Doc Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 So it's best to "agree to disagree". That's OK, given what you've said to this point. Your "beliefs" are well documented. Yes, just like "the CBA was good until the situation changed" or "Lynch was drinking in the bathroom." You've become a caricature of your already cartoonish self, doc. jw performed a cyber drive-by killing of your argument. Apparently he doesn't want to waste his time refuting your weak "points," since I've already done it, so he said he'd agree to disagree. And he would know a lot better than you or I. So I will do the same.
JohnC Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 jw performed a cyber drive-by killing of your argument. Apparently he doesn't want to waste his time refuting your weak "points," since I've already done it, so he said he'd agree to disagree. And he would know a lot better than you or I. So I will do the same. What John W didn't want to do was rehash what has already been rehashed over and over. He was pleading for the referee to invoke the mercy rule. Punching and counter-punching are acceptable when the rounds are in progress. When the bell sounds you are supposed to go to your designated corners and take a breather.
Typical TBD Guy Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 You couldnt have said that any better...I dont understand how anyone can say that Ralph isnt cheap It's easy when: A. You are unaware that the Buffalo Bills even existed before 1990 and have never heard of guys like Joe Cribbs and Chuck Knox. ...and... B. You have a nasty case of battered wife syndrome with RW's Bills and conveniently forget more recent instances like the Wade Phillips contract fiasco, Pat Williams in early 2005, the endless parade of 1st rd free agent CB's leaving town, etc.
Doc Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Yes, just like "the CBA was good until the situation changed" or "Lynch was drinking in the bathroom." Speaking of which, here is an article I found: http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stor...g_4357847.shtml Published Thursday, August 10, 2006 Weaver happy with new commissioner By VITO STELLINO The Times-Union, ...Even though Weaver voted for a new collective bargaining agreement in March as the lesser of two evils, he said repeatedly that deal is unsustainable in the long term for the league. The owners are expected to opt out of the deal in November of 2008 so it will expire after the 2009 season, but Weaver said the owners have to start addressing their concerns to the union now. So the owners were ready to opt-out just 5 months (if not less) after they approved it. Amazing how they knew the economy was going to collapse that far in advance! And I'm still waiting to hear how Ms. Shpeley's lawyer proved his assertion that Lynch was drunk that night.
birdog1960 Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 It's easy when: A. You are unaware that the Buffalo Bills even existed before 1990 and have never heard of guys like Joe Cribbs and Chuck Knox. ...and... B. You have a nasty case of battered wife syndrome with RW's Bills and conveniently forget more recent instances like the Wade Phillips contract fiasco, Pat Williams in early 2005, the endless parade of 1st rd free agent CB's leaving town, etc. yup. i never understood the psychology of battered wife syndrome. i think the inborn male instinct is to batter back...not sure what that says about those on the other side of the issue..
Doc Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 yup. i never understood the psychology of battered wife syndrome. i think the inborn male instinct is to batter back...not sure what that says about those on the other side of the issue.. Actually the correct thing to do is leave an abusive relationship. Not stay in the situation and whine about it, and certainly not to "batter back."
birdog1960 Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Actually the correct thing to do is leave an abusive relationship. Not stay in the situation and whine about it, and certainly not to "batter back." whose talking about "correct"? I said instinctual...but ok ,fight or flight..basic survival instincts...one gender more often chooses one option than the other, correct or not
Doc Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 whose talking about "correct"? I said instinctual. The first instinct for a battered spouse is not to "batter back." Hence the reason he/she continues to be a battered spouse. The right thing to do is work through it the first time, and if it happens again, leave. And as I've said before, if you feel like a battered spouse, you're taking this way more seriously than you should be. And I don't know how you'd "batter back" in this situation.
birdog1960 Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 The first instinct for a battered spouse is not to "batter back." Hence the reason he/she continues to be a battered spouse. The right thing to do is work through it the first time, and if it happens again, leave. And as I've said before, if you feel like a battered spouse, you're taking this way more seriously than you should be. And I don't know how you'd "batter back" in this situation. i fully understand the dynamics of battered wife syndrome but not the psychology. fight or flight are generally considered the most primitive survival instincts and in this case the victim chooses neither. i suppose it is a maladaptive, learned behavior. i don't feel like a battered wife in regards to the bills. this was a metaphor advanced by another poster to explain continued support for a disappointing character and i find it apt.
BillsfaninFl Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 i fully understand the dynamics of battered wife syndrome but not the psychology. fight or flight are generally considered the most primitive survival instincts and in this case the victim chooses neither. i suppose it is a maladaptive, learned behavior. i don't feel like a battered wife in regards to the bills. this was a metaphor advanced by another poster to explain continued support for a disappointing character and i find it apt. Have we reached the end of this silliness? Let's get back to talking about football.
nucci Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Have we reached the end of this silliness? Let's get back to talking about football. Can't wait for camp to start!!
birdog1960 Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Have we reached the end of this silliness? Let's get back to talking about football. agreed. i have some newly found sympathy for WEO. it was just a bad joke.
Mr. WEO Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Speaking of which, here is an article I found: http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stor...g_4357847.shtml So the owners were ready to opt-out just 5 months (if not less) after they approved it. Amazing how they knew the economy was going to collapse that far in advance! And I'm still waiting to hear how Ms. Shpeley's lawyer proved his assertion that Lynch was drunk that night. Look, doc, I don't know what else to tell you. The owners accepted the CBA because they thought it was in their best interest. They obviously thought a lockout in 07 was not in their best interests--especially a guy like Jones or Johnson or MAra, who had huge stadium projects soon to break ground. If it was split down the middle, I would give your argument (whatever it is besides they were stupid) some weight. But I would say the majority of these guys wanted a deal to continue football. They dumped it--as was their right in a negotiated clause---when it was in their best interests to do so. As for ol' Ralphie---well, you won't defend your position other than to endlessly restate it ("he could have moved at any time and made more money")--ignoring evidence that refutes it--or to hide behind the opinions of others. You can't clearly describe when, where and why. "Anytime" and "anywhere" are not real answers. It's "ironic" that you paint me as the one who sees only "black or white", yet you are consistently here with simple monolithic positions such as "the CBA must have been a mistake since the owners opted out" (yeah, plenty of nuance there) or the above "Ralph could have moved", or that JJ can be trusted when he speaks about CG--but not any other time, or that covert booze smuggler Lynch could not have been drunk on the night he went partying into the wee hours on the nite he hit a pedestrian with his car and didn't even notice, or... Anyway, I've given up waiting. I agree with others that this is futile.
birdog1960 Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Look, doc, I don't know what else to tell you. The owners accepted the CBA because they thought it was in their best interest. They obviously thought a lockout in 07 was not in their best interests--especially a guy like Jones or Johnson or MAra, who had huge stadium projects soon to break ground. If it was split down the middle, I would give your argument (whatever it is besides they were stupid) some weight. But I would say the majority of these guys wanted a deal to continue football. They dumped it--as was their right in a negotiated clause---when it was in their best interests to do so. As for ol' Ralphie---well, you won't defend your position other than to endlessly restate it ("he could have moved at any time and made more money")--ignoring evidence that refutes it--or to hide behind the opinions of others. You can't clearly describe when, where and why. "Anytime" and "anywhere" are not real answers. It's "ironic" that you paint me as the one who sees only "black or white", yet you are consistently here with simple monolithic positions such as "the CBA must have been a mistake since the owners opted out" (yeah, plenty of nuance there) or the above "Ralph could have moved", or that JJ can be trusted when he speaks about CG--but not any other time, or that covert booze smuggler Lynch could not have been drunk on the night he went partying into the wee hours on the nite he hit a pedestrian with his car and didn't even notice, or... Anyway, I've given up waiting. I agree with others that this is futile. .....or maybe not
Mr. WEO Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 .....or maybe not Touche! Sorry, it's hard to resist with ol' "doc".
Doc Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 agreed. i have some newly found sympathy for WEO. .....or maybe not No, you should still feel sympathy for WEO. He's got an incurable case of battered wife syndrome. So much for instincts.
birdog1960 Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 No, you should still feel sympathy for WEO. He's got an incurable case of battered wife syndrome. So much for instincts. are you a real doctor or do you just play one on tv..er,i mean the internet. perhaps we could discuss the diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of obsessive compulsive disorder.
Doc Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 are you a real doctor or do you just play one on tv..er,i mean the internet. perhaps we could discuss the diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of obsessive compulsive disorder. No need. I think just some more fiber in your diet would work wonders.
birdog1960 Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 No need. I think just some more fiber in your diet would work wonders. mmmmm...this popcorn is delicious and nutritious
gobills123 Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 Now I see what you mean John Wawrow. I've given this guy point after point after point after point, to show my opinion, and he doesn't understand how anyone can say "Ralph isn't cheap". Argghhh, I think admitting you're a youngster has a lot to do with your comprehension. I don't think Ralph is cheap (obviously), but that's my opinion. I have some facts that I believe back up my beliefs. But I can certainly understand the other side of the argument even though I disagree. For anyone to not understand the other side of the debate is just... how can I say? Adolescent. You are like a little child. All you try to do is pick little fights. So tough guy, you never answered my post last week...Why didnt we resign nate clements and antoine wilfield, oh and that guy named pat williams?...Maybe, just MAYBE because umm Ralph is cheap. He didnt want to pay top dollar. Ever since winfield and pat left, they both have been the best two players at their position in the game. If Ralph wasnt cheap, they would still be here. And our defense wouldnt be so bad. Ever since pat left, our defense has **** the bed. Maybe if he was resigned by the cheap owner, our running defense would be much much much better. Maybe if your little brain can remember, our run defense was in the top five every year we had pat in the middle of the d line. And Winfield was and still is the best tackling corner in the game. The only reason them two were let go is plain and simple, Ralph did not want to pay them. Its been how many years since they have been gone? And THEY ARE STILL DOMINATING THEIR POSITIONS. Maybe those are some facts to back up my opnion tough guy. Have you by any chance paid any attention to the bills for the past ten years? Ralph has not once hired a top notch coach, and has not once signed a big name play making player. He signs players who are desperate and who are certaintly no longer in their prime. Like T.O, and Troy Vincent, and Kawika Mitchell (who is always hurt). I understand that Ralph does spend some money, like resigning lee evans, and aaron schobel. But instead of going after big name free agents every year, he signs no names to a lot of money.
Recommended Posts