NW Holding
- Thread starter Husker Hambone
- Start date
Gotta admit, you are upping your game. Would be nice to know who you are a fan of so that we could reciprocate, but alas, that likely won’t happen. Well played, way to pick the low-hanging fruit.
I must have missed where the graphic said only accepted penalties. The graphic says "called" and is flat out wrong. It's really that simple. You want it to be right, but it is not.
Frazier and Osborne walk through the door all the time. But thanks for your input. Now back to the register.
It really is simple... I’m not trying to make it something it’s not. The graphic exists. How do you explain it? They obviously are talking about accepted penalties called against the other team. It takes someone to actually use their brain to try to understand what is being said. It’s called critical thinking. You have to make an inference. Do you know what that is? I have explained this like 4 times in this thread, but still posters such as yourself can’t utilize the critical thinking required to understand the graphic. The Iowa screen name tells me all I need to know, so I am trying to show grace to you in this.
Now I am at a loss... they’ve done less than anyone in the B1G except maybe Rutgers. How far we’ve fallen to be stalked and trolled by Iowa State fan... now I’m really depressed.
Judging by your other posts the fact that this is really funny may be unintentional.
Condescension is unbecoming, but if it makes you feel smart, carry on. What would be the point of limiting it to accepted penalties? If you're making a comment about teams not being penalized for holding against Nebraska, limiting to ones Nebraska chose to accept is pretty damn stupid. Limiting to accepted penalties is of no value. For you to use it in support of the idea that officiating is biased is equally stupid. But again, if it makes you feel better, carry on.
No condescension here then, even though it is a message board and you’re miffed that it happens, which I think is hilarious that your miffed...
Now you are an idiot and a troll who hasn’t read this thread in its entirety. I have said REPEATEDLY that this graphic doesn’t amount to bias. All I am trying to do is make sense of the graphic. Why post it? Is it a mistake? Could be. But what if they intended to say that it had been 21 conference games since a holding penalty benefited nebraska? It’s plausible, and quite frankly, the only explanation that makes sense. How does the BTN whiff so badly if they intended it to be any other way?
FTR, again, I AM NOT CLAIMING BIAS.
Understand?
We didn’t make up the stat and it’s still very telling. Carry on with the obsession.
To circle back... are you seriously miffed that an opposing fan’s message board is speaking condescendingly to you? For real? How thin is your skin?
I'm miffed? Glad you told me as i was unaware. I just said it was unbecoming. If you're javing a hard time with, it means it makes you look bad.
Someone looks bad, but it’s not him. Perhaps it’s the guy/gal/whatever butthurt on another teams message board.
People can work from home these days. The VCR is also outdated. A lot has changed in 20 years outside of Lincoln, Nebraska.
So no response to the post itself other than to divert attention away from what I posted?
It’s not every day a fan base bitches about officiating before the game... word has spread quickly through the rivals world regarding the new delusion standard set by the Nebraska fan base and we are all here to participate in this momentous occasion.
What stupid post. The rivals community represents an extremely small fraction of the overall fan base. Plus, I doubt many posters here give a fu*k what an anonymous group of mouth breathing Iowa fans think. You geeks need to lighten up.
Also, if you want to isolate the microcosm of college sports that is the rivals message boards, you know what's an even worse look than fans griping about officiating? Its a bunch of keyboard hero Iowa fans obsessing over comments from an opposing teams fans. Now that's embarrassing if you ask me.
No, I think that crew got fired. But I could be wrong. I do like the analogySame crew as the '93 NC game vs. FSU!
You can’t be serious. This really isn’t complicated. The graphic used the term “called” the penalty was called, but not accepted.
Had the graphic said the opposing team hadn’t been penalized it would be accurate.
The pure idiocy in this thread is shocking
Obviously only to you who are grasping at an illusion. You first argued the graphic was fact in supporting your claim, you then switch to it was implied and now it’s obvious.
Which one is it? Fact, implication or obvious to someone that rises to you level of intellectual capacity and critical thinking?
Sorry, I’m very confused
Then explain it Arnie. Why did they put the graphic up? Can’t wait to hear your brilliant philosophizing on this. Again, another stupid poster who stopped reading all of the posts in this thread.
I have a hard time believing BTN saw this and didn’t do a single shred of fact-checking. So why did they post the graphic Einstein?
Once again the graphic said “called” and that was proven factually incorrect. It’s really that simple.
Perhaps BTN made a mistake. When you’re not blinded by bias, the obvious, well becomes quite obvious.
To your question, I responded to what was posted and ran with it. After the graphic was posted, it was obvious that I was barking up the wrong tree. I even said there is no bias.
But then I began to wonder why they posted it to begin with. The obvious answer is that, when you look at the stat sheet, no holding penalties showed up. Therefore, the graphic was created. Do you really not get this?
I appreciate you recognize the error of your ways. Others in this thread are still making a falcious agrument.
I’m not familiar with a terd. Is that the street name for varietal of meth, which the Husker posters have been smoking in this thread?