SultanOfSix;2708265 said:
LMAO. So my comparison about human behavior related to job security is invalid because someone makes more money than another person? Are you serious? You're telling me I'm pitiful because I'm rational?
a. You definition of "job security" is illogical when you applying it for Terrell Owens' sake.
B. Of course. You obviously cannot be.
C. Rational people understand that you cannot be blindsided if you're actually thinking that something can happen. Your argument is that Terrell Owens was blindsided.
SultanOfSix;2708265 said:
LOL. You criticize me for making an invalid comparison about job security due to people's salary levels, and then subsequently generalize human behavior.
I'm guilty of generalization. I'm not guilty of making a valid argument based on that generalization. Or, at least I hope I'm not.
My generalization was taken from my personal belief that if someone is confronted with a question that they will contemplate what the answer to that question would be, and would not summarily erase of thoughts of that question and/or answer afterwards. If that's not true, then yes. I'm guilty of believing that individuals are capable of thinking beyond any given moment. Anything is possible, as I'm sure you will point out later.
SultanOfSix;2708265 said:
Seriously, why are you still persisting in your semantic garbage?
I suppose that as long as you can chunk it, I can toss it right back at ya.
SultanOfSix;2708265 said:
No one is disputing the reactions and thoughts that someone has when his job security is in question.
Who was the poster that introduced "job security" and assumed reactions based upon job security into this thread?
You.
You're right,
"No one is disputing the reactions and thoughts that someone has when his job security is in question.", because you're the only one trying to.
SultanOfSix;2708265 said:
It's being quelled about those concerns by someone who has power to determine your fate, and then having that same person turn around and then basically lie to you.
Now, who is generalizing human behavior?
You're returning to the melodrama of Jerry Jones lying to him. Great. Who's arguing that Jerry Jones lied to him? Me? Of course not.
SultanOfSix;2708265 said:
That is the definition of being blind-sided.
No it's not. That's the definition that you, Terrell Owens and anyone sympathic to his position are attempting to take. Truthfully, Jerry Jones told him one thing. He believed him. Jones released him. He didn't anticipate that happening because of what Jones told him. It's one thing to be blindsided, which is to be taken completely unawares, and to not anticipate a result. I've posted the
true definitions of both on this thread earlier.
SultanOfSix;2708265 said:
You're simply weaseling your way out of your baseless argument.
I'll agree that my argument is baseless if you state that, in
your opinion, Terrell Owens is either a fool or a person who's thought processes are impaired. In other words, someone who questions his employer about speculation that he hears, and following his conversation with said employer, completely forgets what the reasons behind his questioning his employer in the first place.
What say you?
SultanOfSix;2708265 said:
Who said he's making an "appearance" of being blind-sided?
He's quoted as saying he was "blindsided". He is taking the public stance that he was "blindsided". He is making himself appear to be "blindsided" by Jerry Jones to the publication's readership.
Question. Are you stating that he's not making himself appear to be "blindsided" according his comments? If not, I ask you why would he even make the comment in the first place in your opinion? Is he or is he not taking a stance? If he's taking a stance, is he not making his stance "seen" by publicly commenting about his reaction?
SultanOfSix;2708265 said:
You can now gauge people's intentions, that he was "anticipating" his release, or is that something that's true because you dislike him?
While it's true that I dislike him, I refuse to believe that he's a stupid individual. Calculating? Yes. Ignorant? No.
SultanOfSix;2708265 said:
Basically your simply just questioning his credibility and not really arguing anything.
The questioning of Terrell Owens' credibility began well-before I started to do the same. However, there isn't any questioning or argument in this instance. Owens was not oblivious to what happened to him and was thus not blindsided. Those taking the position that he was are the ones who are, in fact, arguing.
