JinVA Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 No, I'm getting heat because some people like to make wise cracks while others are just being tools. I hate to break it to you, but you're the only one being a "tool". Someone makes a harmless joke and you lash back with childish name calling. Grow some skin would you, or better yet grow up.
JoeF Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 Every discussion on here is an op; this is what this board is about. How does “A clue that Marvs may have Pittman in his scope” convey anything but my op? No, I'm getting heat because some people like to make wise cracks while others are just being tools. So are you saying that you expect that posts in this thread are going to be limited to those that agree with your opinion? I am confused... I really doubt that we would draft a RB high in the draft because he can be a gunner on the suicide squad. We need a RB who can take the bulk of the carries for the offense -- that RB won't be playing gunner for us. Did Jim Tressel have Pittman play gunner for him after he became the feature back? Is there any evidence to suggest that? I would be really surprised because Tressel is a pretty smart coach and probably would hesitate to do this.
Sketch Soland Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 Every discussion on here is an op; this is what this board is about. How does “A clue that Marvs may have Pittman in his scope” convey anything but my op? No, I'm getting heat because some people like to make wise cracks while others are just being tools. You're getting heat because your logic is flawed. Plain and simple. Don't be so sensitive. Craft a more logical train of thought next time and all this heat will disappear.
RayFinkle Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 You're getting heat because your logic is flawed. Plain and simple. Don't be so sensitive. Craft a more logical train of thought next time and all this heat will disappear. in his defense, in addition to losing Davis to free agency, we also traded Spikes.
Beerball Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 in his defense, in addition to losing Davis to free agency, we also traded Spikes. Lost Reyes and Fletcher too. You put all that together and any logical sole can figure things out.
stuckincincy Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 Lost Reyes and Fletcher too. You put all that together and any logical sole can figure things out. Sounds fishy.
Chilly Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 This thread is a big fustercluck. Tis why I'm bumping it.
Rubes Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 No, I'm getting heat because some people like to make wise cracks while others are just being tools. Somebody needs to turn that frown upside-down!
Beerball Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 This thread is the Pitts - man. So you think Revis is the logical choice. Could be, you never know.
dundy249 Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 All of this is well and good but it still does not explain why we traded Mike Williams to the Bucs? And why the Hell they are not happy with him
Helmet_hair Posted April 14, 2007 Author Posted April 14, 2007 Geesh! I come back 5 hours later and you tools are still at it. Move on nothing to see here hahahahah
Recommended Posts