Delete This Account

well, obviously this one wasn't working so i thought i'd change the subject because really no one was getting any where with this discussion, which essentially went like this (and pardon if i paraphrase just a bit): you: i can't comprehend what i've written, but i'm right. most everyone else: you: i'm still not wrong. most everyone else: right, and i've lent no worth to this thread. jw

i was a little disappointed in the Drive By Truckers previous effort, The Big To Do. it struck me a little of trying just a little too hard. and yet, they've earned the right for a little slack. my two favorite albums of their ever expanding and very deep discography are Blessing and a Curse, and Pizza Deliverance. for those of you who haven't tried them out, sample a couple of songs of these two albums, and you'll be struck by their power. Gravity's Gone, off "Blessing..." One of These Days off "Pizza D" as well as "The Night GG Allin Came to Town." then again, the Big To Do does have a fantastic song, "The Fourth Night of My Drinking." in all seriousness, this just might be the best and most honest band going nowadays. but what do i know about football or the bills for that matter as it appears that i've proven my worthlessness here, yet again. jw

well, now that that's settled, was wondering if anyone else here's excited about the new Drive By Truckers cd that's coming out next month. they released a 7-minute free single, and it's sounding pretty good. i just wish they'd come tour around here. seems like they've been everywhere, from down south to the west coast to NYC to freakin' amsterdam over the past year, and the closest they've come to Buffalo is like just outside of Albany. that really sucks, cause i'm a huge fan. jw

check 1-2. check 1-2. tap, tap, tap, tap. is this thing on? jw

so, we've narrowed it down to silly or addled, then, right? jw

grammar police? actually, you must be new to these intrawebs in which the ability to communicate in a common language -- in this case English -- is generally appreciated and routinely regarded as critical to having a formal and reasonable discussion. you see -- and let me type slowly for you here, in the event you can't keep up -- when someone, say it's you, writes something such as "defenses win ... PERIOD!" it is roundly accepted by those familiar with the basics of the english language that you are making a case that defenses always win. the fact that you added three periods followed by a PERIOD and then an exclamation mark is widely regarded as you stating an absolute case. you are stating, to wit, that defenses always -- without fail, precedence or exception -- come out victorious. and yet, we are all aware that that is not entirely the case. you in fact have stated so yourself in your acknowledgment to me that the best defenses do not, in fact, always win the Super Bowl. in fact, the case can be made that the Indianapolis Colts, who gave up something like 22 points a game, won the Super Bowl in 2006 despite their defense. but i don't need to bring up facts to prove to you how obtuse your point might be, when you have already agreed that defenses don't always win. thus: you have been proven categorically wrong. unless, of course, you: 1) live in a bizarro world in which wrong is actually right. 2) have a rare immunity to logic. 3) english may not be your first language. 4) are doing this to simply be silly. 5) are out to prove a point that being addled is a virtue. 6) suffer from dyslexia. 7) have a lifelong passion for proving how obtuse you can be. jw

well, at least we've got him on the defensive ... ah ... maybe that came out wrong jw

sorry, don't turn this around. i'm not arguing in favor of offenses or defenses. i'm questioning your misplaced and obtusely thought out header, which states: "defenses win ... PERIOD!" so, in other words, you finally admit that you're wrong. jw

yes, there is only one Aaron Rodgers. there is only one Peyton Manning, too. now that you've evidently mastered the patently obvious, how is it possible that others points of reason prove to be so inpenetrable. let's try it simply: do number 1 defenses always (and by always, i mean, well, always) win Super Bowls? jw

how are you doing "pretty good?" you're the embodiment of one-hand clapping. jw

that's what i've been saying. the one point that the original poster has failed to acknowledge or address is his obtuse statement "defenses win ... PERIOD!" no they don't. he's is patently wrong, and impervious to reason on that point. jw

keep up, you're like five posts behind. jw

right, the Jets vaunted defense went down, picked apart by a better offensive team in the Steelers. and for all the praise the Bears defense received, it couldn't slow down Rodgers. i see the point you're trying to make jw

i'm no genious, never pretended to be. earlier in this thread, you suggested Rodgers wasn't a franchise quarterback because what had he done? well, in two years, he's led the Packers to the playoffs both times, last year doing so by overcoming a bad defense. this year, with a solid defense, he's led them to a Super Bowl, or was that Kyle Matthews completing all those passes and running for all those first downs? it's open for debate as to what the bills should do with the No. 3 pick. a quarterback might be one option. improving the defense a better option, perhaps. no one's arguing that point with you. however, what makes all of these pages so humorous is when you open the thread by stating categorically and undeniably, that defenses win ... PERIOD! that's an absolute that makes it easy for you to be made sport of. you're wrong. deal with it. jw

no, you're wrong ... oops, sorry, was just anticipating mcd's next response. jw

yes, and yes. defenses win ... PERIOD! did someone else write that in the subject line, or might those have been your tippy-tappy fingers? evidently, you've left yourself open to so many "well buts," that it's impossible to figure out what it is you're arguing for or against. so to make clear, what you're actually arguing is this: "defenses win ... MUCH OF THE TIME! and offenses also win ... COMMMA! (but i'd prefer a good defense.)" hey, just trying to keep things straight. jw

Scoring more points than opponent wins ... PERIOD! jw

but by your obtuse logic, the bills D should've won that game alone and not put it in Bledsoe's hands to begin with. also, the title of your thread reads, and i quote: "So much for the NEED to have a franchise QB ... (Defenses win ... PERIOD)" leads me to wonder. and after all, you had suggested i should "fell" (there you go being a genious again) free to add more. let me fellow (heh, heh) with this: you acknowledge above that you don't consider Trent Edwards to be a franchise quarterback. and yet you discount literally any probability that the bills, with a top defense, could win a Super Bowl with him at the helm because, after all, you contend that a defense wins ... PERIOD!, right? so doesn't that dispute your point? actually, let me back up ... what was your point? jw

ah, quit providing us with that kind of way-back-when insightful perpsective. all i wanna know is what his fantasy numbers were! jw

so, to wit, you think the bills should have stuck with Trent Edwards? or, you are arguing that the Bills were prime Super Bowl contenders in both 2003 and '04 when their defense ranked 2nd in the NFL in yards allowed. did Bledsoe's decline and Gregg Williams questionable tactics (in '03) have anything to do with the fact that neither team made the playoffs? would not have better quarterback play, particularly in the 2004 finale against the Steelers, when Bledsoe inexplicably dropped back at his own 15 was sacked and fumbled, not have made a difference? you've backed yourself into such a corner it appears that you've left yourself no way out without having to acknowledge you are in some ways mistaken. c'mon, man. jw

fair enough. thing is, the salesman and the boss are at fault for creating a mountain out of an anthill. and in my opinion, the boss and the dealership are the ones who come off looking more small and closed-minded in this occurence. jw

ok, i dislike the yankees. i don't think i'd not buy a car from a guy wearing a yankees tie. i might make a reference to how they choked to the red sox in losing a 3-0 lead, but if the guy was fair with me on the business of selling a car, i wouldn't hold it against him. and there's the rub. he was wearing a tie. obviously, the packers won. and yet, for some reason, chicago still stood, the trains ran, the traffic moved, deep-dish pizza was made. have a little bit of fun with it. "yeah, they beat us," i'd say if i were a bears fan. "guess you might be getting a few comments about the tie." oh well. and this business about how the dealership did some sponsorship work with the bears is a non-starter in my opinion. i don't think the bears marketing staff left the offices en masse to check with all their partners to see who was being loyal to the team and not. nor, do i think they care. in fact, i think the bears might re-think working with this dealership again given the negative publicity it has received over what happened. and to the point of whether this guy was seeking publicity or not. publicity wasn't warranted if he had not been fired. the action by his boss led to the publicity. and good for him for exposing a kneejerk boss. and let's remember, it's the dealership that is being hurt the most. if i read this correctly, this guy was a good salesman, sold like 14 cars in six weeks. not a bad track record if you ask me. so, they lose a good seller, and get knocked for being small-minded for firing a guy for wearing a tie a weekend after his grandmother died and at a time when the economy is still tough. seems a little short-sighted to me. but what do i know, i treat sports as being something relatively tame when regarding the big picture, even though it is what i do. jw

let's put this in perspective. we are talking about sports here. the guy wasn't wearing a swastika. he wasn't wearing anything with a profanity on it. this wasn't some pro or anti-abortion guy. this wasn't a jihadi tie. it wasn't something racist. i could go on. ... people, this was a sports team, which in my world shouldn't be cause for dismissal. and yet, there are places in this world -- india-pakistan cricket, south american soccer rivalries, south african soccer rivalries, english soccer rivalries -- where people get beat up or killed for wearing the wrong colors. is this what this the model of society north america should adopt, where people actually get fired for wearing a harmless tie? puh-leaze. it's sports. it's not a national security matter or cancer research. some perspective, please. jw

and yet the boss noted that it would've been ok with him if the salesman wore the tie a day before the game. don't cite employment law. cite the law of common sense. whether or not there's a lawsuit, the dealership in question has lost in the court of public opinion. jw

yeah, that's them, isn't it? jw