Manny Lawson overrated?

[Rack]

This is why I mocked your reading skills, Rack. It is pretty clear that the implication was that ANALYSTS have criticized his run-stopping ability. You can criticize it all day, but no one is going to quote you as proof/evidence.

BS. If you meant to be referring to ANALYSTS you wouldn't of added "Rack and others".


My reading skills are fine, it's your writing skills that blow.


Here's a concept, if you meant to talk about ANALYSTS you can a) Add in that you were talking about ANALYSTS, and/or b ) NOT add in what "Rack and others" were saying about his run stopping ability.



Yeah, how dumb of me to think that you were referring to ME AND OTHERS when you added that part about "RACK AND OTHERS". *** was I thinking?

 

[theogt]

BS. If you meant to be referring to ANALYSTS you wouldn't of added "Rack and others".


My reading skills are fine, it's your writing skills that blow.


Here's a concept, if you meant to talk about ANALYSTS you can a) Add in that you were talking about ANALYSTS, and/or b ) NOT add in what "Rack and others" were saying about his run stopping ability.



Yeah, how dumb of me to think that you were referring to ME AND OTHERS when you added that part about "RACK AND OTHERS". *** was I thinking?

I said "Rack and others" becuase YOU AND OTHERS have pointed to the analyst's criticism as PROOF. Christ, you're dense.

Everything you just said makes me think I should talk to you like a 4 year old. I see my original criticism was spot on.

 

[superpunk]

This is why I mocked your reading skills, Rack. It is pretty clear that the implication was that ANALYSTS have criticized his run-stopping ability. You can criticize it all day, but no one is going to quote you as proof/evidence.

I don't have any idea what this thread is about.

But, just a suggestion - say what you mean. Don't rely on what you MEAN being implied in a statement that is completely different. That's how 200 post meaningless threads get started, because some guy screwed up, wouldn't fess up, and then says "That's not what I meant. My meaning should have been implied." The written word doesn't translate "implications" that well.

ALWAYS say what you mean, Horton.

 

[theogt]

I don't have any idea what this thread is about.

But, just a suggestion - say what you mean. Don't rely on what you MEAN being implied in a statement that is completely different. That's how 200 post meaningless threads get started, because some guy screwed up, wouldn't fess up, and then says "That's not what I meant. My meaning should have been implied." The written word doesn't translate "implications" that well.

ALWAYS say what you mean, Horton.

So, talk like I'm talking to a four year old? I will certainly do so from now on. This may lead to some wordy posts.

 

[Dough Boy]

And it seems we've got some really oversensitive people here today. Seriously, hate to be blunt (actually it's what I live for), but you need to grow a pair.

Thanks for the advice. I'll try. Its seems to have worked for you.

 

[superpunk]

So, talk like I'm talking to a four year old? I will certainly do so from now on. This may lead to some wordy posts.

Hyperbole? Fine, if you want it. But how many more words would it have taken to say what you mean, honestly? At face value, it seems "Analysts" actually saves space over "Rack and others."

Trust me, I know Rack is an arrogant bastid, who can't be reasoned with. I'm just saying, if you ACTUALLY meant to say something, you should just SAY it in the first place, rather than relying on your IMPLICATION coming across like crystal.

 

[theogt]

Hyperbole? Fine, if you want it. But how many more words would it have taken to say what you mean, honestly? At face value, it seems "Analysts" actually saves space over "Rack and others."

Trust me, I know Rack is an arrogant bastid, who can't be reasoned with. I'm just saying, if you ACTUALLY meant to say something, you should just SAY it in the first place, rather than relying on your IMPLICATION coming across like crystal.

Actually, it would have been, "Rack and others have pointed to these analyst's opinions as evidence of..."

 

[superpunk]

Actually, it would have been, "Rack and others have pointed to these analyst's opinions as evidence of..."

And that doesn't save space over 20 posts explaining what you meant, as opposed to just saying it in the first place?

 

[RealCowboyfan]

Manny Lawson should be the 18th pick...

 

[theogt]

And that doesn't save space over 20 posts explaining what you meant, as opposed to just saying it in the first place?

Of course not, but AT THE TIME I didn't contemplate someone not understanding the implication.

 

[superpunk]

Of course not, but AT THE TIME I didn't contemplate someone not understanding the implication.

Hence my suggestion, to not rely on people's ability to read minds....do we have to go round and round any more?

 

[Rack]

I said "Rack and others" becuase YOU AND OTHERS have pointed to the analyst's criticism as PROOF. Christ, you're dense.

Everything you just said makes me think I should talk to you like a 4 year old. I see my original criticism was spot on.

Now you're just flat out LYING. I've NEVER pointed out what an analyst has said about Lawson.


Obviously it's YOU with the reading comprehension problem.


And I suggest you read the rules and regulations before you continue to calling me names.

It's funny you call ME dense when you still can't figure out what a SOLB's job is in the 3-4. Or the difference between a LOLB and a SOLB/WOLB.

So, talk like I'm talking to a four year old? I will certainly do so from now on. This may lead to some wordy posts.

You sure you can make the jump UP to 4 year old level?

Hyperbole? Fine, if you want it. But how many more words would it have taken to say what you mean, honestly? At face value, it seems "Analysts" actually saves space over "Rack and others."

Exactly. And he didn't say "Rack and others keep bringing up what analysts say about Lawson's run stopping", he said "Rack and others keep criticizing his run stopping as a DE...."

Actually, it would have been, "Rack and others have pointed to these analyst's opinions as evidence of..."

1. That would of been the right way to type it out.

2. It would of been a partial lie cuz I haven't brought up what analysts say about Lawson's run defense.

 

[RealCowboyfan]

I hope come draft day Manny Lawson look underrated to every team under us for we could select him...

 

[theogt]

Hence my suggestion, to not rely on people's ability to read minds....do we have to go round and round any more?

I'm not sure it takes mind-reading ability to understand a simple implication. It's pretty obvious if you read the post again that I was referring to analysts.

 

[Rack]

Hence my suggestion, to not rely on people's ability to read minds....do we have to go round and round any more?

Truth is he's been getting his *** handed to him in every single one of these Carpenter/Lawson debates and he's simply on edge about it.


It's a lot easier to just be a man and admit you're wrong about something then to start flaming other posters when you're obviously wrong.


Actually, I should know better. Nors is a perfect example of someone that finds it easier to just flame someone rather then admit defeat.


Whatever. Continue with the flaming. It truly doesn't bother me (I'm not the sensitive type), but the mods may take objection to it.

 

[Rack]

I'm not sure it takes mind-reading ability to understand a simple implication. It's pretty obvious if you read the post again that I was referring to analysts.

No, it wasn't. You specifically pointed out what "Rack and others" were saying, not once mentioning anythign about analysts.


Is it really that hard to admit a simple mistake like this? Is it really that difficult?


Whatever. I'm gonna go watch a movie with my gf. Or am I gonna go watch a movie with an analyst? Or am I gonna go analyze a movie with my gf? Or just analyze my gf? Or I could just being thinking about analysing a movie with my gf?

You figure it out.

 

[theogt]

Oh, the irony.

Edit: It seems that 3 or 4 posters directly after me clearly understood what I was implying. Should I directly state what is meant by mentioning this or is the implication clear?

 

[rexrobinson]

Manny Lawson is on the line with the Ticket 760 in San Antonio

I will recap

 

[theogt]

Manny Lawson is on the line with the Ticket 760 in San Antonio

I will recap

Start a new thread. A lot of people would probably be interested in this (if it is in fact an interesting interview) and would miss it buried in this thread.

 

[adbutcher]

Manny, Manny, Manny, Manny!