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

[Dawgs0916]

I hear ya. But I wonder how many people just come here to read though and are actually afraid of posting because they will instantly be attacked.

This is the biggest Cobwoys message board if you count members, but it doesn't seem like all the members get involved in the discussions.

I'm not gonna lie. Thats pretty much why I stray away from posting in football topics much on here because of that exact fact. I have been a member for awhile and there are some amazingly awesome posters on here.

But theres also some who clearly make a point of berating others because it makes them feel good through a computer.

 

[dcfanatic]

I'm not gonna lie. Thats pretty much why I stray away from posting in football topics much on here because of that exact fact. I have been a member for awhile and there are some amazingly awesome posters on here.

But theres also some who clearly make a point of berating others because it makes them feel good through a computer.

Well you know what Dawgs, I hope you see this as an opportunity to get over that fear and become more involved bro.

 

[Dawgs0916]

lol its not a fear. its more of a "i dont want to waste my time" thing.

 

[Rampage]

lol its not a fear. its more of a "i dont want to waste my time" thing.

fight the power dawg!

 

[dcfanatic]

lol its not a fear. its more of a "i dont want to waste my time" thing.

I hear ya.

 

[Joe Realist]

" Can't we all just get along? "

- Rodney King

 

[AdamJT13]

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.

I never said it was equivalent. All I said was that quite a few people read what I wrote. Obviously, when there are more than 10,000 thread views, quite a few people have read and commented on what I wrote.

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:

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'.

You obviously don't know what hyperbole is.

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.

And you don't know about the use of tenses, either. Using the present tense doesn't imply the same thing is true for past or future tense.

The point is, you engaged in hyperbole when you made the statement that you made.

Again, that's not hyperbole.

Seriously, do you even know what that word means?

I am quite familiar with the use of hyperbole

Well, it's not apparent from any of your posts. You seem to think that anything that you consider an exaggeration is hyperbole, but not even that is true.

Your exxagerated statements are no different then when somebody says, Roy can't cover.

They certainly are different. That's why one is a hyperbole (or simply a myth) and the other is not.

 

[AdamJT13]

Your distinction between past and present tense is irrelevant to my point because the word whenever is a time-inclusive statement--

The word "whenever" can be applied to any tense, but the word itself does not determine the tense -- and certainly doesn't imply ALL tenses.

Saying, "I went swimming whenever it was hot," is different from saying, "I go swimming whenever it is hot," which is different from saying, "I will go swimming whenever it is hot."

The tense is different in each case -- past, present and future -- and each statement is exclusive of the others. The "whenever" in each statement applies only to the time period of that statement.

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.

Except that it was completely true.

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

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.

You probably could disprove just about any statement if you get to choose which specific definitions apply of each part of the statement, regardless of which definitions were meant and/or other possible definitions.

 

[dogunwo]

It's also called glorifying the past and stretching the truth.

Woohoo! Gale Sayers ran for 80-yard touchdowns all the time! Earl Campbell never got tackled by fewer than three guys! Deacon Jones averaged 12 sacks per game! Making up stuff is fun!

Adam, you are great for this forum, please don't let these haters deter you from bringin it with every post. Its their own fault for not saying what they mean.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

The word "whenever" can be applied to any tense, but the word itself does not determine the tense -- and certainly doesn't imply ALL tenses.

Saying, "I went swimming whenever it was hot," is different from saying, "I go swimming whenever it is hot," which is different from saying, "I will go swimming whenever it is hot."

The tense is different in each case -- past, present and future -- and each statement is exclusive of the others. The "whenever" in each statement applies only to the time period of that statement.

The tense of your statement has absolutely no bearing on its lack of provability when subjected to a literal interpretation. Your statement is hyperbolic due to its use of the word "whenever," which is a time-inclusive statement regardless of tense.

Let's substitute the examples you provided with tense variations on the actual statement you made.

Your actual statement: "Now you know why people...ignore you whenever you open your mouth."

Your statement past tense: "Now you know why people...ignored you whenever you opened your mouth."

You statement future tense: "Now you know why people...will ignore you whenever you open your mouth."

Regardless of tense, your statement is hyperbolic; you simply can't prove that people consciously disregard DCFanatic whenever (i.e. each time) he opens his mouth, even when you confine your statement to a time frame either before or after it is made.

In fact, tense arguably creates more problems for your position than it alleviates. Your statement uses present simple tense, which often indicates a habitual action - an action that is not confined to a past or future time but is ongoing. In short, when taken literally, your statement is contending that people ignore DCFanatic every time he opens his mouth.

If you had stated, "[These specific people] ignore you whenever you open your mouth," your argument would be much stronger.

You probably could disprove just about any statement if you get to choose which specific definitions apply of each part of the statement, regardless of which definitions were meant and/or other possible definitions.

I'm only using the definitions in the dictionary. If you wish to you use your own definitions or obsolete definitions, be my guest. But you should probably refrain from ragging on others about accuracy.:

 

[AdamJT13]

The tense of your statement has absolutely no bearing on its lack of provability when subjected to a literal interpretation. Your statement is hyperbolic due to its use of the word "whenever," which is a time-inclusive statement regardless of tense.

Using "whenever" doesn't make a statement hyperbole at all.

Let's substitute the examples you provided with tense variations on the actual statement you made.

Your actual statement: "Now you know why people...ignore you whenever you open your mouth."

Your statement past tense: "Now you know why people...ignored you whenever you opened your mouth."

You statement future tense: "Now you know why people...will ignore you whenever you open your mouth."

Regardless of tense, your statement is hyperbolic; you simply can't prove that people consciously disregard DCFanatic whenever (i.e. each time) he opens his mouth, even when you confine your statement to a time frame either before or after it is made.

Sure it can be proven.

In short, when taken literally, your statement is contending that people ignore DCFanatic every time he opens his mouth.

And that's exactly what I meant. That alone makes it not hyperbole.

If you had stated, "[These specific people] ignore you whenever you open your mouth," your argument would be much stronger.

Not really. Saying "people" (an unspecified number of persons greater than one) gives a much wider range of possibilities than specific people, therefore making the likelihood of truth greater than naming specific people.

I'm only using the definitions in the dictionary.

No, you're choosing which definitions apply and ignoring all others.

 

[khiladi]

I never said it was equivalent. All I said was that quite a few people read what I wrote. Obviously, when there are more than 10,000 thread views, quite a few people have read and commented on what I wrote.

It could or it could not.

You obviously don't know what hyperbole is.

I sure do...

And you don't know about the use of tenses, either. Using the present tense doesn't imply the same thing is true for past or future tense.

It depends on the context, but we are referring to a word that is used to express a causal phenomenon, i.e. whenever which qualifies the verb.

Again, that's not hyperbole.

Yes, it is...

Seriously, do you even know what that word means?

Do you?

Well, it's not apparent from any of your posts. You seem to think that anything that you consider an exaggeration is hyperbole, but not even that is true.

Your statements are hyperbole.... And by the way, I fully understand that all hyperbole is exxaggeration, not all exxageration is hyperbole.. And your using hyperbole..

They certainly are different. That's why one is a hyperbole (or simply a myth) and the other is not.

Which makes your list of myths quite stupid, considering they include hyperbole, such as Roy can't cover...

 

[AdamJT13]

Your statements are hyperbole.

Please explain which of my statements is hyperbole and why.

Which makes your list of myths quite stupid, considering they include hyperbole, such as Roy can't cover...

And that's obviously a myth, which is why it was on the list with all of the other myths.

 

[Joe Realist]

Geeze guys, give it a rest, Who really cares? Does it really matter that " I must prove you wrong! "

 

[Maikeru-sama]

 

[WoodysGirl]

~stealing~

 

[khiladi]

Please explain which of my statements is hyperbole and why.

ScipioCowboy has done quite an adequate job of displaying your horrific skills in language, and I am having a fun time watching you trying to slither out of the situation.

Now you know why people love the links you post but ignore you whenever you open your mouth. The more you do, the more foolish you look.

One more time for you:

The use of whenever predicates that you were making a statement of hyperbole.

If that's your standard, then there are billions of people who ignore him every time he opens his mouth.

This statement would predicate that a billlion people are actually listening to him.

That is hyperbole.

Have you noticed that even your greatest of defenders haven't defended your stance this time when it comes to hyperbole. Maybe there is a reason for it.

And that's obviously a myth, which is why it was on the list with all of the other myths.

No, it's a hyperbole, otherwise Roy wouldn't be in the NFL playing safety... It means that Roy isn't that great in coverage.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Any posts in here having to do with the "NFL Top Ten RB"???

 

[AdamJT13]

ScipioCowboy has done quite an adequate job of displaying your horrific skills in language, and I am having a fun time watching you trying to slither out of the situation.

Scipio hasn't accomplished anything in this thread.

The use of whenever predicates that you were making a statement of hyperbole.

That's absolutely not true. Using "whenever" DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM mean that the statement is hyperbole.

Seriously, go look up what a "hyperbole" is, because you just don't get it.

This statement would predicate that a billlion people are actually listening to him.

Also not true.

No, it's a hyperbole, otherwise Roy wouldn't be in the NFL playing safety... It means that Roy isn't that great in coverage.

It's obviously also a myth. Not that you know what that means, either.

 

[AdamJT13]

Any posts in here having to do with the "NFL Top Ten RB"???

Yeah, the first one. Dcfanatic said Gale Sayers "would still be running for 80 yard TD's on a regular basis" if he played today, then he and his buddies threw hissy fits when it was pointed out that Sayers never did it even once when he played.