10-07-2015, 12:42 PM
(10-07-2015, 12:30 PM)fr edtoast Wrote: it was not two separate statements. It was statement with a modifier. The modifier made it clear what he meant.
If I say "It is not okay to kill people unless they are attacking you." do you consider that two statements or one? I have never made that statement and then have someone attack me for saying it is okay to kill people because "that was my EXACT statement".
In order for it to be an "exact" statement you have to include all the information in the statement.
You're missing the point. The example you just gave is completely different than what was said by Joelist.
"The whole "dual threat" QB is a fad that enraptures sportscasters and such but does not translate into championships. Note what happens when defenses adjust; unless the QB in question is also a true QB (in other words works effectively from the pocket) they do not prosper."
The wording on this is very poor. If you put the entire thing together and use the "modifier" as you claim it should be read, it's essentially saying, "the whole dual threat QB is a fad and doesn't translate to championships if you only talk about the shitty dual threat QBs."
I guess that makes sense, but the choice of wording is awful on this. Why even say that dual threat QBs are a fad if you're just going to qualify it with only the dual threat QBs that can't throw the ball very well? Obviously ANY QB that can't throw very well isn't going to be considered good at a position where you have to throw the ball to be successful. That goes for more than just dual threat QBs. Any QB that can't throw isn't going to win many championships. Uhhh...congrats for pointing that out? Is that what you wanted here? A pat on the back for pointing out that shitty QBs are shitty?? Good job, guys.
