theogt
Surrealist
- Messages
- 45,846
- Reaction score
- 5,912
I'm glad you agree that you replied to my post. Not sure why you tried to argue otherwise.bbgun;3251152 said:Um, only because you stuck your nose in (again) at post #21. Again, not every post requires a response from you, especially in a thread as trivial as this one. If Hos asked us what our favorite flavor of ice cream was, you'd make me defend "chocolate." Sadly, some people are just trouble-seeking *****. If you've confronted or replied to any posters in this thread besides myself, please forward their names.
No idea. Bored on a Saturday?No disagreement. We both agree that the NFL is manipulating the draft schedule in deference to the almighty dollar. You're cool with it; I'm not. Big deal. So why are we still talking about this?
Your statement "labasted" (your word, not mine) "any system based solely on greed." I guess you could argue that literally it was so specific it refers to no systems whatsoever, since no system is based "solely" on any one thing. But I don't think you intended that literal reading of the sentence, in which case the generality of the statement becomes clear, and the statement would encompass capitalism.On the contrary, it was very specific. In fact, it specifically omitted the word "capitalism" or any attacks thereon, so you had no choice to invent some out of hand. If you can't win, then cheat.
Capitalism is based almost solely on greed. It's the key ingredient. It's what makes the whole thing work. I was just pointing that out.
You were criticizing the system. Not a particular participant.
Whether you were "lambasting" it or saying it's "intolerable" doesn't make any material difference in the conversation.Intolerable? Who said that? I'm simply calling a spade a spade. They have the right to soak the fans, and I have the right to object. Similarly, you have the right to shamelessly shill on their behalf.