This will be jerra's draft

[Regar the Bold]

I hope someone bookmarks this thread for the crow meal.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

A showcase of 50-cent words yet no observation on Jerra's draft.

Hey, I gave your comment the response that, in my opinion, it warranted. I'm sorry if you disagree.

And regarding my alleged "showcase of 50-cent words," I will only say this: If you don't like the schtick, don't read it.

In all seriousness though, there was only one word in that entire reply that a person could reasonably classify as 50-cent...if that!

 

[5Stars]

Hey, I gave your comment the response that, in my opinion, it warranted. I'm sorry if you disagree.

And regarding my alleged "showcase of 50-cent words," I will only say this: If you don't like the schtick, don't read it.

In all seriousness though, there was only one word in that entire reply that a person could reasonably classify as 50-cent...if that!

That word was more like $1.75...!

I had to go see what the hell it meant!!


:laugh1:

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Answer the question, cookie breath!

Is Bryant in the NFL as of right now, as of TODAY?


Don't dance around the question...just say "Yes or No"...

thats cute you make a little game and trump yourself up becuase i wont play it. at least i offer cookies.

under my definition which i just gave then yes he is. you could even go so far to say that anyone who has ever played in the NFL is 'in the NFL' because of their association with the players association. now if you were to say is he ion an NFL roster then the answer would be no.

but to say that a newly expired contract that had a quality season the year before and is negotiating with other NFL teams early in free agency is not 'in the NFL' is a bad standard.

Your standard says players like Bryant, Babineaux, Hamlin, Boiman, Bradford, Briggs, Carroll, Clement, all of the restricted free agents, Doss, Godfrey and a whole slew of others are out of the NFL when anyone with half a brain knows that they will be signed before the season starts and be playing and practicing.

Now i know what youre doing. A lot of people try and 'prove me wrong' all the time. Its a product of the way i approach and talk about things but youre not even arguing the salient point which is Jones drafting since 2002 has been solid as have been most of his moves. Youre trying to get me on semantics.

Its cute tho so have another cookie.

 

[5Stars]

then the answer would be no.

:laugh1: That's all you had to say!


The rest of that post is nothing but garbage...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is his team. What's your point? It's not normally a good thing when he makes personnel decisions. The last four years our draft picks had BP's fingerprints all over them. They all weren't good, but were vastly better drafts than those of 94-'02.

Hopefully Jerry will rely more on Ireland this year, but I just know after not having much say the last four years that he's just itching to be "the man" in the war room again. And I repeat, as a COWBOYS FAN, that's not a good thing.

the 02 draft netted us 2 probowlers and has been by far the best draft weve had in 10 years.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hey, I gave your comment the response that, in my opinion, it warranted. I'm sorry if you disagree.

And regarding my alleged "showcase of 50-cent words," I will only say this: If you don't like the schtick, don't read it.

In all seriousness though, there was only one word in that entire reply that a person could reasonably classify as 50-cent...if that!

the uneducated always respond like that.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:laugh1: That's all you had to say!

misrepresentative of what i said. i said that if the question was 'if he ws on an nfl roster.'

i answered the question, 'is he in the nfl,' yes. now you simply are trying to be deceptive but you and i both know you cant respond to what i said so you resort to tripe like this.

your standard of in the NFL is bad. deal with it. its not an issue of right or wrong. they are words and thus arbitrary and as such an issue of better or worse.

still have another cookie.

 

[5Stars]

misrepresentative of what i said. i said that if the question was 'if he ws on an nfl roster.'

i answered the question, 'is he in the nfl,' yes. now you simply are trying to be deceptive but you and i both know you cant respond to what i said so you resort to tripe like this.

your standard of in the NFL is bad. deal with it. its not an issue of right or wrong. they are words and thus arbitrary and as such an issue of better or worse.

still have another cookie.

:laugh2: :laugh1:

 

[ScipioCowboy]

No they just didnt look at the shadow of an eclipse which was available every few years. That or the big ROUND mooncould give a clue with its shadow.

Geocentrism is a purely religous phenomenon.

Hardly. It was Aristotle who devised the three basic tenants of geocentrism:

1) No sense of motion.

2) No great wind.

3) No stellar parallax.

The first two are rooted in understandings of the universe that are completely fallacious yet perfectly valid given ancient man's limited ability to observe the cosmos. The third is simply wrong; however, due to the immense distances between stars, the phenomenon of stellar parallax is almost unobservable with the naked eye.

Although geocentrism was a commonly held belief in Ancient Greece well before the time of Aristotle, he is the person most credited for establishing it as the dominant planetary motion model within academia for centuries.

Much later, Geocentrism was embraced by the Catholic Church as well as certain renown astronomers, such as Tycho De Brahe.

Of course, as modern people, we can easily admonish our ancient ancestors for missing certain key bits of scientific evidence. However, we should also understand that there's a rather large difference between looking and knowing where to look.

 

[5Stars]

Of course, as modern people, we can easily admonish our ancient ancestors for missing certain key bits of scientific evidence. However, we should also understand that there's a rather large difference between looking and knowing where to look.

:geek:

A slight inclination of the cranium is as adequate as a spasmodic movement of one optic towards an equine quadruped utterly devoid of any visionary context...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hardly. It was Aristotle who devised the three basic tenants of geocentrism:

1) No sense of motion.

2) No great wind.

3) No stellar parallax.

The first two are rooted in understandings of the universe that are completely fallacious yet perfectly valid given ancient man's limited ability to observe the cosmos. The third is simply wrong; however, due to the immense distances between stars, the phenomenon of stellar parallax is almost unobservable with the naked eye.

Although geocentrism was a commonly held belief in Ancient Greece well before the time of Aristotle, he is the person most credited for establishing it as the dominant planetary motion model within academia for centuries.

Much later, Geocentrism was embraced by the Catholic Church as well as certain renown astronomers, such as Tycho De Brahe.

Of course, as modern people, we can easily admonish our ancient ancestors for missing certain key bits of scientific evidence. However, we should also understand that there's a rather large difference between looking and knowing where to look.

And the vast majority of the churches teachings were based on Aristotle via Thomas Aquinas.

It was either the pythagoreans or Democritus that looked at the shadow of the moon and the lunar eclipse and deduced the earth to be a sphere and came up with an accurate circumfurence. This was before Aristotle by a century or more.

This information was available but Aristotle rejects empiricism.

I could go on and on about Aristotle. His need to categorize EVERYTHING and discount anything that did not fit in his mold of what was acceptable basically makes him interesting but thats about it. Deduction was his gig but he was a slave to his syllogisms and refused to accept empirical evdence that went contrary to his deductions. that is a logical system but one that i wouldnt call logical.

Another misrepresentation of greek society was that they embraced Plato and Aristotle which ws just not true. The sophists had much more sway and thus the contemopt the two men had for them.

Now the Romans and then the roman church had a huge thing for Plato via that writer i cannot recall atm. Augustine's kingdom/city of god is entirely platonic. It wasnt until Auquinas came along that Aristotle got pimped like he is even to this day. And its no wonder because certain of Aristtotle's views such as geocentrism were very convenient to their dogma and doctrine.

BTW Brahe was a hack and number taker; it ws his apprentice Kepler that mathematically/logically proved the orbits of the planets around the sun and demolished geocentrism.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:geek:

A slight inclination of the cranium is as adequate as a spasmodic movement of one optic towards an equine quadruped utterly devoid of any visionary context...

we use the words casually. you have to try. how droll.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:laugh2: :laugh1:

the normal bluster of someone that does not have the ability to refute. the original statement of the 2002 drat being an excellent one stands.

thank you please drive through.

 

[5Stars]

the normal bluster of someone that does not have the ability to refute. the original statement of the 2002 drat being an excellent one stands.

thank you please drive through.

"A slight inclination of the cranium is as adequate as a spasmodic movement of one optic towards an equine quadruped utterly devoid of any visionary context..."


Will you translate the above into regular words so that others know what it means? It's a well know phrase...

If anyone can, you can...

Tell me what that means, then you will be right!

 

[ScipioCowboy]

:geek:

A slight inclination of the cranium is as adequate as a spasmodic movement of one optic towards an equine quadruped utterly devoid of any visionary context...

I may test your vocabulary on occasion, but I'm seldom guilty of verba obscura.

 

[5Stars]

I may test your vocabulary on occasion, but I'm seldom guilty of verba obscura.

It's a well known pharse out west...maybe thats why you might not understand?

Look at the words in that phrase and try to visulize what it says...

 

[TDH]

i wish you guys would shut the **** up

 

[5Stars]

i wish you guys would shut the **** up

:laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"A slight inclination of the cranium is as adequate as a spasmodic movement of one optic towards an equine quadruped utterly devoid of any visionary context..."


Will you translate the above into regular words so that others know what it means? It's a well know phrase...

If anyone can, you can...

Tell me what that means, then you will be right!

you quote the wrong thing then repond with this. another cookie for you. once again you completely miss the point.

succinct is a good place to start. succinct means said with few words. it isalso probably one of the words you classify as $.50 and feel threatened by. but succinct is the point.

we use the term geocentrism because its more succinct than saying ' the belief that the earth is the center of the universe' it may threaten the lesser educated but it makes discussion much more efficient.

when you say 'a slight inclination of the cranium' instead of 'a nod' you are trying to be pedantic but in truth you are making a fool of yourself. Its not succinct or efficent its just stupid.

And again you try to set up a little game and bluster about with it. i am not playing your game but please have another cookie.