(07-13-2015, 04:16 PM)djs7685 Wrote: What did I make up?

This.  .  .  .   

(07-12-2015, 06:33 PM)PDub80 Wrote:  Until that's fixed there is no sense in looking past it because you can fix everything else around him but it still won't work. 

Does not mean the same as this.  .  .  .  

(07-13-2015, 02:44 PM)djs7685 Wrote: he doesn't think we'd have a good chance to win with Andy's poor performances even if the rest of the team played at a high level.

They do not mean the same thing.  And if you really knew what "context" means you would read all of Pdubs other posts in this thread and it is very clear that he places 100% of the blame on Dalton.  When he says "you can fix everything else and it won't make any difference" that is exactly what he means.  there is nothing in the "context" that would suggest he means anything else.  You just completely made something up with no "context" to base it on.







Waits for typical name-calling reply from djs.

(07-13-2015, 04:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This.  .  .  .   



Does not mean the same as this.  .  .  .  


They do not mean the same thing.  And if you really knew what "context" means you would read all of Pdubs other posts in this thread and it is very clear that he places 100% of the blame on Dalton.  When he says "you can fix everything else and it won't make any difference" that is exactly what he means.  there is nothing in the "context" that would suggest he means anything else.  You just completely made something up with no "context" to base it on.







Waits for typical name-calling reply from djs.

Oh, okay.





Waits for typical Fred response where he makes up straw man arguments and pretends to be a lawyer even though he's arguing on multiple internet message boards throughout all hours of each day.

(07-13-2015, 04:42 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Oh, okay.





Waits for typical Fred response where he makes up straw man arguments and pretends to be a lawyer even though he's arguing on multiple internet message boards throughout all hours of each day.

Did I call it or not?

Every time I show him up he falls back on the ad hominem.

(07-13-2015, 04:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Did I call it or not?

Every time I show him up he falls back on the ad hominem.

Did I call it or not?

Every time I call him out for strawman arguments he gets super butt hurt and pretends to be a lawyer.

(07-13-2015, 03:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Who cares.  You are both wrong.

When we went to a Super Bowl with Boomer his postseason numbers were much worse than Dalton's.

And if the QB was the only thing that mattered Dan Marino would have been to a lot more Super Bowls.



I am willing to admit that Dalton has played poorly, but the people here who place 100% of the blame on him are just delusional.

True, but even in 1988 the offense outscored the 2011-2014 offenses.  It's not all on Dalton, but I'd complain about Dalton less if he, like Boomer, was at least on the field for 16-21 points per game.  It's not asking for the world, but let's see some scoring.

(07-13-2015, 05:39 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Did I call it or not?

Every time I call him out for strawman arguments he gets super butt hurt and pretends to be a lawyer.

1.  I proved it wasn't a strawman argument.

2.  I never said anything about being a lawyer.  

(07-14-2015, 01:15 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 1.  I proved it wasn't a strawman argument.

2.  I never said anything about being a lawyer.  

1 & 2. If you think "proving" something means taking a statement entirely out of its original context just to be completely wrong about what you're whining about, you must be a terrible lawyer.

I guess if you just claim it's "proven", that makes it true? Interesting theory.

(07-14-2015, 07:37 AM)djs7685 Wrote: I guess if you just claim it's "proven", that makes it true? Interesting theory.

No.  It is proven because even you agreed.  that is why this is the only response you could come up with when I showed how wrong you were

(07-13-2015, 04:42 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Oh, okay.

Anyone who wanted the context of what PDUB meant went back and read all the other posts he has made in this thread.  You don't even know what the term context means.  There was no other information in his post or any other post that could be labelled "context" that changed the meaning of what i quoted him saying.  You keep claiming that you used "context" but you can't provide one single piece of information that I left out that changed the meaning.  All you did was say that he didn't mean what he clearly said.

Stop using terms that you do not even understand.  It makes you look silly. 

(07-09-2015, 07:58 PM)PDub80 Wrote: It amazes me that people continue to misdirect attention away from what has CLEARLY been the problem: The offense - primarily the QB's - issues.


The offense was awful. So, yeah, keep blaming the defense as the major factor in losing that game.

(07-12-2015, 06:33 PM)PDub80 Wrote: He has been the biggest problem and the most consistent problem by far.

(07-14-2015, 10:41 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  It is proven because even you agreed.  that is why this is the only response you could come up with when I showed how wrong you were




Anyone who wanted the context of what PDUB meant went back and read all the other posts he has made in this thread.  You don't even know what the term context means.  There was no other information in his post or any other post that could be labelled "context" that changed the meaning of what i quoted him saying.  You keep claiming that you used "context" but you can't provide one single piece of information that I left out that changed the meaning.  All you did was say that he didn't mean what he clearly said.

Stop using terms that you do not even understand.  It makes you look silly. 

Yikes, somebody trying to tell ME that I don't understand "context". Uh oh.

He blames Andy, he believes Andy is by far the biggest problem on the team.

NOWHERE did he say the following:

"To claim that nothing else on a team matters and the QB is 100% responsible for every win and every loss  is absurd." - Fredtoast

That is the EXACT definition of a strawman argument. Maybe you should focus on learning what "context" and "strawman argument" both mean before going off on these little rants about me. Pdub has stated that he puts the highest responsibility of the playoff losses on Andy Dalton, he also has stated that he gives Andy MOST of the blame because of his performances. It is undeniably a strawman argument to say that he claims that nothing else on a team matters, and that a QB is 100% responsible for EVERY win and EVERY loss. That. Is. A. Strawman. You. Dope.

(07-14-2015, 10:53 AM)djs7685 Wrote:  It is undeniably a strawman argument to say that he claims that nothing else on a team matters,

Actually, no, that is exactly what he said.

(07-12-2015, 06:33 PM)PDub80 Wrote:  you can fix everything else around him but it still won't work. 

No strawman there at all.

There is absolutely nothing in the "context" of his thread that changes the meaning of that at all.  He says Dalton is the biggest problem and nothing else matters.  Just because I don't quote the entire post does not mean I am taking anything out of context.  To be guilty of taking something out of context I would have to be leaving out some information that changes the meaning of what he said.  And I did not do that.

(07-14-2015, 11:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually, no, that is exactly what he said.




No strawman there at all.

There is absolutely nothing in the "context" of his thread that changes the meaning of that at all.  He says Dalton is the biggest problem and nothing else matters.  Just because I don't quote the entire post does not mean I am taking anything out of context.  To be guilty of taking something out of context I would have to be leaving out some information that changes the meaning of what he said.  And I did not do that.

This seems very clear to me. He said:

They can fix everything around him and it still would not matter.

Everything encompasses it all so I agree 100% with Fred.

Add in the context of other posts in this thread and nothing contradicts "AD is the problem and if AD is the QB, we have no chance at success". That was my understanding and to me it is crystal clear what was said and what was meant.

(07-14-2015, 11:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually, no, that is exactly what he said.




No strawman there at all.

There is absolutely nothing in the "context" of his thread that changes the meaning of that at all.  He says Dalton is the biggest problem and nothing else matters.  Just because I don't quote the entire post does not mean I am taking anything out of context.  To be guilty of taking something out of context I would have to be leaving out some information that changes the meaning of what he said.  And I did not do that.

Umm...

"To claim that nothing else on a team matters and the QB is 100% responsible for every win and every loss  is absurd." - Fredtoast

What about the bold part of that statement? Do we just pretend you never said that?

You and Luvnuts can continue your circle jerk. Having a total lunatic and whack job agree with you doesn't mean you're correct. Leaving out key parts of a conversation just makes you look like you're avoiding things, which you area. Keep continuing to do this around every board you post on, it's a good look for you.

(07-14-2015, 12:09 PM)djs7685 Wrote: You and Luvnuts can continue your circle jerk. Having a total lunatic and whack job agree with you doesn't mean you're correct.

(07-13-2015, 04:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Did I call it or not?

Every time I show him up he falls back on the ad hominem.

(07-14-2015, 12:09 PM)djs7685 Wrote:  Leaving out key parts of a conversation just makes you look like you're avoiding things, which you area. Keep continuing to do this around every board you post on, it's a good look for you.

I never left out anything that changed the context in any way.  i have already addressed this point. The fact is that you can not post anything from any of Pdubs posts that change the meaning of what he said.

When I accuse someone of taking a comment out of context I provide the omitted information that changes the meaning.  You can't do that in this case.

(07-14-2015, 12:09 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Umm...

"To claim that nothing else on a team matters and the QB is 100% responsible for every win and every loss  is absurd." - Fredtoast

What about the bold part of that statement? Do we just pretend you never said that?

(07-14-2015, 12:09 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Umm...

"To claim that nothing else on a team matters and the QB is 100% responsible for every win and every loss  is absurd." - Fredtoast

What about the bold part of that statement? Do we just pretend you never said that?

You and Luvnuts can continue your circle jerk. Having a total lunatic and whack job agree with you doesn't mean you're correct. Leaving out key parts of a conversation just makes you look like you're avoiding things, which you area. Keep continuing to do this around every board you post on, it's a good look for you.

Your insults and immaturity seem to go to new heights each day.

Congrats on achieving those milestones.

(07-14-2015, 01:04 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Your insults and immaturity seem to go to new heights each day.

Congrats on achieving those milestones.

(07-13-2015, 04:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Did I call it or not?

Every time I show him up he falls back on the ad hominem.

I can't believe you're referring to me in the above?

(07-14-2015, 01:15 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 1.  I proved it wasn't a strawman argument.

2.  I never said anything about being a lawyer.  

Then, I guess the above #2 statement makes you a liar because you've mentioned being a lawyer many times across several message boards. Oh, wait, you didn't mean ever in the history of the world? I guess maybe I shouldn't take what you say out of context and instead give you credit for what you actually mean. Which, in this case you would probably be referring to your quoted post, an earlier rebuttal, or this tread.


You see, I give you credit because I don't need to discredit you with BS to defend my point and because I'm not an idiot and can understand context. Although, my IQ is 147 so maybe I'm giving you too much credit?

(07-14-2015, 10:41 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  It is proven because even you agreed.  that is why this is the only response you could come up with when I showed how wrong you were




Anyone who wanted the context of what PDUB meant went back and read all the other posts he has made in this thread.  You don't even know what the term context means.  There was no other information in his post or any other post that could be labelled "context" that changed the meaning of what i quoted him saying.  You keep claiming that you used "context" but you can't provide one single piece of information that I left out that changed the meaning.  All you did was say that he didn't mean what he clearly said.

Stop using terms that you do not even understand.  It makes you look silly. 

(07-14-2015, 11:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually, no, that is exactly what he said.




No strawman there at all.

There is absolutely nothing in the "context" of his thread that changes the meaning of that at all.  He says Dalton is the biggest problem and nothing else matters.  Just because I don't quote the entire post does not mean I am taking anything out of context.  To be guilty of taking something out of context I would have to be leaving out some information that changes the meaning of what he said.  And I did not do that.

(07-14-2015, 11:42 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: This seems very clear to me. He said:

They can fix everything around him and it still would not matter.

Everything encompasses it all so I agree 100% with Fred.

Add in the context of other posts in this thread and nothing contradicts "AD is the problem and if AD is the QB, we have no chance at success". That was my understanding and to me it is crystal clear what was said and what was meant.

(07-14-2015, 12:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote:


I never left out anything that changed the context in any way.  i have already addressed this point. The fact is that you can not post anything from any of Pdubs posts that change the meaning of what he said.

When I accuse someone of taking a comment out of context I provide the omitted information that changes the meaning.  You can't do that in this case.

I love how people pick and choose to accept the literal. It's easy to take what someone types on a message board out of context and only shows who likes to play the contrarian. It's the clearest of victory for me in debates like this when people choose to stretch to the absurd and take things out of context in order to hold on to some sort of point. Facts and logical reasoning aren't on your side so you find something to take out of context. That's hilarious to me and yet so satisfying because it just shows that I am right.


Clearly and in no way, shape, or form, did I literally mean that every single player and coach can play perfectly and the Bengals would lose because of Andy Dalton playing poorly. To take that from what I said, or have said, is lunacy and is such a reach that it's moronic. The Bengals have won games Andy Dalton has played poorly in and they have lost games he has played great in. I have acknowledged this, happily.

When I said that they can't win if he plays poorly I was inferring to the previous playoff games where he clearly was so bad that he negated a lot of the good play of those around him and the defense that held opponents to within a reasonable distance before Andy crapped the bed. I was pointing to his poor play in the playoffs and the nature of his position as the major glaring problem and that with the QB playing that way it is so so so much tougher for the Bengals to win. Well, for those of us living in the real world, anyway.

To snipe at that one statement I made, take it out of context from all of my other posts over numerous threads and try to draw on that as a literal meaning is to put yourself out there as a wanna be contrarian stooge who has no better argument then point away from the obviously worst problem (Dalton) and cry "What if". I have dealt in the facts of what has happened in the 4 playoff games and I was clearly speaking in the context of the realistic probabilities of success based on NFL history and trends. If that wasn't obvious to you, Zoolander has a school you should attend. Dalton homers keep asking "What if" and praying for miracles. Good luck with that. Maybe if you shill hard enough AD will send you an autographed WWJD bracelet.

Keep in mind that Carson Palmer during his time didn't win any games with the team in the playoffs. Not just Andy D!

(07-13-2015, 03:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Who cares.  You are both wrong.

When we went to a Super Bowl with Boomer his postseason numbers were much worse than Dalton's.

And if the QB was the only thing that mattered Dan Marino would have been to a lot more Super Bowls.



I am willing to admit that Dalton has played poorly, but the people here who place 100% of the blame on him are just delusional.

Every situation is different. We were able to ground and pound teams that year in a most devastating way, and had an opportunistic defense that did a good job of making big plays at critical times. You're comparing apples and oranges.

(07-14-2015, 06:47 PM)PDub80 Wrote: Although, my IQ is 147 so maybe I'm giving you too much credit?

Out of everything said in this thread and all of the other threads (besides the Brad stuff), this is the single most embarrassing sentence so far. 

I actually disagree with Fred in this thread, but, Jesus, this makes you look like a tool.