So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

Ok, I started a thread where all Kook Aid drinkers could seek amnesty. The thread was going well until Smootsmack decided to put it into thread hell, not because he could logically dispute it, but because he disagreed with the idea in general. So, I go back to the Warpath Myth v. Reality thread, do we have the right to debate, or will the Kool Aid Drinkers, aka Smootsmack, control the site with their own personal ideas of what is and is not appropriate?

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

There is freedom of intelligent speech. If you act like an idiot, you'll be treaded like an idiot.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=saden1;382729]There is freedom of intelligent speech. If you act like an idiot, you'll be treaded like an idiot.[/quote]


So, acting like an "idiot" is disagreeing with the Kool Aid drinkers that this team is on the right path? Gimme a break, the Kool Aid drinkers have been exposed for what they are, blind followers of Gibbs 2.0.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

Seems like any critiscm of campbell is always looked at as idiotic or dumb.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=paulskinsfan;382732]So, acting like an "idiot" is disagreeing with the Kool Aid drinkers that this team is on the right path? Gimme a break, the Kool Aid drinkers have been exposed for what they are, blind followers of Gibbs 2.0.[/quote]


It's all about delivery. You do it with respect and thoughtfulnesses. Blaming certain individuals for how the season going is idiotic. Do you honestly think if we bring another coach in this team would fair any better? If your answer is yes, how so?

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

thoughtfulnesses?? :) sorry,couldnt resist

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=saden1;382738]It's all about delivery. You do it with respect and thoughtfulnesses. Blaming certain individuals for how the season going is idiotic. Do you honestly think if we bring another coach in this team would fair any better? If your answer is yes, how so?[/quote]


Ok, fair argument. I believe that bringing a different coach here would change things in the following manner:

1. I believe that a real "coach" would not want to also be a GM. In other words, a real coach coaches his players, and relies on a GM to evaluate and select certain talent.

2. A real coach does a much better job of clock management, and selecting plays to challenge. Joe Gibbs is horrible on both those counts. The guy cannot effectively challenge a play, and his clock managment has been god awful.

3. A real coach finds a way to win regardless of a few injuries. This ties back to the GM argument in No.1. Had we had the depth at the o-line through the draft, the injuries would not be such a big deal. Had we not traded away picks for Brandon Lloyd this would not be a big deal. Had we not traded away picks for Brunnel and T.J. Duckett, this would not be a big deal.

4. Either you call the plays or you do not. Don't sit here and tell me Al Saunders calls all the plays irrespective of Gibbs, that's bullshilt. Gibbs has the final say on play calling. So, it was Gibbs who decided to go for it on 4th down against the Bucs rather than kick a field goal. A real coach kicks the damb ball and takes the points.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[QUOTE=paulskinsfan;382742]Ok, fair argument. I believe that bringing a different coach here would change things in the following manner:

1. I believe that a real "coach" would not want to also be a GM. In other words, a real coach coaches his players, and relies on a GM to evaluate and select certain talent.

2. [B]A real coach does a much better job of clock management, and selecting plays to challenge.[/B] Joe Gibbs is horrible on both those counts. The guy cannot effectively challenge a play, and his clock managment has been god awful.

3. A real coach finds a way to win regardless of a few injuries. This ties back to the GM argument in No.1. Had we had the depth at the o-line through the draft, the injuries would not be such a big deal. Had we not traded away picks for Brandon Lloyd this would not be a big deal. Had we not traded away picks for Brunnel and T.J. Duckett, this would not be a big deal.

4. Either you call the plays or you do not. Don't sit here and tell me Al Saunders calls all the plays irrespective of Gibbs, that's bullshilt. Gibbs has the final say on play calling. [B]So, it was Gibbs who decided to go for it on 4th down against the Bucs rather than kick a field goal.[/B] A real coach kicks the damb ball and takes the points.[/QUOTE]

I honestly think that our clock management has been much improved these last 3 weeks. Like today we called a timeout with 3:30 left, something we wouldn't have done 4 weeks ago we would saved those timeouts until after the 2 minute warning most likely.

We really needed that touchdown. The field goal would have changed nothing. We needed a touchdown and the coaches thought that our players where good enough to get a foot and a half.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

Gibbs has no fire left in him. he is done after this season. but i think we promote Greg Williams to Head coach and keep saunders as our offense coordinator. i think williams has what it takes to be a head coach.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=paulskinsfan;382727]Ok, I started a thread where all Kook Aid drinkers could seek amnesty. The thread was going well until Smootsmack decided to put it into thread hell, not because he could logically dispute it, but because he disagreed with the idea in general. So, I go back to the Warpath Myth v. Reality thread, do we have the right to debate, or will the Kool Aid Drinkers, aka Smootsmack, control the site with their own personal ideas of what is and is not appropriate?[/quote]


You are really pissing everyone off, maybe that's why? This whole fucking "Kool Aid Drinkers" stereotype for anyone who thinks we have a GOOD football team is absolutely ridiculous. You act like you're the SAVIOR of all Redskins fans, the only one with the right answers, trying to open our eyes to the truth that Gibbs sucks.

Your thread was shut down because it's plain stupid. If Jason Campbell throws a touchdown pass instead of an interception everything changes. ONE PLAY changes the entire game and you don't have a leg to stand on.

Why do you insist on ATTACKING other fans?? "Allowing" them to "seek" amnesty? Who the fuck are you? WE ARE STILL A GOOD FOOTBALL TEAM. YOU might not think so, that's YOUR opinion and you are entitled to it on this web site. STOP thinking that you're better than everyone else and that you are being repressed for trying to spread the truth.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

I guess its politically correct to support Gibbs but thats a damn tall order as of late.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=LMsexyAO;382747]You are really pissing everyone off, maybe that's why? This whole fucking "Kool Aid Drinkers" stereotype for anyone who thinks we have a GOOD football team is absolutely ridiculous. You act like you're the SAVIOR of all Redskins fans, the only one with the right answers, trying to open our eyes to the truth that Gibbs sucks.

Your thread was shut down because it's plain stupid. If Jason Campbell throws a touchdown pass instead of an interception everything changes. ONE PLAY changes the entire game and you don't have a leg to stand on.

Why do you insist on ATTACKING other fans?? "Allowing" them to "seek" amnesty? Who the fuck are you? WE ARE STILL A GOOD FOOTBALL TEAM. YOU might not think so, that's YOUR opinion and you are entitled to it on this web site. STOP thinking that you're better than everyone else and that you are being repressed for trying to spread the truth.[/quote]


First off, I love JC and he was one of the few good pickups of this regime. He is a legit bad ass in this league. Next, why am I "stupid" because I think this team is headed to hell in a handbasket? If Campbell makes the TD throw then what? We barely beat a team with their backup QB and no running game, gimme a break lady. WE ARE NOT A GOOD FOOTBALL TEAM. And I think Im being repressed because my threads are mysterioulsy snubbed.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=LMsexyAO;382747]You are really pissing everyone off, maybe that's why? This whole fucking "Kool Aid Drinkers" stereotype for anyone who thinks we have a GOOD football team is absolutely ridiculous. You act like you're the SAVIOR of all Redskins fans, the only one with the right answers, trying to open our eyes to the truth that Gibbs sucks.

Your thread was shut down because it's plain stupid. If Jason Campbell throws a touchdown pass instead of an interception everything changes. ONE PLAY changes the entire game and you don't have a leg to stand on.

Why do you insist on ATTACKING other fans?? "Allowing" them to "seek" amnesty? Who the fuck are you? WE ARE STILL A GOOD FOOTBALL TEAM. YOU might not think so, that's YOUR opinion and you are entitled to it on this web site. STOP thinking that you're better than everyone else and that you are being repressed for trying to spread the truth.[/quote]


I love this part:

Your thread was shut down because it's plain stupid. If Jason Campbell throws a touchdown pass instead of an interception everything changes. ONE PLAY changes the entire game and you don't have a leg to stand on.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts........

Whatever, the game is what it is, and the head coach takes responsibility. This team is done, and Joe Gibbs is the problem. Give me a new head coach and a GM and I'll then drink the kool aid for 3 years, Gibbs 3 years are done.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

C'mon PSF you're just trying to instigate. There are better ways to go about having this discussion.

If there was no freedom of speech here you certainly wouldn't be around, and you wouldn't be sporting annoying signatures all the time.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=paulskinsfan;382749]First off, I love JC and he was one of the few good pickups of this regime. [/quote]

Personally, I find the following were also good acquisitions ( in no particular order):

1. Chris Cooley
2. London Fletcher
3. Laron Landry.
4. Shaun Suisham
5. Sean Taylor
6. James Thrash, and I'll even throw in
7. Stephon Heyer ( a diamond in the rough).



I think the Redskins have been snake-bit this year by injuries. Some years that happens.

IMHO.

J-Dawg

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[QUOTE=jgalecpa;382755]Personally, I find the following were also good acquisitions ( in no particular order):

1. Chris Cooley
2. London Fletcher
3. Laron Landry.
4. Shaun Suisham
5. Sean Taylor
6. James Thrash, and I'll even throw in
7. Stephon Heyer ( a diamond in the rough).



I think the Redskins have been snake-bit this year by injuries. Some years that happens.

IMHO.

J-Dawg[/QUOTE]

Other factors as well but injuries are a major one.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=Ocliw;382758]Other factors as well but injuries are a major one.[/quote]


I remember YEARS ago listening to Ken Beatriz ("You're next, on Sports talk!") and someone asked him why the skins were so good that year and he said something to the effect that one of the biggest determinants is which team had the fewest injuries at critical positions.

We were not that fortunate this year. A new QB with a (albeit decent) patchwork O-line, Rogers an Taylor both going out at the same time, Moss playing hurt ('every step is excruciating').

I think ole Kenny had it right.

Not the only reason, but a big one.

J-Dawg.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

The injury excuse gets old to me. You will always have injuries in football, it's part of the game. Yes, we've lost some critical players, but there are plenty of teams that are winning that have also lost some of the most crucial players on their team.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=Daseal;382772]The injury excuse gets old to me. You will always have injuries in football, it's part of the game. Yes, we've lost some critical players, but [B]there are plenty of teams that are winning that have also lost some of the most crucial players on their team[/B].[/quote]

Name a few.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

Whoa! (as I gentle dip my big toe into the ever warming skins hot tub)

When I heard that Gibbs would be coaching the Skins again, my heart jumped with excitation. When I woke up the next day, I remember how different the game is today, from when he left. Is he still smart - Yes, but the game is different. His better years were with Bobby Bethard. His better years were with Plan B Free Agency. He won with less than average skilled guys like Schroeder, Rypien, Ruppert and Tony Robinson (his strike year was his greatest coaching year), because he was the BEST motivator in the game, and he made the BEST adjustments at the half. Most people would not place someone in charge of their operations, that has been out of the game for 14 years. I mentioned before that it looks like Jesse James came back from the dead, and gathered is crew and is riding to the nearest Suntrust trying to "hold up" the back. I don't think that the gang from the 80's can pull off the job in 2007. (see the list of coaches from redskins.com)

With that being said, many teams cannot function will without personnel consistance. We have not had that. Most successful Redskins teams were anchored by DYNAMIC OL play. To a man. This replacement line is bad. Samuals (who is fading), Thomas, Jensen and Rabach are good. Heyer and Kendall are getting better, Wade sucks. We have no depth there, and you won't find many disgruntal OL picks or bottom feed the waiver wire for viable OL candidates. I think Management sees that, and there will be a change. Our play calling has been hindered by the Lines inability to perform.

Win or lose I have seen improvements in Jason's game. I think he will be better. He does not appear to be the vocal. He may be Sally Hemmings to Gibbs' Thomas Jefferson - but that is cool. I would like to know why it appear that he does not have all wristband set up that all other QBs use. Unless I am wrong, it makes me think that he does not have all formations and call at his disposal. I understood that last year, but not now. His no huddle looks great against teams that sub out situational players (see the Philly Game), but if he does not have more plays he is truly limited. He is better than last season, and will be better next year.

Defensively we run the cover 2 alot. It would work soo much better if we had a DLine that does not give a QB 7 secs to throw. Our talent evaluators will have to see this. We have a running list of people we over paid for. Deion, Archueletta and Lloyd are enough to acknowledge that we are not spending wisely.

These problems would still exist if we score on the final play of 4 game ( but there are three game we should have won by more than three). A win is a win, a Loss is a Loss. I n either situation, I must be honest in my evaluation of what needs to happen to for this team - My Team, to excel.

[I]I am Rhaamses, and I approve this post[/I]

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[QUOTE=jgalecpa;382769]I remember YEARS ago listening to Ken Beatriz ("You're next, on Sports talk!") and someone asked him why the skins were so good that year and he said something to the effect that one of the biggest determinants is which team had the fewest injuries at critical positions.

We were not that fortunate this year. A new QB with a (albeit decent) patchwork O-line, Rogers an Taylor both going out at the same time, Moss playing hurt ('every step is excruciating').

I think ole Kenny had it right.

Not the only reason, but a big one.

J-Dawg.[/QUOTE]


Lots of reasons for where we are now, but can anybody remind me how it felt in 05 when we had the identical record. I can't seem to recall if it was as bad a situation as it is now. I guess the six wins in a row helped with my amnesia. The Cowvomits sucking also helped. Finally, as a matter of free speech...J-Dawg, please remove the Longley quote. The painful memories! Oh the pain! I'm going fetal.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

Very nice post.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

There is definitely freedom of speech on this site; it just happens to work both ways. If you talk out of your ass and/or in an incoherent manner, you are going to get blasted.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;382796]There is definitely freedom of speech on this site; it just happens to work both ways. If you talk out of your ass and/or in an incoherent manner, you are going to get blasted.[/quote]


I have no problem with that Sheriff. Here's my problem, I started a thread that was willing to give "amnesty" to all the Kool Aid Drinkers so that they could publicly admit that Gibbs 2.0 was a failure. Instead of DEBATING that I was wrong, Smootsmack took it upon himself not only to lock the thread but send it to thread hell so that no one else could respond to it. Now, how was Smootsmack justified in doing this as opposed to debating the idea in the thread? Notice that he has not argued either way, he simply is one of the biggest Gibbs supporters on this site and therefore he found it in his power to send the thread to thread hell.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=paulskinsfan;382858]I have no problem with that Sheriff. Here's my problem, I started a thread that was willing to give "amnesty" to all the Kool Aid Drinkers so that they could publicly admit that Gibbs 2.0 was a failure. Instead of DEBATING that I was wrong, Smootsmack took it upon himself not only to lock the thread but send it to thread hell so that no one else could respond to it. Now, how was Smootsmack justified in doing this as opposed to debating the idea in the thread?[/quote]

C'mon there was going to be no debating or meaningful discussion in that thread. Just look at the responses you were getting. It was all about you rubbing people's noses in it. Grow up and stop whining.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;382859]C'mon there was going to be no debating or meaningful discussion in that thread. Just look at the responses you were getting. It was all about you rubbing people's noses in it. Grow up and stop whining.[/quote]


So, Smootsmack decided that since he could not debate the idea of Joe Gibbs being a failure, he decided to move the thread completely to thread hell? Like I said, either you agree with the mods here, or your threads are moved or locked or both. This was a legit thread that Smootsmack disagreed with but rather than defending Gibbs he just locked the thread.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

If you don't like it take a hike. Frankly the mods and many others around here are tired of you instigating and whining about "freedom of speech".

Your thread was headed for the shitter right from the start. You can't be serious in thinking there was going to be any sort of meaningful discussion there.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;382865]If you don't like it take a hike. Frankly the mods and many others around here are tired of you instigating and whining about "freedom of speech".

Your thread was headed for the shitter right from the start. You can't be serious in thinking there was going to be any sort of meaningful discussion there.[/quote]


And now magically this thread has been moved from the locker room. Nice, way to prove my point.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=paulskinsfan;382858]I have no problem with that Sheriff. Here's my problem, I started a thread that was willing to give "amnesty" to all the Kool Aid Drinkers so that they could publicly admit that Gibbs 2.0 was a failure. Instead of DEBATING that I was wrong, Smootsmack took it upon himself not only to lock the thread but send it to thread hell so that no one else could respond to it. Now, how was Smootsmack justified in doing this as opposed to debating the idea in the thread? Notice that he has not argued either way, he simply is one of the biggest Gibbs supporters on this site and therefore he found it in his power to send the thread to thread hell.[/quote]

Those who are deemed as kool-aid drinkers are going to stay kool-aid drinkers and not jump ship and not out themselves for "amnesty" that's almost like saying, "Hey, if you admit that you committed a crime in the past few days/weeks/months and you just tell us you did, we promise not to arrest you." I mean come on. That's just a trap waiting to happen. I'm not a kool-aid drinker. Unless by some freak miracle we turn into a superbowl team within the next 5 weeks I'm done with Gibbs 2.0 But just leave the kool-aid drinkers alone. There's no point in jabbing at them. Smooty closed the thread because he probably felt like no good was going to come out of it, just more people coming around either capping on the kool-aiders or capping on everyone else. And not to beat a dead horse but didn't you get into it with someone awhile ago about them taking shots at your wife who had recently passed? Come on, you really don't wanna take a chance on something like that happening again do you? While some people will hold civil debates with you, there are always gonna be dissenters. I personally like SS for not letting something that of course, could of stayed innocent, turn into a huge debacle. Good call SS.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=paulskinsfan;382866]And now magically this thread has been moved from the locker room. Nice, way to prove my point.[/quote]

It's not a discussion that really belongs in the locker room.

Not sure how that makes your point at all, unless your point is you're an ass but we all know that.

Besides, the thread is still open, isn't it?

I wouldn't want to trample on your precious freedom of speech.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;382870]It's not a discussion that really belongs in the locker room.

Not sure how that makes your point at all, unless your point is you're an ass but we all know that.

Besides, the thread is still open, isn't it?

I wouldn't want to trample on your precious freedom of speech.[/quote]


I know its hard to admit that Gibbs 2.0 was a failure for those of you who adamently stood by the man through thick and thin. The point of the thread was "its over." Let's get on the same page for once, stop drinking the kool aid and lets work for change.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

Yawn.

Are you done yet?

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;382880]Yawn.

Are you done yet?[/quote]


No Matt, Im not. You can wipe your chin from the Kool Aid, and YAWN all ya want, but the fact of the matter is that you and all the Kool Aid Drinkers have been 100% wrong. You supported an old man with old coaching methods refusing to criticize him at any point in time. Now its over and this team is left in the shitter, so you'll just blow off any criticizms, and jump back on the Snyder approval bandwagon, agreeing with each and every move he makes. God forbid someone challenges your ideas and then proves them wrong.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

Whatever dude. Grow up. Or better yet take a hike. Nobody cares about your opinions or your shitty attitude. You can wipe your chin with my ass for all I care.

And for the record I still support Gibbs. Always have, always will. My support in him doesn't waver when times are tough. That's what support is all about. Something you obviously know nothing about. I don't agree with everything the team does. If that's what you think you obviously haven't read all of my posts or you need to sharpen up on your reading comprehension skills.

Kool-Aid to me refers to blind homers who never have anything bad to say. I honestly don't think we have very many of those types here. But to you unless you're pissed off at the world then anything else isn't good enough it seems.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;382891] You can wipe your chin with my ass for all I care.[/quote]


you totally should have said wipe your chin with my [I]shitty [/I]ass... that would've been awesome...

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[QUOTE=paulskinsfan;382883]No Matt, Im not. You can wipe your chin from the Kool Aid, and YAWN all ya want, but the fact of the matter is that you and all the Kool Aid Drinkers have been 100% wrong. You supported an old man with old coaching methods refusing to criticize him at any point in time. Now its over and this team is left in the shitter, so you'll just blow off any criticizms, and jump back on the Snyder approval bandwagon, agreeing with each and every move he makes. God forbid someone challenges your ideas and then proves them wrong.[/QUOTE]

The freedom of speech thing is not the issue here IMO, so I sincerely think you're barking up the wrong tree. Take a minute and look at the members pages within the site and you'll find something very odd. The vast, vast majority of members have posted just a couple of times and are never seen or heard from again. What does that tell you? The opinion's expressed here are very limited. Most Skins fans visit, think this will be fun and join up, but obviously get discouraged or just plain uninterested in the content.

The result is what we see day to day: a small handful of contributors (including the mods) that totally dominate the style and direction of every thread, every time, period. Most of them are Gibbs supporters, and some of them actually seem like bigger Gibbs' fans than Skins' fans. But that doesn't make it a bad site or a useless one. It just is what it is.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=MTRedskinsFan;382906]The freedom of speech thing is not the issue here IMO, so I sincerely think you're barking up the wrong tree. Take a minute and look at the members pages within the site and you'll find something very odd. [B]The vast, vast majority of members have posted just a couple of times and are never seen or heard from again.[/B] What does that tell you? The opinion's expressed here are very limited. Most Skins fans visit, think this will be fun and join up, but obviously get discouraged or just plain uninterested in the content.

The result is what we see day to day: a small handful of contributors (including the mods) that totally dominate the style and direction of every thread, every time, period. Most of them are Gibbs supporters, and some of them actually seem like bigger Gibbs' fans than Skins' fans. But that doesn't make it a bad site or a useless one. It just is what it is.[/quote]

Take a look around any message board and you'll find that is the norm. More often than not many people choose to read rather than interact.

Opinions here are not suppressed and the direction of the conversations are not controlled in any manner. To suggest otherwise is just ignorant.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;382909]Take a look around any message board and you'll find that is the norm. More often than not many people choose to read rather than interact.

Opinions here are not suppressed and the direction of the conversations are not controlled in any manner. To suggest otherwise is just ignorant.[/QUOTE]

Nothing was suggested... and somehow that caused you to start hurling insults about ignorance?

Judging by your exteme defensiveness it seems you must believe you've done something wrong or unjust, expecially in light of the fact that nothing like that was suggested.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=MTRedskinsFan;382914]Nothing was suggested... and somehow that caused you to start hurling insults about ignorance?

Judging by your exteme defensiveness it seems you must believe you've done something wrong or unjust, expecially in light of the fact that nothing like that was suggested.[/quote]

Nothing was suggested??

You only "suggested" that we have limited opinions here and that "a small handful of contributors (including the mods) that totally dominate the style and direction of every thread, every time, period."

Sorry but that's just wrong, ignorant and frankly insulting.

Re: So, is there freedom of speech here or what?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;382909]Take a look around any message board and you'll find that is the norm. More often than not many people choose to read rather than interact.

[B] Opinions here are not suppressed and the direction of the conversations are not controlled in any manner.[/B] To suggest otherwise is just ignorant.[/quote]

I agree. I think threads here are supervised to prevent things like the Amnesty thread from happening. Cause come on, it'd be different if the guy was joking and everyone knew he was joking. But I think the entire thread was just a way to patronize everyone who supports Gibbs. I don't even entirely support Gibbs and I thought it was patronizing. If you wanna be taken seriously that wasn't the right way to go about it.