Eyes discussion thread
- Thread starter Grayhair1981
- Start date
Thanks you for verifying your mischaracterization.
Nowhere have I said, that players have read stuff on this message board that's led to worse play
Well said, sir!
‘And they don't give the team its best chance to win.’
‘Best chance to win’ usually comes from playing well.
If, as you stated ‘don’t give the team its best chance to win’ that would mean they aren’t playing as well as when they have their best chance to win.
It’s tricky logic for you to understand.
‘Best chance to win’=Playing well
Negative fans = don’t give the team its best chance to win = not playing as well.
So negative fans = not playing as well.
Keep trying. You can get there
AGAIN, show me anywhere where I've said player performance is affected by what they read on a message board.
You aren’t able to. So, somehow we've gotten to this. Which amounts to you having mixed two separate discussions into your own **** show.
Spreading/multiplying negativity, as a fan, isn’t acting in a way that gives the team its best chance to win. Spreading/multiplying support, as a fan, is the best way a fan can behave to give its team the best chance to win.
From a separate discussion, you've also plucked the fact that, as a team, playing winning ball is a better way to ensure success, than relying on beneficial bounces of the ball.
Both very straightforward. No need for your calculus **** show. But that's what you do. So my money says your just going to again repeat what you've already said. Have fun
Shut up rubrum. Go back to the main boards and hijack another thread posing as blackleaf.
The best part of being factually accurate like I am on this point is that I don’t have to post different things. I tried to dumb it down for you by using simple logic but that also went over your head. If I could use crayons would that help you?
Here is an all-time classic.
The board troglodyte made the following quote in the Iowa -11.5 thread: "I can tell you this. If Iowa can run the ball, stop the run, have consistency in the punt game, and stay healthy, it won't make a damn bit of difference who the QB is."
I sarcastically said that the 85 team would have had the same season without Long at QB
His response: "where did I say QBs don't matter? Nowhere.
So "it won't make a damn bit of difference who the QB is DOESN'T mean "QBs don't matter"
Another "mischaracterization.
Can't make this **** up
The board troglodyte made the following quote in the Iowa -11.5 thread: "I can tell you this. If Iowa can run the ball, stop the run, have consistency in the punt game, and stay healthy, it won't make a damn bit of difference who the QB is."
I sarcastically said that the 85 team would have had the same season without Long at QB
His response: "where did I say QBs don't matter? Nowhere.
So "it won't make a damn bit of difference who the QB is DOESN'T mean "QBs don't matter"
Another "mischaracterization.
Can't make this **** up
extra credit for the correct use of the word troglodyte in a sentence
Post #45 in linked thread.
I don't know who you think you're fooling. But above I've linked your post in question.
And what do you know? Plain as day you characterize me as having said, "QB's DON'T MATTER".
No, that does not mean the same thing as how I characterized the Iowa QB situation. I didn't say anything close to, QB's don't matter
So "don't make a difference" is not synonymous with "don't matter"? Got it
Post #45 in linked thread.
I don't know who you think you're fooling. But above I've linked your post in question.
And what do you know? Plain as day you characterize me as having said, "QB's DON'T MATTER".
No, that does not mean the same thing as how I characterized the Iowa QB situation. I didn't say anything close to, QB's don't matter
" it won't make a damn bit of difference who the QB is."
Was it something like this?
I can see where the confusion is...........SMH.....
The next gem may be.......if Iowa scores more points than the other team they stand a good chance of winning..........
Check out the game day experience thread and report back on who is obsessed
Considering that's where much of the incriminating material lies.
You sure catch on quick
There are 67 posts in that thread. 54 of them are by multiple posters related to the thread topic. 8 of them are from you; none of those pertain to the thread topic. 5 of them are posters calling you out for your BS. And the OP did not mention you once in the thread.
You are one ****** up individual.
I watched an episode of a new show on Netflix about worst neighbors. Insane hag had an obsession toward her neighbors. Ended up shooting them. Very similar to Eyes railing about 2D.
Calling me out for what BS? AGAIN, there's a lot of material there to incriminate 2D. THE THREAD WAS CREATED ENTIRELY AS A COVER UP. Read the link provided from the TL/ANF thread, that's been around for weeks.
Is there some part of my reasoning you take contention with?
Because it seems you have no idea what you're talking about. Again, if anyone has displayed stalker like behavior, it's 2D.
I'm not sure how that isn't clear to you. Certainty has been clear enough to other posters, who've given likes along the way. So, either get yourself caught up to speed. Or shut talking about stuff you know nothing about
Last edited: