07-14-2015, 06:47 PM
(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.
