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

[LittleBoyBlue]

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.

Perhaps in practice or preseason or TC?

 

[dcfanatic]

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.

I didn't 'say' anything. I 'typed' it in a message board thread. You are wrong yet again.

 

[BaybeeJay]

I didn't 'say' anything. I 'typed' it in a message board thread. You are wrong yet again.

good point

 

[AdamJT13]

I didn't 'say' anything. I 'typed' it in a message board thread. You are wrong yet again.

Stupid posts like this are what this thread has turned into.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

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

In the context of your particular usage of whenever, your statement is most definitely hyperbolic.

It only isn't hyperbolic if we completely ignore the dictionary definitions for whenever. Would you so readily disregard those definitions if someone had said "Roy Williams gets burned whenever he covers"?

I think not.

Sure it can be proven.

Then prove it.

Prove that people ignore DCFanatic whenever (i.e. every time that) he opens his mouth.

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.

Quite the contrary, actually.

Your usage of whenever is hyperbolic because it lacks specificity. If you had stated, "[such and such posters] ignore you whenever you open your mouth [on a paticular thread or topic]," you might have been able to avoid the dreaded hyperbole.

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

Hardly. I haven't chosen anything. I'm merely going by the dictionary, and holding you to a strictly literal interpretation of your statements...much like you hold people strictly to your vast statistical knowledge, making no allowance for hyperbole.

 

[AdamJT13]

In the context of your particular usage of whenever, your statement is most definitely hyperbolic.

It's not hyperbole at all. Not even one iota.

It only isn't hyperbolic if we completely ignore the dictionary definitions for whenever. Would you so readily disregard those definitions if someone had said "Roy Williams gets burned whenever he covers"?

It's easily proven that Roy doesn't get burned whenever he covers, so it's not a statement of fact.

If someone literally means that Roy gets burned whever he covers, that would be false, but it wouldn't be a use of hyperbole.

If they're intentionally exaggerating for effect, that would be hyperbole.

Most of the time, when people say, "Roy can't cover," they know it is not a statement of fact, and they're intentionally exaggerating for effect. That would make it hyperbole. But there are people who have used that phrase -- they claim -- literally. In those cases, it's not hyperbole.

Then prove it.

Prove that people ignore DCFanatic whenever (i.e. every time that) he opens his mouth.

I've already given examples of people who disregard whatever he says. I'm sure there are people who ignore whatever I have to say, too. It's almost certain that there are people who ignore anyone you can name, for whatever reason. Regardless of whether it can be proven, it's certainly NOT hyperbole to say that. It's just common sense.

Quite the contrary, actually.

Your usage of whenever is hyperbolic because it lacks specificity.

That has nothing to do with whether it's an example of hyperbole. If I say, "Patrick Crayton dropped passes," that lacks specificity, but that obviously doesn't make it hyperbole. If I say, "People love the Dallas Cowboys," that's not hyperbole, either.

Why is it so difficult for some of you to understand what hyperbole is? Is it because you want to think you're not the only ones who use it? Big deal.

Hardly. I haven't chosen anything. I'm merely going by the dictionary, and holding you to a strictly literal interpretation of your statements.

You've chosen which definitions to use and which ones to ignore (of course, you'll probably argue that point based on some random definition of "ignore"). Even when YOU posted a definition of "ignore" that said, "to take no notice of," you promptly ignored that definition.

 

[dcfanatic]

good point

Dude, follow the thread. You are one of the people who are supposed to be disregarding anything I 'say'.

By quoting me you are going against Adam's theory because now you are obviously 'regarding' something I 'said'.

 

[Idgit]

This thread is stupid.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

This thread in Summary.



dcfanatic posted a post that was exaggerated but harmless

adam nailed him for it

dcfanatic took great offense to this

adam hit him with so many rights he was begging for a left

blah blah blah



You both have valid arguements. dcfanatic was having fun and adam is detail and fact orientated.

Remember its still a bulletin board and we are ALL Cowboys fans.


So the thread = stupid.

 

[BaybeeJay]

Dude, follow the thread. You are one of the people who are supposed to be disregarding anything I 'say'.

By quoting me you are going against Adam's theory because now you are obviously 'regarding' something I 'said'.

I don't think qualifying Adam's statement is necessary, because this is one of the silliest debates I have ever seen on this board. And its all because you are so sensitive. I really don't get why Adam stating, "Gale Sayers never had a run of over 80 yards" is so offensive to you. I found it rather enlightening, without taking anything away from what Gale accomplished on the field.

 

[WoodysGirl]

This thread is ridiculously stupid.

fixed

 

[Disturbed]

fixed

In order to really "fix" it you would lock this dumb thread so we could all move on....

 

[WoodysGirl]

In order to really "fix" it you would lock this dumb thread so we could all move on....

I could lock it, but there's no real mod-reason to lock the thread. If they want to continue arguing semantics, hyperbole, they can, as long as it's within the guidelines. There's no guideline against lameness...

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

I could lock it, but there's no real mod-reason to lock the thread. If they want to continue arguing semantics, hyperbole, they can, as long as it's within the guidelines. There's no guideline against lameness...

NOOOOOO! Please don't invoke the "lameness" rule, reading this stuff helps me pass the day when no real Cowboys news exists! :

 

[dargonking999]

I could lock it, but there's no real mod-reason to lock the thread. If they want to continue arguing semantics, hyperbole, they can, as long as it's within the guidelines. There's no guideline against lameness...

awww really?

Rule #Lame

the use of lameness, or the act of being lame is considered a felony offense. And is bannable on the first offense.

 

[Idgit]

If we can make this thread lame enough, WG will eventually *have* no choice but to lock it.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-worst-album-ugc,0,5066300.ugcphotogallery

This thread is #21-lame.

 

[Rackat]

5 days of this. The amazing thing is that neither of them are named Roy or used to wear #31 for the Cowboys.

 

[dcfanatic]

This thread in Summary.



dcfanatic posted a post that was exaggerated but harmless

adam nailed him for it

dcfanatic took great offense to this

adam hit him with so many rights he was begging for a left

blah blah blah



You both have valid arguements. dcfanatic was having fun and adam is detail and fact orientated.

Remember its still a bulletin board and we are ALL Cowboys fans.


So the thread = stupid.

Took 'great offense'? LOL.