deliberate. Consider this: If I can't hear a person's cries for help because he's 100 miles away from my position, is it more accurate to say that...

1) I ignored his cries for help, or

2) I was not aware of his cries for help.

Number 2 is clearly the more appropriate and accurate choice. Number 1 is, at best, a poor choice of words and, at worst, misleading. Given your dogged approach to accuracy, you of all people should appreciate this distinction.
 
Top