Lurker Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 On a side note, 5 pets have recently claimed to be pregnant by Willis. Man, I don't necessarily consider that a negative...
yall Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 how hard did you have to hammer you square-peg of logic to fit into the round-hole of that conclusion? Well why don't you tell me where I came to the wrong conclusion as opposed to trying to argue with a one-liner? I bet you can't. Here is the quote: "When asked about the possibility of an NFL team in Toronto, McGahee said, "That would be a good situation. Toronto is a beautiful place. But if they're going to put a team there, they should just bring the Buffalo Bills to Toronto. Case closed." 1. "That would be a good situation." - A response to the question regarding the possibility of a team in Toronto. You with me so far? (I bet I would have lost Willis right there). 2. "But if they're going to put a team there, they should just bring the Buffalo Bills to Toronto. Case closed" If there is going to be a NFL team in Toronto, Willis has stated that it should be the Buffalo Bills. So, what we have is this: According to Willis, an NFL team going to Toronto would be "good". If a team goes to Toronto, it should be the Bills. Therefore, the Bills going to Toronto would be good. Does that clear things up for you?
Lurker Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 Just ignore what they say That applies to a large (and growing) segment of TSW, as well.....
Cornerville Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 Man, I don't necessarily consider that a negative...
Cornerville Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 That applies to a large (and growing) segment of TSW, as well..... Sad, but true
PromoTheRobot Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 Willis is just speaking the truth. Frankly, I could live with a Toronto/Buffalo Bills, with the cities splitting home dates, rather than the frickin' L.A. Bills. Considering how Bills fans embarressed themselves leaving empty seats for the last three home dates, they don't have much of an arguement to keep the Bills in Buffalo. PTR
DrDawkinstein Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 Well why don't you tell me where I came to the wrong conclusion as opposed to trying to argue with a one-liner? I bet you can't. Here is the quote: "When asked about the possibility of an NFL team in Toronto, McGahee said, "That would be a good situation. Toronto is a beautiful place. But if they're going to put a team there, they should just bring the Buffalo Bills to Toronto. Case closed." 1. "That would be a good situation." - A response to the question regarding the possibility of a team in Toronto. You with me so far? (I bet I would have lost Willis right there). 2. "But if they're going to put a team there, they should just bring the Buffalo Bills to Toronto. Case closed" If there is going to be a NFL team in Toronto, Willis has stated that it should be the Buffalo Bills. So, what we have is this: According to Willis, an NFL team going to Toronto would be "good". If a team goes to Toronto, it should be the Bills. Therefore, the Bills going to Toronto would be good. Does that clear things up for you? ive already argued enough in this thread about what he did or didnt say. i understand your logic mapping. i just think youre reading too much into it. he was asked a hypothetical question about a hypothetical situation and actually as an EMPLOYEE OF THE NFL and NOT a buffalo resident, his comment makes sense. i think he was commenting more on fan-base and proximity of the teams rather than bashing buffalo. could he had said less? probably if he did would you guys not be crying so much? yes does he care what a bunch of faceless/anonymous botards on the internet have to say about his comment and if they are picking it apart and analyzing every word of it? no should he? no so get over it, its not the end of the world, its not a big deal.
Cornerville Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 Willis is just speaking the truth. Frankly, I could live with a Toronto/Buffalo Bills, with the cities splitting home dates, rather than the frickin' L.A. Bills. Considering how Bills fans embarressed themselves leaving empty seats for the last three home dates, they don't have much of an arguement to keep the Bills in Buffalo. PTR Remember, it was Christmas Eve...Buffalo: The only city affected by bad attendence for an NFL game that had some possible playoff implications
Ramius Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 Well why don't you tell me where I came to the wrong conclusion as opposed to trying to argue with a one-liner? I bet you can't. Here is the quote: "When asked about the possibility of an NFL team in Toronto, McGahee said, "That would be a good situation. Toronto is a beautiful place. But if they're going to put a team there, they should just bring the Buffalo Bills to Toronto. Case closed." 1. "That would be a good situation." - A response to the question regarding the possibility of a team in Toronto. You with me so far? (I bet I would have lost Willis right there). 2. "But if they're going to put a team there, they should just bring the Buffalo Bills to Toronto. Case closed" If there is going to be a NFL team in Toronto, Willis has stated that it should be the Buffalo Bills. So, what we have is this: According to Willis, an NFL team going to Toronto would be "good". If a team goes to Toronto, it should be the Bills. Therefore, the Bills going to Toronto would be good. Does that clear things up for you? This is some of the most ass!@#$ lahjik i have ever seen. Perhaps you need to be concentrating on your offseason workouts, travis.
yall Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 This is some of the most ass!@#$ lahjik i have ever seen. Perhaps you need to be concentrating on your offseason workouts, travis. Like I told DrDankenStein, can you refute the logic? I'm guessing since you responded with misspellings and insults that you cannot.
DrDawkinstein Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 your logic is flawed yes he way you have it mapped out, it looks correct but your definitions and absolute meanings of what he said are all off. no one is going to sit here and pick it apart though, at least im not the day i put that much energy into a willis mcgahee argument is the day i quit the board forever.
Ramius Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 Like I told DrDankenStein, can you refute the logic? I'm guessing since you responded with misspellings and insults that you cannot. no, its like my dealings with holcombs arm over on PPP. Your (like his) arguement is so stupid, but yet you cant comprehend why its stupid. Therefore, any refute that i type will be wasted, because you will not be able to understand what i am trying to point out.
yall Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 no, its like my dealings with holcombs arm over on PPP. Your (like his) arguement is so stupid, but yet you cant comprehend why its stupid. Therefore, any refute that i type will be wasted, because you will not be able to understand what i am trying to point out. You can comprehend that my arguement is stupid, but you can't exlpain why, huh? I'm still waiting for someone to refute it. Simply saying "duh yer a dummy leik that other guy" is insufficient. I can at least agree with Dankenstein, that there is potential to say that the definitions could be debated, but that can be said for nearly any arguement. Dank, I don't know that I'm reading too much into it, as the logical premises are not contrived from his statement, they ARE his statements. You (Ramius), on the other hand just seem to not like what I am saying, and trying to articulate that feeling is apparently hurting your brain. If I don't understand something you type it will likely be due to an inability to communcate your thoughts correctly. So please, go ahead and try Ramius. Let's see what you have up your sleeve. And then once you have enlightened us all with your intellect, you can laugh at me, sitting here with a furrowed brow, sweating trying to comprehend the genius that is sure to be your next post.
DrDawkinstein Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 youre taking his comments in the wrong context though and reading meaning behind those words thats not there. that being said... DROP IT ALREADY, i was hoping to be done arguing this 3 pages ago, im done now. no one cares and youre not going to change anyones mind and no ones going to change yours. the fact this thread has gone this far is an EMBARASSMENT to the fans way more than willis making some stupid comment
Kelly the Dog Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 Like I told DrDankenStein, can you refute the logic? I'm guessing since you responded with misspellings and insults that you cannot. Because according to your logic if someone asked you if you liked the possibility of blowjobs at the Canadian Ballet and you said "It's good". And then they asked you if there are blowjobs being given at the Canadian Ballet who should it be, and you said "It should be me", one would have to conclude that you like giving blowjobs at the Canadian Ballet.
yall Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 youre taking his comments in the wrong context though and reading meaning behind those words thats not there. that being said... DROP IT ALREADY, i was hoping to be done arguing this 3 pages ago, im done now. no one cares and youre not going to change anyones mind and no ones going to change yours. the fact this thread has gone this far is an EMBARASSMENT to the fans way more than willis making some stupid comment Settle down Francis... If you were hoping to "be done arguing this 3 pages ago" why are you still posting? It would seem that I'm not the one having an issue with logic. At any rate, I'm still waiting for Ramius or you to actually pose a counterpoint. Or, at the very least, discredit or disprove one or more of the premises used to formulate my conclusion. Instead you both have resorted to an arguement ad nauseam approach, which serves no purpose other than to flood this thread with more meaningless text. Demonstrate what is out of context rather than just saying "omfg out of context" and we might actually have something that resembles a proper discussion on our hands. Otherwise, I would suggest that you take a dose of your own medicine and "drop it".
yall Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 Because according to your logic if someone asked you if you liked the possibility of blowjobs at the Canadian Ballet and you said "It's good". And then they asked you if there are blowjobs being given at the Canadian Ballet who should it be, and you said "It should be me", one would have to conclude that you like giving blowjobs at the Canadian Ballet. Nice try (I'll give you credit for at least trying to hide your attempt at an insult by burying it in a poor logical equivalent). Where this fails to demonstrate a similar pattern of logic is that you fail to clearly define the subject in terms of "giving" and "given" using an ambiguous subject as the point of the argument. There is no question as to the subject of who is being moved or to where they are moving in Willis' statements. Again though, nice try. Any other takers?
aussiew Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 Well, all this being said.....if the Bills were going to have to be moved...I'd much rather they end up in Toronto than in LA. At least it would be in the same area.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 Willis. What happened to you? We used to like you, but now we don't. What happened?
RayFinkle Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 The story is on twobillsdrive.com. I guess it was a Penthouse inteview. On a side note, 5 pets have recently claimed to be pregnant by Willis. I can kinda understand reading Playboy for the articles, but if you're buying Penthouse I don't think you're the kinda guy who does much reading.
Recommended Posts