The never ending Jason Campbell player haters ball

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Um...then don't look at your previous post then.

I don't have the time nor the inclination nor,lol, can i find my sophmore year philosophy text book to quible with you about SFCS.

It appears all you want to do is quible and that's exactly what i wanted to avoid.
I'm not playing any word games nor was i trying to get you to agree to anything you don't.
I asked you simple direct questions to figure out how you saw the issue.
The 1st was this:
And you went sideways on me:


Nice try? "Ha"?
I asked a simple question and you are trying to view it as some sort of word game trap?

If you don't agree its cool.
But, to be clear YOU read something into the question that simply wasn't there.



Again huh?
I gather, lol, your response to this is also no?
Cool.


Do you always post like this or are you upset?
Right, right i've been insulting you?
Well by that same token you're insulting me by overcomplicating my posts and you're wasting my time with a lesson in philosophy. (Which is actually quite funny b/c after you rightly call yourself a hypocrite for your own logical fallacious argument you then correct it to make it logical which we both know doesn't make it true. And since you didn't even watch the games you have no idea how Jackson actually played.)

You seem bent on turning this discussion into something its not.
Its like you are having a pre-arranged argument with yourself and trying to tie me in.
It would be alot simpler to just read my post without your pre-arranged argument in mind.


You're so bent on having an argument that you glossed right over it.
My statement does not preclude that there could be a plethora of reasons related to each situation that may rightly or wrongly explain the decisions.

------------------------------------------------
"Got that?" is a rude form of "do you understand?"
That does not make any of my other statments statements false.
Pseudo-intellecutals make false statements.
"Got that" is a question that neither be characterized as true or false.

So, your standards behind labeling me as a pseudo-intellectual apparently needs some work.
You already know that ad hominem fallacy though, so I have to conclude that your emotions tell the truth.

-----------------------------------------------------
The article writer is ambiguous on his use of quick. He APPARENTLY uses "quicker" in the sense of 'time has passed before benching'(2 weeks before benching) in the main article, not a "faster rate"(3 black/wk vs 2 whites/wk) as his title implies.

Sure, if he means that from this offseason, black qbs are being benched "quicker" by white head coaches, while other different white head coaches allow white qbs to stay on, then that would be a yes.


-------------------------------------------

Nice try? "Ha"?
I asked a simple question and you are trying to view it as some sort of word game trap?

If you don't agree its cool.
But, to be clear YOU read something into the question that simply wasn't there.

You oversimplified the definition of a "bad game" to just many(3 or more) INTs.
Even if I don't have access to tape, if the QB also led one or two scoring drives, then he could be said to have a so-so game or even a good game with a couple costly mistakes.
That's my "no" answer. Incidentally, Favre had such a game with the Jets.

Also, the article writer was the one who brought up Favre and his interceptions streak and why he hasn't been benched through his race paradigm.
----------------------

Of course, the article writer's point kind of died due to his supporting arguments dying. Now, he's saying that Hue Jackson shouldn't have done it because it divided the locker room even though Gradkowski played better.

And the Iggles are rumored to be entertaining trade offers for Kolb. Rumored, sure; but I can see the incentive to get value before Kolb embarrasses himself further.