(01-13-2016, 12:46 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: This article from Boston points out, with examples, that there's a double-standard in the NFL when you consider the fact that the Steelers are allowed to do whatever the hell they want with little-to-no repercussions.  

I wonder how long before the national media and the NFL start to take notice that other people are finally starting to take notice and does something about it, but, if history has told me anything, the Steelers will always be allowed to do whatever they want and there will be a whole separate set of rules for them and for the rest of the league.

This example even gets their annoying fanbase involved because every Steelers fan I've ever known of has a sense of entitlement:



Then it goes on to Joey Porter, which it's still mind-blowing to me that no flag was thrown and it gave the Steelers the easy win:


Then one that hasn't gotten much attention is the Steelers white-trash coach grabbing Reggie Nelson's hair and not being penalized:


Then it goes on to Porter illegally being on the field and screwing us out of glory, but it also notes that it's the second time a Steelers coach has stepped on the field in an attempt to (successfully, this time) alter the outcome of a game, with the first being Tomlin trying to trip Jacoby Jones:


Then it goes on to say how the Patriots were punished so harshly because it was "“more probable than not” that an employee deflated footballs, yet here is hard, indisputable evidence that the Steelers cheated and nothing will happen to them, or definitely nothing too harsh.

I love it because someone with a voice that can be heard nationally is voicing what the rest of the able-minded world is thinking.

(01-13-2016, 02:48 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Why doesn't :GMDinoeyeroll: ever post these kinds of articles?

(01-13-2016, 02:53 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Oh wow........your hysterics have finally got you gargling Brad....LOL

(01-13-2016, 02:57 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Jellies?

(01-13-2016, 11:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, the article is dismissed by it's content.  The author, being who he is, merely illustrates why the article is so easily dismissed. 

(01-13-2016, 07:23 PM)Beaker Wrote: That's why everyone often dismisses your posts.

(01-13-2016, 07:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If by everyone you mean the few crying simpletons like luvnit, bfitz and Murdoch then sure.  You've already started to lump yourself in with them in another thread.  Beaker's posts:  Attempts at witty one liners and zero substance.  When asked to actually answer a question you dodge just like your pathetic compatriots listed above.  Keep cranking out that "wit" though, very pithy.  

(01-13-2016, 07:43 PM)Beaker Wrote: You had to look up pithy, didn't you?

(01-13-2016, 07:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nope, it's called a vocabulary.

(01-13-2016, 07:48 PM)Beaker Wrote: Or a dictionary in your case.

(01-13-2016, 08:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think the word you're looking for is a thesaurus. I'd have to already know the word pithy to be able to look pithy up in the dictionary

(01-13-2016, 08:14 PM)Beaker Wrote: Not if you already heard it from someone smart like me and wanted to find out what it meant.

(01-13-2016, 08:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That scenario would require your being smart, which we have already established to be patently untrue.

(01-13-2016, 08:22 PM)Beaker Wrote: Now who's listening to the voices in their head?

(01-13-2016, 08:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I rarely listen to them, but in this case they are correct.