CBS Boston: The NFL Lets The Steelers Do Whatever They Want

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-13-2016, 08:54 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: A fan of a team that regularly skirts the edge of the rules and often over steps the line between clean and dirty dismissing an ESPN article because it's written by the Boston affiliate?

Oh how amazing is this? If any organization doesn't have a foothold when it comes to judging the Patriots, it's the Steelers. 

No, the article is dismissed by it's content.  The author, being who he is, merely illustrates why the article is so easily dismissed.  You throw a lot of accusations and do nothing to back it up.  You bitter Bengals fans are so desperate for validation that you're viewing a garbage article written by a partisan blogger as a Walter Cronkite report.

(01-13-2016, 10:26 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Fair enough.

Steelers fans still have zero room to call the Patriots cheaters.

Oh, please explain.   I enjoy tired Bengals arguments.

[BigPapaKain]

(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.  You throw a lot of accusations and do nothing to back it up.  You bitter Bengals fans are so desperate for validation that you're viewing a garbage article written by a partisan blogger as a Walter Cronkite report.


Oh, please explain.   I enjoy tired Bengals arguments.

Why would I waste the time or effort?

You either know damn well that your team isn't near as rule abiding or classy as the media and the fans want everyone to believe or you're an idiot incapable of rational thought.

Either way there is zero benefit in me rehashing what is already widely known.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(01-13-2016, 01:03 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Why would I waste the time or effort?

You either know damn well that your team isn't near as rule abiding or classy as the media and the fans want everyone to believe or you're an idiot incapable of rational thought.

Either way there is zero benefit in me rehashing what is already widely known.

They aren't any worse than most teams.  ANY NFL fan that thinks his team is comprised of Boy Scouts is delusional.  

I'm not saying you do, but I do think it's a natural thing for fans to demonize their most hated rivals more than they do their own team (or any other, for that matter).  

I don't deny that the Steelers have done some questionable things, but I also think that Bengals fans are a bit blind to the way their hatred blows things out of proportion (something I admit that Steeler fans do too with their own rivals).  

[Belsnickel]

(01-13-2016, 01:20 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: They aren't any worse than most teams.  ANY NFL fan that thinks his team is comprised of Boy Scouts is delusional.  

I'm not saying you do, but I do think it's a natural thing for fans to demonize their most hated rivals more than they do their own team (or any other, for that matter).  

I don't deny that the Steelers have done some questionable things, but I also think that Bengals fans are a bit blind to the way their hatred blows things out of proportion (something I admit that Steeler fans do too with their own rivals).  

Something that I think a lot of people miss, as well, is that while no team is full of Boy Scouts, teams like the Steelers, who have a fairly consistent record of success in the Super Bowl era, will get even more attention thrown there way by fans of opposing teams because of that success. The rational thought process is "yeah, they get away with some things and they have some guys that do some shady things, but they are consistently good because of their ." But being a fan isn't rational. It comes from the word fanatic, which means someone with excessive and/or single minded zeal. Not a very rational thing, and so we chuck that out the window and go for the emotional reasoning.

[Rotobeast]

Credible ?

[*rfaulk34*]

(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.

Why doesn't :GMDinoeyeroll: ever post these kinds of articles?

[SteelCitySouth]

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

Oh wow........your hysterics have finally got you gargling Brad....LOL

[*rfaulk34*]

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

Jellies?

[SteelCitySouth]

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

Yes....I am way to far away to actually see this travesty in real life.  

[Beaker]

(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. 

That's why everyone often dismisses your posts.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

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

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.  

[Beaker]

(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.  

You had to look up pithy, didn't you?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

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

Nope, it's called a vocabulary.

[Beaker]

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

Or a dictionary in your case.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

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

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

[Beaker]

(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

Not if you already heard it from someone smart like me and wanted to find out what it meant.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(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.

That scenario would require your being smart, which we have already established to be patently untrue.

[Beaker]

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

Now who's listening to the voices in their head?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

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

I rarely listen to them, but in this case they are correct.

[Beaker]

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

Are they pithy?