In remembrance of 9/11/01



Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Nov 19th, 2017, 3:39am EST

Home Home Help Help Search Search Members Members GamesGames Login Login Register Register
Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron NFL "issues"

"Welcome to 'the Gridiron'... Fantasy football at its best!"

Fantasy Football News Feed Co-commissioner Services Add "the Gridiron" to your site
Lend a hand... Make a donation to "the Gridiron"!!!
   Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron
   the Gridiron
   the Sidelines
(Moderators: Replay Official, Side Judge, Line Judge, Umpire, Head Linesman, Back Judge, Field Judge, Referee)
   NFL "issues"
Previous topic|Next topic
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6  ...  11 Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: NFL "issues"  (Read 20351 times)
Philly
UFF Primetime Prophet
*****
# 29



Pay, I said pay attention, son.

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 5675

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #75 on: May 18th, 2006, 3:07pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Hey Bill...
 
We're debating the actions and intents of Reggie Bush here.  Ultimately, none of us know what exactly his intents are so we can only speculate -- something that people do about people in the public eye all the time. Obviously we are going to have different opinions about the issue -- that's natural.  I was even trying to have a little fun with the issue by bringing Michael Vick back into it (see end of my first original post).
 
But you've decided, instead, to make personal attacks on me which I certainly don't appreciate and don't feel were warranted.  Saying that I'm sitting back and getting fat on life while poor people don't have enough to eat is pretty low.  You don't know me and have no right to make judgments like that.  Enjoy the rest of this debate with others because I'm not going to play your game here.
Logged
KillerKingSting
Gridiron Great
*****
# 183



I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile

Posts: 2997

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #76 on: May 18th, 2006, 3:56pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Dude, I was only joking about the cheese steak sandwiches - i mean really! come on here! I have no idea of your waist size or whatever, but hey! you did mention that anyone (that would be me!) who thinks this or that is asinine - did you not???  
Really.........whats the difference? between personal attacks on someone's mental aspects and their physical? Is this YOUR rule of debate? Its ok one way but, not another?
 
I like it better down stairs on the grid - everyone seems to get rattled (including myself at times) in these debates and takes it personally - but they can dish it - just not take it (including myself sometimes though, I thought I have grown from that since the first year - ala-Vick- debates),
 
anyhow,
 
nothing personal taken from this (even if you meant it so),
 
but
 
I'm staying downstairs where I BEElong on the grid,
 
I'm through playing with rules that are made one way, not the other, and pop up in a personal whim, whenever anyone gets upset.
 
Though, I understand it, its just not worth my time nor efforts,
 
peace babe-bee!!
 
 
Logged

*BEE BYE BOE BUM!!; I SMELL THE STENCH OF SOME INSANE PLAYER SCUM.
*2004 CHUMP-ION of Insane World!!!!!
*Domination of the DUKE BEEgins right here!
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #77 on: May 18th, 2006, 6:13pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Let me start this off with a...
 

 
on May 18th, 2006, 3:56pm, KillerKingSting wrote:
I like it better down stairs on the grid - everyone seems to get rattled (including myself at times) in these debates and takes it personally - but they can dish it - just not take it (including myself sometimes though, I thought I have grown from that since the first year - ala-Vick- debates),
 
but
 
I'm staying downstairs where I BEElong on the grid,
 
I'm through playing with rules that are made one way, not the other, and pop up in a personal whim, whenever anyone gets upset.
 
Though, I understand it, its just not worth my time nor efforts

 
This thread has gone from "NFL 'issues'" to just "Issues"... Of course, you like it better down on the "Insane Gang" league board. That's your league('s board). You're down there and those discussions are a) not participated in by the community here at large, b) among just the "home team" and c) unmoderated (by a higher authority on the site), so it's pretty much anything goes. (From what I gather, though, (tendentious alert) things can get a bit ugly down there as well... But,... whatever...) So, of course, you are going to feel at home and "like" it more down there. It's always more comfortable playing to a smaller, more agreeable crowd.
 
The code of conduct up on the main boards, of course, is different. This, "I'm through playing with rules that are made one way, not the other," just doesn't make sense,... which speaks to one area of those codes (what does that even mean?). Clarity, focus, objective and common use of language, patience (in responding), etc., are of utmost importance when dealing with a group who may not be in the loop of your lingo and may, moreover, disagree with your position. Unclear presentation of ideas leads to conflation, especially in "argumentation". Also, speaking from personal experience and circumstance is one thing... Ad hominem quips are another... Arguments made in a more public forum, such as our three main boards, than your league's board (again, moreover, where you are the head honcho) need to hold together more tightly. I mean...
 
You wrote...
 
Quote:
your posssbile/personal gain(s) to what you consider Reggie is also gaining as well

 
The lack of clarity of the presentation of your thinking aside,... how Reggie is going about his thing and how I am are TOTALLY different. Now, how Reggie is going about his thing and how I would have if I did a telethon move are VERY SIMILAR. THAT was my point. But, you somehow (mis)interpretted my point as just being about people going for "personal gain". I have no problem with "personal gain". That's absurd. It's the "how" that's in question, not the "what".
 
Then, you wrote...
 
Quote:
And this (above) follow up to it - the repitition of awaiting response would only add more reality to the "possible" perception that your also exploiting Katrina - still in comparison

 
Mind you, I'm again not 100% sure what that says, BUT the insinuation is VERY insulting and VERY personal (I let it go, though). How is it that I'm "exploiting" Katrina by pushing for responses to this discussion? And, what do I REALLY, SUBSTANTIVELY have to gain? Really, it's just hearts and minds (or heart-and-minds )...
 
You, then, wrote some spiel in response to what I said about "expectations", getting me wrong. To be exact, and this is MY FAULT for not being absolutely clear because I did not surmise that someone would take it in the direction you did, my point is that people should not expect anything extraordinary or even commensurate in return. The expectation of a smile in return for a good deed that was "completely gone out of the way for" is just fine (some posts to help keep the merry-go-round spinning on a beloved forum, and maybe a little scratch so that the admin's nipples don't get ripped off). An expectation of just an appropriate response (of gratitude) is surely a reasonable expectation. That wasn't what I was saying. I would have to be a dipshit if so. That's why I didn't anticipate your critique,... which inadvertently assumes that I'm a dipshit.
 
You wrote...
 
Quote:
you wished for a different "side" or "take" to this issue

 
I actually didn't at all just ask for a different take. I asked for whatever was the case. If it's different, then it's different. But, I didn't ask for disagreement, for disagreement's sake at least.
 
You wrote...
 
Quote:
YOUR bigger picture which is YOUR persepctive on this whole thing.  
 
And what I am trying to say is that,  
 
the BIGGER picture here is that,  
 
MY BIGGER PICTURE,  
 
MY PERSPECTIVE,

 
YIKES!
 
You, then, took us into left field (though now I better understand that you thought you were showing us the "bigger picture") with this comment...
 
Quote:
IN COMPARISON to ELI and ELWAY who REFUSED to even go to their original drafted NFL teams  
 
MUCH LESS DONATE MONEY to them

 
It is needless to say that this is "apples and oranges" in the context of this conversation (though not how you were taking it as will be borne out below)... FURTHERMORE, in any event, BOTH John and Eli DID give it up for Katrina...
 
http://www.redcross.org/article/0,1072,0_272_4559,00.html;
 
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/04/mannings.relief/;
 
http://www.nflplayers.com/news/news_release.aspx?id=4239;
 
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/8866900.
 
Those are events that happened,... both time AND money spent,... not a pledge of 25% of future earnings. Mind you, they're also doing the stand-up thing by keeping the numbers to themselves (not that I think they have to, but I can recognize the "higher road" when I see it).
 
You wrote...
 
Quote:
Basically dude, he isn't asking for anything he just about wasn't going to get anyhow.

 
Presented as if "fact", but, in fact, wrong!
 
You wrote...
 
Quote:
if your saying that lets judge this ONE particular move on it's own and without relation to any other scenario

 
That's EXACTLY what I want to do. There's A LOT there to chew on (philosophically/ethically), a "bigger (ethical) picture", so to speak, or maybe I should say/have said a "deeper (ethical) context" (to investigate and try to understand (the side of which, some of us at least think, is a bit ill)).
 
You wrote...
 
Quote:
And again, what I am saying is that
 
exactly what Courage said,  
 
and I agree with him,  
 
the jersey,  
 
in comparison to 400,000$,  
 
big freakin whoop.

 
Now, we're just at square one again.
 
You wrote...
 
Quote:
in comparison to the NFL rules in regards to the LAST placed TEAM should be able to DRAFT and USE the BEST player available,  
 
its a fair comparison.

 
It's not against the rules for a player to sit out so as to avoid going to a team he doesn't want to. It may be a cheesy move, mind you, moreover, a risky move most players cannot afford to make, but, whatever, in fact, it's in the rules! In any event, this (specific part of the debate at least) is totally off-point.
 
Then, in response to something I wrote regarding Elway, you wrote...
 
Quote:
EXACTLY, so does Reggie  
 
but,  
 
in light that he ISN'T!

 
Now, we're just spiraling out of control!!! Just cutting-and-pasting totally out of context...
 
You wrote...
 
Quote:
Its the BIGGER picture I have been referring to the whole time which is what you were originally referring to - right?

 
But, it was obviously determined posts before that our "bigger pictures" are different. What you are pulling is a good old "bait and switch"...
"Steg, you keep talkin' 'bigger picture', right? ... Well, let me tell you... Here it is..."
"But, wait a minute, Bill, I don't see that as the 'bigger picture'..."
"But, Steg, you are the one who wanted to talk about the 'bigger picture', and THIS is the 'bigger picture', so THIS is what you are referring to and want to be talking about. It's the 'bigger picture' I AM talking about..."
Steg thinks, "Oh,... brother," and throws his hands up in the air...
 
You wrote...
 
Quote:
what I hypothesized about him sitting out as Elway and Eli did,  
 
is where the BIGGER picture comes in play and my comparison comes to frutition and the more important "lesson" to be taught or rather, focused.

 
Now, the stuff out in left field IS the bigger picture. YIKES! ... And, all the time, the fact is that Elway and Manning HAVE given to Katrina. They're just not announcing the numbers.
 
Quote:
if your saying that lets judge this ONE particular move on it's own and without relation to any other scenario,  
 
your asking to NOT look at the BIG picture,  
 
are you not?

 
This is indicative of where you went awry, and I apologize if it was I who caused you to do so by using the term "bigger picture". Ultimately, this discussion is NOT about the "bigger picture" of Reggie Bush, "the man". It is about this ONE situation... and the "bigger picture" of (business) ethics as it relates to it. This was NEVER about judging Bush's whole character. I don't know enough about him to do that. Incidentally, that's perhaps another reason why this might have seemed to be about his overall character. We really do NOT know the guy. So, this one story could be taken to be "the story". But, that's how things (unfortunately) go with discussions about famous people (as Jeff pointed out). This was supposed to be a discussion of this particular situation. This was NOT to be an indictment of Reggie Bush's overall character, which is how you were evidently taking it. The term "bigger picture" was brought up only in relation to this particular situation. It never entered my mind that it would get construed any other way. I mean... If you want to keep deferring to bigger and bigger pictures, you end up at discussions about God, ontology, epistemology, physics, metaphysics, etc. I always take it that the "bigger picture" is still bound by (the) circumstance (at hand).
 
You wrote...
 
Quote:
Really? He said that..............or YOU did?  
 
Theres a BIG difference between YOUR PERCEPTION of what HE is thinking in contrast to what HE is REALLY thinking. FACT.

 
Again, you have privy to the "facts" of the matter; we don't, just like your "bigger picture" trumps mine and your "perception of what Reggie is thinking" trumps Jeff's...
 
You wrote...
 
Quote:
I'm glad you can sit back, in your size 40 waist pants and suit, eating your way into my cardiologist office for a roto-rooter job in 10 year's time,  
 
while the peeps of NOR are suffering like no other,  
 
and yet,  
 
you have the (like Eli, like Elway) inflated ego, the food on table, the access to computer to shoot your mouth off about what someone else is doing to help other's in need.................all for a stupid number on a shirt........get real.

 
That's just fucked... and while surely appropriate (trash-talk) down on a league board, not really up on the main three.
 
This last quote, though absolutely innocuous (especially compared to everything else), is a STRIKING example of the lax tack you take in arguing your position, which, again, is fine on a league board (I suppose), but doesn't cut it up on boards frequented by a larger audience and is going to lead to ill-will... You wrote...
 
Quote:
but i have heard it wasn't 400,000$ that he was donating, it was 25% of his jersey sales,....his #5 jersey sales

 
YOU are the one who was using the amount $400,000 THROUGHOUT your posts. I, just going with what you've been saying ALL ALONG, use it in my post, and NOW you decide to tighten it up and correct it BY CORRECTING ME!!! WTF!!! That's just indicative of your not paying particularly close attention to what's going on in the discussion and scrutinizing others' posts to a much higher degree and holding them to a much higher standard than your own.
 
...
 
If you cannot see the difference in, at least, the objective presentation of your arguments with the others who chimed in, I don't what to say. Your posts are,... well,... (a bit) tangly (for dudes not as accustomed as your league members are to your mode of communication).
 
In closing,... I took my time, almost two hours, to patiently write this. I will not be around for a while. My wife and I are heading out to run some errands. So, I won't even be home for a while to read a response. I HOPE that at least the amount of time I put into this goes into reading through it with care before responding to it without. Bill, frankly speaking, your saying that you don't like/can't handle it or whatever up here on the main boards with the greater community of "the Gridiron" and that you are just going to stay down on your league's board with its limited audience where it's cozy and you are in control is at least as much of a, if not more of a, statement about yourself than anybody else, no less everybody else up here hangin' on the main boards duking it out, but then letting things drop when points of agreement and disagreement have been firmly established.
 
Now,... let me give this post an apropos ending...
 
« Last Edit: May 19th, 2006, 3:08am by Stegfucius » Logged
sexydexy
GM
*****
# 331



I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile

Posts: 265

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #78 on: May 18th, 2006, 7:27pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

This thread went from "relevant" to "inane" pretty damn fast.
 
A new record!
 
 
Logged
Drew Rosenhaus
GM
GBRFLer
Champ - '93, '03, '07, '12
*****
# 54





   
View Profile

Posts: 417

Back to top

Back to Bush
« Reply #79 on: May 19th, 2006, 12:12am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I have been following this conversation as best as I can over the past couple of Gridiron visits - I haven't been able to catch everything so if I bring something up in this post that has already been covered - mea culpa.  
 
I think this is a pretty simple issue with the Reggie Bush number - we are dealing with a sports-specific phenomenon. That being the Mojo of a number. I capitalize Mojo because that's my dog's name, it's cool and I can. I digress. Sports has, I would argue, the greatest collection of superstitions, habits, beliefs in our society. And the number you wear on your back DOES plays a big part in that (for some people).
 
You see it all the time. A big-time player goes from one team to another and the inevitable question arises - is the big-time player going to have access to his current number? In some cases, yes. The number is unused. In some cases, however, the number is currently residing on another's back.  
 
Now, here's the really silly part. The big-time player, in order to secure the number, now must pay a "ransom" to get the number to reside on his back. A Rolex, 25 grand, a Hummer, whatever. In all cases, the price paid for the right to wear a number (A NUMBER!) would do substantial good in the community. How crazy is that? Let's see, you can help build a house for a deserving family or you can wear 44. Hmmmmm ... I'll take 44. Yet, it does happen and to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever complained about these transactions - even here on the Grid (again, if I am wrong, please see the beginning of this rant).  
 
(Before I start this paragraph please understand - I do not consider myself an athlete. I am NOT a softball "warrior" who complains after every weekend 20-18 win/loss, with beer in hand, that I should have made the "Bigs".) Even I, a very poor excuse for an athlete, have a thing for my number 8. Wore it as far back as I can remember Yaz roaming the outfield.
 
Now, back to Bush. His situation is a little different, if not kind of dumb. The NFL doesn't allow RBs to wear 5. Why? Not sure - they just don't. All Bush is doing is offering money back to the city (through the NFL) instead of a specific player. Granted, he is also trying to change this "rule" as well. He's not dumb - the NFL isn't going to suddenly change their rules simply because of his request (a rookie request, no less). So, he is offering a good-will gesture through the league to the city in hopes that it might sway the situation. If Bush was an ass, he could have just bitched about the number problem, without mentioning ANY money. Besides, from what I have read, changing the rule is not the crux of this debate. It's the "I'll give money for my number" question. And this goes back to my earlier point - if no one complains about the ransom paid from player to player, then you have to ignore this as well.
 
Further, if you look at the situation from the aspect of the Mojo of the number, Bush is actually offering a better deal than anyone else who has paid for a ransom for a number. His money would actually do some good in the community - and if the numbers KKS mentions (25% from jersey sales) is right - that is some sizeable good in the community.
 
 
MYM
« Last Edit: May 19th, 2006, 9:56am by Drew Rosenhaus » Logged

She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
I got better. Burn her anyway!
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #80 on: May 19th, 2006, 12:34am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on May 18th, 2006, 7:27pm, sexydexy wrote:
This thread went from "relevant" to "inane" pretty damn fast.

 
With my use of "Spock", I'm obviously in tune with what you are saying, sd...  I don't know if I'd go quite as far as "inane".  "Off-topic" and "spiraling out of control", though, for sure.  This is an object lesson in life and (mis)communication, though, and in that sense I think it is actually MORE important than "NFL issues", though that is the stated topic of the thread.  What's going on here is the kind of stuff that needs to be confronted if one is to live the only life worth living.  Socrates said, "The unexamined life isn't worth living."  I add to that "...lest we go through life in an 'Emersonian sleep-walk'."
Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: Back to Bush
« Reply #81 on: May 19th, 2006, 1:29am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on May 19th, 2006, 12:12am, Drew Rosenhaus wrote:
You see it all the time. A big-time player goes from one team to another and the inevitable question arises - is the big-time player going to have access to his current number? In some cases, yes. The number is unused. In some cases, however, the number is currently residing on another's back.  
 
Now, here's the really silly part. The big-time player, in order to secure the number, now must pay a "ransom" to get the number to reside on his back. A Rolex, 25 grand, a Hummer, whatever. In all cases, the price paid for the right to wear a number (A NUMBER!) would do substantial good in the community. How crazy is that? Let's see, you can help build a house for a deserving family or you can wear 44. Hmmmmm ... I'll take 44. Yet, it does happen and to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever complained about these transactions - even here on the Grid (again, if I am wrong, please see the beginning of this rant).
 
Now, back to Bush. His situation is a little different, if not kind of dumb. The NFL doesn't allow RBs to wear 5. Why? Not sure - they just don't. All Bush is doing is offering money back to the city (through the NFL) instead of a specific player. Granted, he is also trying to change this "rule" as well. He's not dumb - the NFL isn't going to suddenly change their rules simply because of his request (a rookie request, no less). So, he is offering a good-will gesture through the league to the city in hopes that it might sway the situation. If Bush was an ass, he could have just bitched about the number problem, without mentioning ANY money. Besides, from what I have read, changing the rule is not the crux of this debate. It's the "I'll give money for my number" question. And this goes back to my earlier point - if no one complains about the ransom paid from player to player, then you have to ignore this as well.

 
Those situations, Markie, are not parallel.  When a player "buys" a number from another player, he is doing just that "buying the number".  It's your run-of-the-mill cash-for-goods purchase.
 
Let's for argument's sake say that he could wear #5, but someone else had it.  What would be analogous would be if he said to that player, "I will donate money to Katrina victims (only) if you give me the number."  Now, that puts that other player on the spot in a way that's,... well,... icky... or at least unnecessary.  The fact that a philanthropy is involved is what makes it so.  It passes the moral buck onto the other guy.  What if, just what if, the philanthropy the guy was offering to donate money to was one that the guy with the number didn't like.  Now, he's just fucked.  BUT, that's taking it to an extreme.  That said, the moral acceptance of this Bush scenario does open the door to all that... and much more ickiness (which I get to below).
 
If you really want to be altruistic, JUST GO AHEAD AND DONATE THE DOUGH!!!  And, then, contrary to what you state, Markie, just bitch about the rule.  It seems like a questionable one.  In any event, why does he have to go "through the league" to make a "good-will gesture"?  This "offering a good-will gesture through the league" is something I'm going to need you to tease out for me, Markie, especially as it regards this particular scenario (I can see how John Elway explicitly went "through the league" to offer help to Katrina victims, but how Bush is is unclear to me).  I don't get it...  Why not just do it?  Why does it have to go "through anybody else"?  ...  Ah,... I know why...  Because he wants his #5 on his jersey.  This is my whole "bigger picture" point (with respect to this particular circumstance).  Attaching the donation to his jersey number minimizes the "good will" part of it.  That's precisely why it's an inadvisable ethical move.  Let charity be charity and NFL rules be NFL rules.  The twain should never meet.  When they do,... uh-oh...  When rules of a game become about responding morally to social issues, trouble is on the horizon.  Worst yet, it's packaged in a way that seems (as this thread goes to show) acceptable,... even ethical and welcomed.
 
There are on-the-field rules we all think are dumb.  Many people don't like instant replay, the soft rules for protecting quarterbacks and no-celebration rules.  What if some player or group of players claimed to be willing to donate $400,000 (each) to Katrina victims, but only if the NFL abolished instant replay until they came up with a good system, reversed all these pansy-ass "protect the quarterback" rules, and got rid of all the no-celebration rules (or (you fill in the blank)).  Those would not necessarily be bad changes, mind you.  They might even be for the good of the game.  But, NO ONE here will say that that is the right way to effect such change (or will you?).  It's a totally inappropriate way to go about it.  Now, you might say, "Don't be ridiculous!  That scenario you give is over-the-top."  But, is it really?  That is the can of worms being opened.  That would be the path we're setting out on here, and that's precisely why NO ONE will blame the NFL for not fulfilling Bush's "strong-arm request" and this will all go away rather quietly, the way it already is (except here).
Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #82 on: May 19th, 2006, 3:07am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Just a heads up,... to all you nitwits like myself,... I have appended (what I think to be) critical additional content to my mile-long post (five) above.  "Enjoy!"
Logged
KillerKingSting
Gridiron Great
*****
# 183



I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile

Posts: 2997

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #83 on: May 19th, 2006, 10:00am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on May 18th, 2006, 6:13pm, StegRock wrote:
Let me start this off with a...
 

 
 
This thread has gone from "NFL 'issues'" to just "Issues"... Of course, you like it better down on the "Insane Gang" league board. That's your league('s board).

 
Well well well,....looks like someone else can speak for me besides myself................No, actually I like it better down there because, its not so serious - not because I am the KING of the hill,....
its really that simple.
 
 
Quote:
The code of conduct up on the main boards, of course, is different.

 
Oh give me a break! Someone calls you asinine and thats appropiate conduct!!!!????
 
WTF.
 
And
 
Whatever!
 
I tell yah what, you take what you consider critique for yourself,
 
and I'll do the same for myself.
 
 
 
 
Quote:
This, "I'm through playing with rules that are made one way, not the other," just doesn't make sense,... which speaks to one area of those codes (what does that even mean?). Clarity, focus, objective and common use of language, patience (in responding), etc., are of utmost importance when dealing with a group who may not be in the loop of your lingo and may, moreover, disagree with your position. Unclear presentation of ideas leads to conflation, especially in "argumentation". Also, speaking from personal experience and circumstance is one thing... Ad hominem quips are another...

 
Practice what you preach. This should go for everyone - not just me and if your saying that everyone else is CLEAR and I am not, that they have patience and I do not, your way out in left field dudem as far as I am concerned.
 
and YES, talking from experience, I have been through 4 hurricanes, not Katrina size, but, certainly devastating and certainly suffered from them,and also have LIVED in NOR for 5 years from age 9-14,........thats experience enough for me,
 
you?
 
 
 
 
You wrote...
 
 
Quote:
The lack of clarity of the presentation of your thinking aside,

 
 your opinion but nevertheless, I disagree in fact, I thought you were the one who wasn't clear but I won't take 2 hours to write this nor try and prove it - I meant what I said, THIS isn't worth my effort nor time anylonger in fact, at the end of this post
 
you'll see EXACTLY what I mean
 
 
... Quote:
how Reggie is going about his thing and how I am are TOTALLY different. Now, how Reggie is going about his thing and how I would have if I did a telethon move are VERY SIMILAR.
 
 
 
 THAT was my point. But, you somehow
 
 
 (mis)interpretted my point as just being about people going for "personal gain". I have no problem with "personal gain". That's absurd. It's the "how" that's in question, not the "what".

 
Wrong, you SOMEHOW (mis) interpretted my point...........NOR was better off receiving those funds than if not as compared to what he was asking for in return AND when I said he was going to get it anyhow - all i meant was a jersey with a number on it - sure maybe he wasn't going to get that EXACT same number but again, you SOMEHOW (mis) interpretted my point which was .......ITS JUST A JERSEY,,,.... ITS JUST A NUMBER,,,,,,,, if I were a peep in NOR, I could care LESS!!! about either as compared to the luxurious 25% sales of his #5 frikkin shirt
 
 
 
 
Quote:
Mind you, I'm again not 100% sure what that says, BUT the insinuation is VERY insulting and VERY personal (I let it go, though). How is it that I'm "exploiting" Katrina by pushing for responses to this discussion?

 
How are you not???? Its part of the VERY SUBJECT you brought up. And I believe you made statement on if you were one of the peeps of NOR of the victims of Katrina, you wouldn't want that money,
its using the victims of Katrina to make your philosophical point IMO
 
 What do you have to gain? This is your baby - the grid - you want it ACTIVE during the inactive times - don't you? so if your telling me you could care LESS about the activity on the GRID or LACK of - I have totally misunderstood you for quite sometime now.....so YOU tell ME, what you actually gain Steg?
 
Quote:
You, then, wrote some spiel in response to what I said about "expectations", getting me wrong. To be exact, and this is MY FAULT for not being absolutely clear because I did not surmise that someone would take it in the direction you did, my point is that people should not expect anything extraordinary or even commensurate in return. The expectation of a smile in return for a good deed that was "completely gone out of the way for" is just fine (some posts to help keep the merry-go-round spinning on a beloved forum, and maybe a little scratch so that the admin's nipples don't get ripped off). An expectation of just an appropriate response (of gratitude) is surely a reasonable expectation. That wasn't what I was saying. I would have to be a dipshit if so. That's why I didn't anticipate your critique,... which inadvertently assumes that I'm a dipshit.

 
Fair enough on this part - I agree - bad example - and I will actually lead this back to another comment you made below on my part of me thinking you wanted a debate on this,........I bwas basically reaching here - just trying to give you some stuff and mind you - you certainly could have called me on it before now and most likely, I would have said the same as I am saying now
 
 
 
 
 
Quote:
I actually didn't at all just ask for a different take. I asked for whatever was the case. If it's different, then it's different. But, I didn't ask for disagreement, for disagreement's sake at least.

 
Doesn't matter, I agree with my take over yours - period hands down. Originally I was going to ignore your post but then, you came back on and seemed to almost EXPECT a response - seems funny I say this for what I asked you above - about the importance of ACTIVITY or CORRESPODENCE on YOUR GRID - if its NOT that important to you (if you GAIN nothing from this) then,
 
why even bother a SECOND time for response?
 
Surely you won't get rich doing this - THATS absurd but, you gain nevertheless, in other ways (maybe we have a difference in opinion on what actually GAIN is ......to you its money???? - I don't know - but to me its much more than that).
 
 
 
 
Quote:
YIKES!
 
You, then, took us into left field (though now I better understand that you thought you were showing us the "bigger picture") with this comment...

 
dude. to me, you took this way into left field when the importance of the topic you wanted to stress was the "shouldn't expect anything in return" stuff, and nevertheless, used Reggie's name - because he is popular - (lets face it - if it were some dick joe and harry that mattered to NO-ONE - no one would have been interested in your philosophical statement now would they have? - I doubt it seriously - but, thats just my opinion and to me, thats just your exploitation of Reggie Bush and the Katrina Victims as well - as they were also a big part of the DRAW to this all).
 
 
 
 
 
 
Presented as if "fact", but, in fact, wrong!
 
You wrote...
 
 
Quote:
That's EXACTLY what I want to do. There's A LOT there to chew on (philosophically/ethically), a "bigger (ethical) picture", so to speak, or maybe I should say/have said a "deeper (ethical) context" (to investigate and try to understand (the side of which, some of us at least think, is a bit ill)).

 
I find it ill that someone would exploit THIS situation w/ Bush and the Katrina victims to make their philosophical point.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote:
It's not against the rules for a player to sit out so as to avoid going to a team he doesn't want to. It may be a cheesy move, mind you, moreover, a risky move most players cannot afford to make, but, whatever, in fact, it's in the rules! In any event, this (specific part of the debate at least) is totally off-point.

 
 
I thought it was very relevant and still do.
 
 
 
Quote:
But, it was obviously determined posts before that our "bigger pictures" are different. What you are pulling is a good old "bait and switch"...

 
LOLOLOL, this is f'n funny man - you lend me WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much credit -no,...I wasn't pulling anything. Whatever.
 
 
 
 
You wrote...
 
 
Quote:
Now, the stuff out in left field IS the bigger picture. YIKES! ... And, all the time, the fact is that Elway and Manning HAVE given to Katrina. They're just not announcing the numbers.

 
Yah but did they give to the teams that drafted them? Nope. Reggie did just by going to the place in which he was drafted - unlike either of those 2.
 
 
Quote:
This is indicative of where you went awry, and I apologize [/quoteif it was I who caused you to do so by using the term "bigger picture"

 
First off. YOU can't cause ME to do anything. There seems to be a helluva lotta "he said - he is thinking - Reggie said, Reggie is thinking -  I caused you" crap going on here and mind you probably innocently so,
but still,
I can SPEAK and take action for myself, and take any critique for myself as well.
Now for ANY apology (just an "insert word here IMO) at this point - thats really quite hilarious.
 
 
. Quote:
Ultimately, this discussion is NOT about the "bigger picture" of Reggie Bush, "the man". It is about this ONE situation.

 
Then how are you NOT exploiting Katrina, the victims, or Bush by what you just said?????
 
Talk about not being CLEAR. Whoa!
 
.. Quote:
and the "bigger picture" of (business) ethics as it relates to it. This was NEVER about judging Bush's whole character. I don't know enough about him to do that.

 
Did you not use him, the victims of Katrina, and the disaster that happened in conjunction with "your bigger ethical" pic to do so,.......sincerely man, throw that at someone else, I ain't buying.
 
Quote:
Incidentally, that's perhaps another reason why this might have seemed to be about his overall character. We really do NOT know the guy. So, this one story could be taken to be "the story". But, that's how things (unfortunately) go with discussions about famous people (as Jeff pointed out). This was supposed to be a discussion of this particular situation. This was NOT to be an indictment of Reggie Bush's overall character, which is how you were evidently taking it.

 
Maybe a bit but, my main theme was the victims of Katrina were better off by going agianst your philosophical bigger picture.
Its that simple.
 
 
  Quote:
The term "bigger picture" was brought up only in relation to this particular situation. It never entered my mind that it would get construed any other way. I mean... If you want to keep deferring to bigger and bigger pictures, you end up at discussions about God, ontology, epistemology, physics, metaphysics, etc. I always take it that the "bigger picture" is still bound by (the) circumstance (at hand).

 
Simple. I dealt with the HUMANITY REALITY of the situation.
 
You dealt with the IDEALISTIC portion of it.
 
 
Quote:
Again, you have privy to the "facts" of the matter; we don't, just like your "bigger picture" trumps mine and your "perception of what Reggie is thinking" trumps Jeff's...

 
 
Yup. Hands down, I agree with myself even more now that you mention it as well.
 
 
 
Quote:
That's just fucked... and while surely appropriate (trash-talk) down on a league board, not really up on the main three.

 
I'll fix this Steg. Watch fown beloooooooooooow
 
 
 
Quote:
YOU are the one who was using the amount $400,000 THROUGHOUT your posts.

 
Sorry, I thought you brought that up - my bad! sincerely!
 
  Quote:
I, just going with what you've been saying ALL ALONG, use it in my post, and NOW you decide to tighten it up and correct it BY CORRECTING ME!!! WTF!!!

 
Hey, I didn't MEAN it in that way, again, my bad I apologize for that miscue.
 
  Quote:
That's just indicative of your not paying particularly close attention to what's going on in the discussion and scrutinizing others' posts to a much higher degree and holding them to a much higher standard than your own.

 
Oh thats BS. I am not perfect and neither is anyone else BUT, I have never certainly portrayed myself as perfection.
I have the right, just as anyone does to call them on what they say - as they do (you are doing - hoorah!) at me right now. Big Deal! I'm fine with it.
 
...
 
Quote:
If you cannot see the difference in, at least, the objective presentation of your arguments with the others who chimed in, I don't what to say. Your posts are,... well,... (a bit) tangly (for dudes not as accustomed as your league members are to your mode of communication).

 
Understood. My finale at the bottom. And if you can't understand it, I don't know what to say.
 
 
In closing,... I took my time, almost two hours, to patiently write this. I will not be around for a while. My wife and I are heading out to run some errands. So, I won't even be home for a while to read a response. I HOPE that at least the amount of time I put into this goes into reading through it with care before responding to it without.
Quote:

 
Maybe a half an hour.
 
  [quote]Bill, frankly speaking, your saying that you don't like/can't handle it or whatever up here on the main boards

 
 
Thanks AGAIN for speaking for me, sheesh!
 
 
 
  Quote:
with the greater community of "the Gridiron" and that you are just going to stay down on your league's board with its limited audience where it's cozy and you are in control is at least as much of a, if not more of a, statement about yourself than anybody else, no less everybody else up here hangin' on the main boards duking it out, but then letting things drop when points of agreement and disagreement have been firmly established.

 
Steve, THIS isn't worth my time anylonger. I am going to contemplate my league's whereabouts (yes, I may move).
Simply put, I am not enjoying myself on the Grid and haven't been for some time now.
Though, I sincerely tried - its just not happening for me.
Logged

*BEE BYE BOE BUM!!; I SMELL THE STENCH OF SOME INSANE PLAYER SCUM.
*2004 CHUMP-ION of Insane World!!!!!
*Domination of the DUKE BEEgins right here!
steelkings
Guest

Email

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #84 on: May 19th, 2006, 11:54am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify Remove Remove

                                 
Logged
steelkings
Guest

Email

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #85 on: May 19th, 2006, 12:06pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify Remove Remove


 
Quote:
Simply put, I am not enjoying myself on the Grid and haven't been for some time now.  
Though, I sincerely tried - its just not happening for me.  

 
KKS,
Its always tough this time of year! When you are buzzin around at Gridiron during the winter football months I'm sure its a little more comfortable. Right now while its hot I'm sure you BEE suffering. That suit I'm sure doesn't breath well. I posted a look for everyone so they would also understand. Purhaps Steg will crank down the A/C for you.
 
Bee cool !
SK
 
 
 
Logged
Philly
UFF Primetime Prophet
*****
# 29



Pay, I said pay attention, son.

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 5675

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #86 on: May 19th, 2006, 1:00pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on May 16th, 2006, 4:38pm, Philly wrote:

 
We'll hold him in even higher regard, but to insinuate that he is equally guilty for not offering $400k of his salary is asinine.

 
Bill... I wasn't calling you asinine.  I was calling any insinuation regarding Mario Williams in comparison to Reggie Bush asinine.  Even if that had been directed specifically towards you as a person, saying that you were "being ridiculous" is fairly mild as far as personal attacks go.  (And I think if I had used the word ridiculous -- a synonym for asinine -- instead of asinine, then it wouldn't have been an issue at all.  But, as I said, it was directed to a statement of yours, not you as a person.  
 
If you recall our endless Michael Vick debate, we repeatedly went back and forth and thoroughly trashed each others opinions and statements and were able to do so without making personal attacks.  If I recall, we both had fun with that argument.  
 
If you felt that I was going after you personally with the "asinine" remark, then I apologize.  That clearly is not what was intended.
Logged
KillerKingSting
Gridiron Great
*****
# 183



I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile

Posts: 2997

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #87 on: May 19th, 2006, 3:46pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Philly, heres the REAL funny part. And I am sincere when I relate this. But I haven't gone through years and years of schooling as you have Steg and - perhaps - others that are on this site - have gone through.
 
Therefore, when the word "asinine" came about - I had to look it up. Sure I have heard the word and prpobably could use it comfortably in a sentence - though creativetely so w/out being able to be EXACT in what I say (heh, thats why I have really never used it) but,
 
heres the damage I received when I took my 50 yr old websters to find out what exactly it meant (ironic since, I own a computer and probably could have looked it up via that route instead),
 
asinine = marked by an INEXUSABLE FAILURE TO EXERCISE INTELLIGENCE or sound judgement................so, if sound judgement is synomonous with intelligence and intelligence ISN'T a dig on someone's mental capabilities,
 
I'm totally ignorant here.
 
You bring up a great point about the word ridiculous however, and once again, MAYBE innocently so,
you have spoken for ME (saying I would not have reacted the same way),
 
If the word ridiculous is so synomonous with the word asinine,
 
then why isn't it used more frequently in that context? I would probably guess that perhaps, the majority public view of that synergistic relationship between ridiculous and asinine,
 
isn't widely accepted as you may be trying to persuade and if I am wrong here then,
 
why not use the word ridiculous instead.............really, it seems to have (as you seemed to mentioned yourself) a "lighter" punch to one's INTEELIGENCE in general.
 
To tell me that I am NOT supposed to take that as a personal attack on my intelligence,
 
doesn't make sense. Nevertheless, although I did, still, I tried to make light of it - the "Philly cheese steak digesting bowel" thing - at leat to me - was creative and proposturous at the same time.  
 
In reality of it all - you called me on my intelligence and I called you on a sureal hypothetical expereince (for all i know bro, you could be a vegetarian which would have totally blown up in my face - and to ass insult to injury - you also could have a 28 waist and be quite fit! - brother - i haven't the slightest clue! I was just having FUN with it rather than - INSULTING your INTELLIGENCE),
 
It doesn't make me feel good to hurt other's feelings - in fact, my whole life speaks that way (I am a NURSE - I phyiscally, mentally, spiritually and emoitionally HELP people all the time - not only is it my occupation but, in this business - it has to be your passion as well and it is mine! - I truly love people! thats all),
 
Yes, that asinine statement was directly directed at ME. Of course it was - - I was the only one to even mention it as far as I know?
 
But more importantly here - I didn't mean to hurt your feelings - or anyone else's -  above all - thats most important to me besides the what I consider the REALISM of this whole debate - the monetary gain for the peeps of NOR.
 
IIn summary, you took your chance at downplaying your insult to me and now, I have done the same to you. I accept yours because, I don't think your an intenionally "mean" person and there are plenty of times you've proven that here on the grid by helping others out.
 
Accept mine or not - you certaintly have that right. But still, I am not going to accept the fact that your direct insult to me was any less "personally insulting" than what you and - perhaps others - think mine was to you.
 
So yes, maybe Steg, I do speak another lingo and am just not cut out for (what I consider and have experienced) "your"  "one way" rules "up" here on the 3 threads.
 
 
 
Logged

*BEE BYE BOE BUM!!; I SMELL THE STENCH OF SOME INSANE PLAYER SCUM.
*2004 CHUMP-ION of Insane World!!!!!
*Domination of the DUKE BEEgins right here!
KillerKingSting
Gridiron Great
*****
# 183



I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile

Posts: 2997

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #88 on: May 19th, 2006, 3:54pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on May 19th, 2006, 12:06pm, steelkings wrote:

 
 
KKS,
Its always tough this time of year! When you are buzzin around at Gridiron during the winter football months I'm sure its a little more comfortable. Right now while its hot I'm sure you BEE suffering. That suit I'm sure doesn't breath well. I posted a look for everyone so they would also understand. Purhaps Steg will crank down the A/C for you.
 
Bee cool !
SK
 
 
 

 
 
Thanks Steel. But fact is fact. When looking back on things, and in relation to relating to others on here - I just haven't bveen able to relate to what I consider to be a "tight-knit" thread of peeps - I try! in fact, I certainly have WAY better things to do with my time than to spend it "up" here and trying to "add" to the concenscous thought - but usually I am totally mis-thought of,.............I really don't take it as all that important but, sometimes theres a better fit in life than what we are already in -thats all, I am saying man, thanks again, your time and thoughts are greatly appreciated!
Logged

*BEE BYE BOE BUM!!; I SMELL THE STENCH OF SOME INSANE PLAYER SCUM.
*2004 CHUMP-ION of Insane World!!!!!
*Domination of the DUKE BEEgins right here!
sexydexy
GM
*****
# 331



I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile

Posts: 265

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #89 on: May 19th, 2006, 6:46pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Yo Bill,
 
More often than not, I find myself not really fitting in here either because a) I think philosophy is bullshit (sorry if that offends, but that's the truth, to me) and b) when it comes to simple arguments, I like to keep it simple and not overanalyze.  
 
The one thing this site is heavy on is psychoanalysis.  That's for sure.  But, at the same time, I wouldn't say that it isn't amusing sometimes.  It is kinda funny when you think about it how far we spiral from football here and delve into things that aren't even within the realm of football or fantasy football.  
 
I think once the season starts up, things will be back to normal.  But, since the league might be moving elsewhere, I'll probably move with it.  That said, let's just play nice.
 
Maybe we could all (myself included) benefit from a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up!
 
 
Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #90 on: May 19th, 2006, 8:34pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on May 19th, 2006, 6:46pm, sexydexy wrote:
More often than not, I find myself not really fitting in here either because a) I think philosophy is bullshit (sorry if that offends, but that's the truth, to me)

 
No offense taken, brother,... but I hope that doesn't mean I can't ask you... What is it that you think that philosophy is since you deem it bullshit? Mind you, please make sure it's clear in your mind that my asking you this question does NOT at all mean that I've taken offense. It's just a question... I'm curious to know what this thing that you are convinced is bullshit is...
 
Quote:
The one thing this site is heavy on is psychoanalysis.

 
I don't think psychoanalysis is what goes on here as much as psycho-analysis... I jest not... I mean deep analysis and reflection on things (to an insane level), not necessarily just psychology, that get at the pith of matters.  Mind you, also,... you do know that Bill is a BIG part of that, right?  Just want to be clear on that.
« Last Edit: May 19th, 2006, 9:05pm by Stegfucius » Logged
MordecaiCourage
Guest

Email

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #91 on: May 19th, 2006, 10:34pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify Remove Remove

on May 19th, 2006, 6:46pm, sexydexy wrote:
Yo Bill,
 
 It is kinda funny when you think about it how far we spiral from football here and delve into things that aren't even within the realm of football or fantasy football.
 
 

 
I am going to throw a bone in here from out of left field ...... I personally love the spiral from the realm of fantasy football!! I enjoy all the contributions you gridironers post. I think the manner in which we all write, and the individual creativity of each writers posts give a very telling description of who each of you are.....and since I will likely never meet any of you personally, I can at least feel like I know the "type" of person you all are when I read "your" own words. In my opinion, this is a great forum because of the departure from the "norm". We should enjoy the uniqueness of each individual who posts here. I enjoy the phylosophical side of Steg as well as the BEE talk of KKS. These differences are what makes this site enjoyable and interesting to me.
 
 
Not that anyone asked or anything
Logged
Philly
UFF Primetime Prophet
*****
# 29



Pay, I said pay attention, son.

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 5675

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #92 on: May 19th, 2006, 11:58pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Honestly, I could do without all the philosophy here too... it's not my thing.  But I just choose not to participate in those discussions -- primarily because they are so far over my head and I have read so little of the pertinent philosophical texts and authors that I'd be embarrassing myself anyway.
Logged
Philly
UFF Primetime Prophet
*****
# 29



Pay, I said pay attention, son.

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 5675

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #93 on: May 20th, 2006, 12:12am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on May 19th, 2006, 3:46pm, KillerKingSting wrote:
You bring up a great point about the word ridiculous however, and once again, MAYBE innocently so,
you have spoken for ME (saying I would not have reacted the same way),
 
If the word ridiculous is so synomonous with the word asinine,
 
then why isn't it used more frequently in that context? I would probably guess that perhaps, the majority public view of that synergistic relationship between ridiculous and asinine,
 
isn't widely accepted as you may be trying to persuade and if I am wrong here then,
 
why not use the word ridiculous instead.............really, it seems to have (as you seemed to mentioned yourself) a "lighter" punch to one's INTEELIGENCE in general.

I've never seen that definition of asinine -- although I have to admit that I probably haven't looked up the word.  I always took it to mean roughly the same as ridiculous or silly or ludicrous.  And why didn't I use any of those words instead?  I guess it's just a quirk of mine.  I like to show off my vocabulary when I can.  It's also the same reason why you'll never see me use any profanity. I like to think that I can use more creative words than the canned obscenities that many people fall back on all the time.  But, like you said, I'm not here to insult people or hurt them.  I've tried to help people here plenty of times, including you when you had questions regarding different fantasy articles you were thinking of writing.
 
 
Quote:
In reality of it all - you called me on my intelligence and I called you on a sureal hypothetical expereince (for all i know bro, you could be a vegetarian which would have totally blown up in my face - and to ass insult to injury - you also could have a 28 waist and be quite fit! - brother - i haven't the slightest clue! I was just having FUN with it rather than - INSULTING your INTELLIGENCE),
Again... I never intended to insult your intelligence.  And I guess your "surreal hypothetical experience" hit a bit too close to home with me because I do have a weight problem -- I weigh about 250 at only 6'1" -- and do have that 40 inch waist you mentioned... and I do love a good Philly cheesesteak.  While I'm sure you didn't know any of that before you started typing, I thought, in the back of my mind, that you might have some idea since Steg thinks its funny to mock me with the sumo wrestler smiley.
Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #94 on: May 20th, 2006, 5:41am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on May 19th, 2006, 10:00am, KillerKingSting wrote:
Well well well,....looks like someone else can speak for me besides myself.
 
...
 
Thanks AGAIN for speaking for me, sheesh!

 
But, it's okay for you to do so...
Quote:
Who knows - if i ponder - and I can ponder with the best of em - I could ponder that, perhaps, you have an alternate goal in mind -
 
one that IF, we (you and me and whoever else entered in this discussion) would/could somehow CONVINCE most on here that this were indeed just a good deed without a cheesy after-taste,  
 
just maybe - you could USE this same example to gain for the GRID on down the road - CALL on the peeps who argued FOR the BUSH situation rather than against,  
 
call on them using THEIR OWN rationales against them within this discussion,  
 
and of course,  
if they aren't consistent in thought,  
 
..............................................well then
 
...
 
Once again, I believe your taking this more personally targetted than the BIGGER picture in whichj you kep referring to
 
...
 
once again, the "personal" aura you continue to conect this with,..............is not where I have been going.

 
Mind you, I don't even really know what that last one means. All I was saying was that neither of us know him personally, so why is it that YOU seem so married to defending him, "the person", so tooth-and-nail? I want, as I've stated numerous times now, just to discuss this specific situation. I mean... It was your (mis)interpretation of what was "in my head" regarding/what "I meant" by "bigger picture", interpretting it as "whole picture", that is at the core of much of this acrimony.
 
Your posts are laced with these kinds of double-standards... Just an observation (of something you do that you're not even aware of; discussed more below)...
 
Quote:
again, your use of yourself to bring this home is fine when you wish to use it but,  
 
if I wish to do so,  
 
then?????????????????????

 
You don't get my telethon comparison. I don't get your Elway-Eli-Williams comparison. I'm arguing it out, though. I've made very cogent arguments both for my comparison and against yours. You're just stating and re-stating it. But, there is no argument there. You are just screaming at me. Bottom line, you haven't said anything that makes me take pause, mainly just because you aren't really developing your arguments. By and large, you are just repeating the same things over and over. Here is an argument you did sort of develop (in all of 43 words after "let's face it"):
Quote:
apples and oranges is you comparing your stuff (bringing it home) to HIS stuff,  
 
lets face it,  
 
the NFL is a different animal,  
 
I mean,  
 
guys get paid my salary in ONE day,  
 
so,  
 
if we are to COMPARE BUSH to others,  
 
to be fair,  
 
we should compare him to his peers,  
 
ELI and ELWAY and MARIO are fair comparisons.

 
Frankly, this illustrates nothing. Sure, Reggie Bush, John Elway, Eli Manning and Mario Williams are all NFL players. That doesn't mean that if any of them beat their wives it isn't comparable to my beating mine just because they are NFL players and I am not. The bottom line, my "telethon" circumstance is absolutely isomorphic to Bush's "jersey number" situation. The only difference is in degree. I'm not dealing in six-digit figures. He is. So what! If John beats his wife with a bat, but I don't, it doesn't NOT make us both wife beaters and comparable. Of course, we both are and our wife-beating can be compared. However, I think comparing Bush's willingness to donate to Katrina victims contingent on his getting the jersey number he wants to Elway's or Manning's threatening to sit out so as to avoid playing for particular teams or Williams's being drafted by Houston and not offering to donate money (yet and in public) is unfounded and erroneous (and, yes, by saying this, Bill, I'm saying that "you" are "in error" regarding this... I hope you can handle that). Mind you, I haven't heard... does Williams have a jersey-number issue, too? ... Oh, you're just condemning him for not doing what Bush is NOT doing, either, namely making a donation with no strings attached. If you don't see your comparison as a stretch while definitively seeing mine as one, this discussion is hopelessly deadlocked. (LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR, THOUGH... IN YOUR SENSE OF THE "bigger picture", THE JUDGMENT OF OVERALL CHARACTER, I DO UNDERSTAND HOW WHAT ELWAY AND ELI DID MATTERS!!! IT DEFINITELY WOULD MATTER!!! YOU'D HAVE TO FACTOR THAT STUFF IN. IT WOULD BE NEGLIGENT NOT TO!!!) Oh, well... In any event, I covered all of this in a much more pithy manner when I wrote...
on May 15th, 2006, 6:15am, StegRock wrote:
I don't disagree with you with regards to degree. I said this earlier (in my post at 12:56 p.m.). BUT, the "ick" here is the same exact (kind of) "ick" as my telethon scenario. Actually,... though,... I'm coming to learn that maybe it's not "ick" and that it may be a move I shouldn't absolutely rule out... if I can find in myself the stomach for it...
 
This I still don't get. Just like the rest of us, these guys have to make "career" and "life" decisions... Their situations had nothing to do with philanthropy... They were, strictly speaking, decisions about their careers and where they wanted to live their lives.

 
We were actually close to putting this behind us at that point. We were understanding each other and, for the most part, backing off and at least agreeing to disagree. But, things continued and you evidently forgot this "point" of the discussion we had reached. In any event, though, on the other hand, I haven't caused you to pause, either, so fuck it. We disagree. I can handle that.
 
on May 15th, 2006, 8:08am, KillerKingSting wrote:
Lets be realistic here,
 
We are PART of the MEDIA - albeit a very small part, minor even, and one could even argue, unsubstantial when it comes to broadcasting the "decision-making process' of players etc etc,
 
STILL,
 
BEEcause you decided to FOCUS your attention on the "CHEESE" portion of what Reggie(s) agent is suggesting,
 
it lends a "negative" view, -  
 
in that sense, i believe WE (the unsubstantial media) have a responsibility to ALSO point out the POSITIVE view
 
which is EXACTLY what I was doing.
 
AND talking about the POSITIVE aspect on a player that ALSO made a career decision to actually BEE drafted by NOR and actually PLAY there as well................IS WORTH talking about,
 
whether it's reality or not,
 
the fact that, you could have emphasized instead,
 
what I hypothesized about him sitting out as Elway and Eli did,
 
is where the BIGGER picture comes in play and my comparison comes to frutition and the more important "lesson" to be taught or rather, focused.
 
Its the WHOLE picture here I thought, and,
 
if your saying that lets judge this ONE particular move on it's own and without relation to any other scenario,
 
your asking to NOT look at the BIG picture,
 
are you not?
 
And instead, as I posted above, if not asking for the big picture then, your asking to give insight on something too small and insignificant to even bother with.......................
 
the little picture,
 
that being,
 
what he (his agent) asks for in return for donation.

 
This is so all-over-the-place it's hard to even start dissecting it. In fact, at this point on the thread, I had given up and was going to let it drop. If you look back, you'll see how things went. I never responded specifically to this post of yours. I went and posted a "fact-based" news report regarding the jersey-number situation with no commentary. Jeff kind of stirred things back up with his response (and, I suppose, the "history" you two have). Anyway, in response to this quote of yours above, why would I emphasize anything but the news item itself? This is an "NFL 'issues'" thread, not a "Reggie Bush Promo" thread, which, mind you, if you want, you are welcome to start right here on "the Sidelines". There you can have a virtual "Reggie Bush Love Festival" and, you know what, I'll probably agree with just about everything you say aside from things related to this specific move of his. Again, this is all steeped in the (mis)interpretation of what I meant by "bigger picture", i.e., again, I did NOT mean "whole picture". This is not about portraying him in a positive or negative light. It's about thinking through this particular "questionable" move of his, which I could, based on my own "telethon" circumstance right here, really relate to, which I, then, related to this situation and, then, finally related to you guys. Reggie Bush and EVERYTHING he's (ever) done is not what was at issue here. All that was was this one specific situation. I mean if we are going to talk about/if the topic is going to be about my wife-beating, the fact that I gave money to Katrina victims is moot. It may not be moot to the "whole picture" of Steve Stegeman, the man, who may do lots of good things, but it and all those other good things are NOT relevant to my wife-beating and the "bigger picture" as regards my wife-beating, namely the consequences and the bruises on my wife's body. Maybe, in the "sentencing" phase, those other good deeds would come back into play, BUT we are not even convicting anybody here. We are just talking about this one particularly icky circumstance, which Reggie Bush happens to be in the middle of. It could have been anybody, though. If need be, cross out the name Reggie Bush and replace it with the variable "x" and think of it and let's discuss it that way. The point is that I want to get at the essence of "that move", not Reggie Bush (I wouldn't even be as pretentious as to think judging his overall character is something appropriate for me to do... whether the findings would be positive or negative).
 
 
(continued in next post...)
« Last Edit: May 20th, 2006, 11:09pm by Stegfucius » Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #95 on: May 20th, 2006, 5:43am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

(...continuation from immediately prior post...)
 
 
on May 16th, 2006, 5:28pm, KillerKingSting wrote:
And neither does Reggie Bush. In fact, if he did nothing at all - just wore whatever shirt was given to him and NO contributions,.............we wouldn't even be talking about this now would we????............but is that scenario actually BETTER for the people of NOR??

 
How about just wearing whatever shirt is given him AND still making a donation??? Wouldn't that be a better scenario for the people of New Orleans than making the donation contingent on an NFL ruling??? Wouldn't that more expeditiously take care of the "MORE IMPORTANT HUMAN-PHYSICAL TRUTH" of the matter???
 
on May 16th, 2006, 10:37pm, KillerKingSting wrote:
Wouldn't you agree that by taking the side that you did,; by brining it to the media; advertising the "negative-philosophical" portion of the deed,
 
you somehow - be it as it may - personally have taken responsibility for just that?

 
This is just twisted rhetoric. Now, the suffering of the people in New Orleans comes down to where you come down on this situation. What if I say that I will donate $1,000 to Katrina victims only if you stay here on "the Gridiron" and keep your league board here? If you decide to leave, however, based on circumstances you deem untenable, does that make YOU responsible for MY not donating? And, now that you are bound to stay, does that mean I can just treat you like shit... because if you leave I'll cancel the check to the Katrina victims and you'll be blamed? Don't you see the mess such a move makes???
 
Quote:
No, actually I like it better down there because, its not so serious

 
Really...??? Huh...??? Interesting... Nothing tendentious there, right??? Huh...???
 
Quote:
Oh give me a break! Someone calls you asinine and thats appropiate conduct!!!!????
 
WTF.
 
And
 
Whatever!

on May 16th, 2006, 4:38pm, Philly wrote:
I also disagree with the notion that Mario Williams is wrong for not offering money to help the dislocated Katrina victims in Houston. He has absolutely no obligation to do so. And not doing so shouldn't taint the way people look at him. If he decides to give some of his salary to charity, more power to him. We'll hold him in even higher regard, but to insinuate that he is equally guilty for not offering $400k of his salary is asinine. What he decides to do with his money is up to him and him alone. No one has any right to suggest what he should do with it.

 
This is the use of "asinine", whatever it means, that's got your panties all in a bunch... Oh, brother... When in a disagreement, "unpleasantries" with respect to assertions, opinions, insinuations, intimations, perceptions, etc., are going to be expressed. Those are the bases of the disagreement, after all. Jeff actually took great care in wording that in a way that would not be offensive. On the other hand, you are quite direct with your quips about Jeff and me. You have been very direct in calling me an exploiter. You have stated it a number of times in your posts, and you are not at all delicate about it, surely not the way Jeff exhibits there. To take offense to Jeff's use of "asinine" there is just a function of hyper-sensitivity on your part as far as I can tell. In any event, mind you, I haven't called you anything, not even indirectly really, and you've teed off on me pretty well here. You started in quite early when you wrote...
on May 14th, 2006, 8:16pm, KillerKingSting wrote:
In fact, I could argue that even YOU are doing the same - exploiting this "issue" (which has to do with the tragedies of Katrina)

 
You even emphasize "YOU".
 
In any event, Jeff's apology reads very sincere. You even, in a response laced with piety, mind you, twist that decent gesture of his, tear it apart and turn it back around against him, minimizing his apology and, therefore, in effect not really "accepting" his apology. You point out that what he mainly has done is (not apologize but) downplay his insulting you (which I totally don't agree with; I think his post was totally stand-up), which you admit you too have done. But, then, follow that with...
on May 19th, 2006, 3:46pm, KillerKingSting wrote:
Accept mine or not - you certaintly have that right. But still, I am not going to accept the fact that your direct insult to me was any less "personally insulting" than what you and - perhaps others - think mine was to you.

 
What a slap in the face. You didn't even offer him an apology. As a matter of fact, after tearing his apology to pieces, you go on to talk about how your insults are "light", "creative" and "preposterous"...
on May 19th, 2006, 3:46pm, KillerKingSting wrote:
I tried to make light of it - the "Philly cheese steak digesting bowel" thing - at leat to me - was creative and proposturous at the same time.

 
How droll... "Mental aspects", "physical aspects", you make insults about the former sound worse than the latter when the fact of the matter is that it depends on the person. If someone is insecure about his "physical aspects", but secure about his "mental aspects", then insults about "physical aspects" are going to sting more than insults about "mental aspects", and vice-versa. Moreover, it's not the "what"; it's the "how" that matters. If I say to you, "That was stupid of you to justify his actions," (by the way, my Oxford Dictionary's definition of "asinine": 1) stupid; 2) of or concerning asses; like an ass) versus "You fat, fucking loser, sitting there eating while people are starving," I think most reasonable people would assess that the latter is WAY MORE offensive than the former. Again, that's not what you said. The point is that your distinction is erroneous (you are in error... uh-oh).
 
Regarding the piety, you wrote...
on May 19th, 2006, 3:46pm, KillerKingSting wrote:
It doesn't make me feel good to hurt other's feelings - in fact, my whole life speaks that way (I am a NURSE - I phyiscally, mentally, spiritually and emoitionally HELP people all the time - not only is it my occupation but, in this business - it has to be your passion as well and it is mine! - I truly love people! thats all).

 
Now, we're deferring to occupation to "prove" humanity... Show it. Don't tell us about it. You notice none of the rest of us are going there here. Jeff is a family man... So what... I gave up years of my life supporting my mom... So what... Are you saying all nurses are good humans??? I'm sure not... You are saying that you are a good nurse and, therefore, given the nature of the business, a good person. You are surely not saying that being a good nurse makes you a better person than the rest of us, though, right??? So, what's the point? You went in this direction in response to your saying, "It doesn't make me feel good to hurt other's feelings." Well, throwing someone's apology back in his face potentially hurts feelings. Making jokes amidst a heated discussion about someone's physical attributes potentially hurts feelings. Calling someone an exploiter, who gives so much (as a site admin to you specifically), potentially hurts feelings. Don't tell us how being a nurse makes you more disposed towards being a good person than the rest of us non-nurses. Give me substance, not rhetoric. (I could add something "light", "creative" and NOT "preposterous" here that would cut like a knife, but I will refrain.)
 
I digress... I got a load out of your pointed horn-tooting here...
on May 14th, 2006, 8:16pm, KillerKingSting wrote:
Who knows - if i ponder - and I can ponder with the best of em - I could ponder that, perhaps, you have an alternate goal in mind -

 
Given that you're dealing with a "philosophy 'scholar'",... there's a lot going on there... worthy of psychoanalysis (of sk's sort) in all kinds of ways...
 
Anyway,...
 
Mind you, I'm just following your lead here, Bill. The fact of the matter is that this was a heated debate, and you have to have thick skin when it comes to attacks on your position,... opinions, assertions, etc. Again, those are what the disagreements lie in. So, they are going to be attacked and, in the process, in some sense you are getting attacked. The hope is that while harsh, it remains objective,... but that is a tight rope to walk. To refer to an "insinuation" relevant to a debate as "asinine" is reasonable. But to go out of your way to be "creative" and say, "I'm glad you can sit back, in your size 40 waist pants and suit, eating your way into my cardiologist office for a roto-rooter job in 10 year's time while the peeps of NOR are suffering like no other," and "you have the inflated ego, the food on table, the access to computer to shoot your mouth off about what someone else is doing to help other's in need," (I'll cut you slack on the Philly cheesesteak comment as I can honestly see how wit played into that one), none of which has anything to do with squat as far as the substance of the debate goes (and, if it does in your mind, that's just fucked) is downright nasty. Those comments are WAY nastier than Jeff's use of the word "asinine"... Mind you, though, the punch-line,... you called him asinine right back...
on May 16th, 2006, 5:28pm, KillerKingSting wrote:
Wrong. Its no where near the comparison you just brought to the table. To suggest so is..............................................asinine

 
So, what are you cryin' about? ... Oh, but he said it first, right? Gimme a fuckin' break! At any rate, the point in a heated debate like this isn't to whine about (your idea) being called asinine or whatever. The goal is to show that it isn't. From what I can tell, at every crucial step here you've failed to do that. You do not address others' points, moreover, where they counter yours, with any specificity and care. It just seems like you think that if you just incessantly browbeat me with your core opinions on the matter and sprinkle in a few diversions and rather careless responses, you're going to beat them into me. Just because your feelings were hurt by your "insinuation's" being called "asinine" doesn't mean it isn't. On the other hand, there is no reason to have your feelings hurt. It's not you that is asinine. It's that particular assertion. Smart people can say and do dumb things. That doesn't make them dumb.
 
Moving right along...
Quote:
talking from experience, I have been through 4 hurricanes, not Katrina size, but, certainly devastating and certainly suffered from them,and also have LIVED in NOR for 5 years from age 9-14,........thats experience enough for me,
 
you?

 
What? So,... like fifth-grade show-and-tell I've got to lay out all the tragedies I've endured in my life. What, are we gonna have a piss-me-a-river crying contest or a cry-me-a-river pissing contest? Come on! We all know hard times... How does this serve the debate other than to put yourself in some sort of higher pious position that neither Jeff nor I (in all likelihood) can relate to (that's what your money's on)? The point is to relate personal experiences that give us insight into the (particular) issue at hand (which, granted, we now know was a bit of a mess with our miscommunication about "bigger picture" and "whole picture"). The point is NOT for someone to mention personal experiences that put him on an apparent moral higher ground than the others involved in the discussion.
 
Regarding the discussion,... are we to take it that this puts you in a better position to evaluate Reggie Bush's tack here? I think quite the contrary. I think it skews your take on this issue, and this thread is evidence of your sensitivity. What this tells me more than anything is that this is personal for you. The whole time I was thinking, "Man,... Bill's got it hard for Bush. He must have the first pick of his 'Insane Gang' draft." Now, I'm seeing YOUR "bigger picture". The thing, though, is, aside from the already established fact that we did not mean the same thing by "bigger picture", your "bigger picture" here is not, as you want to claim, the objective "bigger picture", in any case. It's very much YOUR picture. Now, I get that. My choice of the term "bigger picture" wasn't a good one evidently. I should have probably gone with "deeper context" or "deeper considerations". Again, though, it seems like your personal bias here isn't going to allow any room for the deeper considerations I find important.
 
Quote:
your opinion but nevertheless, I disagree in fact, I thought you were the one who wasn't clear but I won't take 2 hours to write this nor try and prove it

 
We disagree. Right! Let's stop the back-and-forth on those areas where we just disagree. ... Now, you lost me for a bit after the "but"... You say that you're whipping this stuff out in less than two hours... Well, there you have it... I guess you take that as a good thing. Meanwhile, that's not even enough time to reflect on, no less write something responding to, what I'm writing...
 
Quote:
I meant what I said, THIS isn't worth my effort nor time anylonger in fact, at the end of this post
 
you'll see EXACTLY what I mean
 
...
 
I'll fix this Steg. Watch fown beloooooooooooow
 
...
 
My finale at the bottom. And if you can't understand it, I don't know what to say.

 
Uh-oh! Self-important alert!!! He's going to suggest/threaten that he is leaving the site and taking his "Insane Gang" league with him like the "hot-head" DBFFL and SBFFL did back in the day, the QFL as well. Mind you, neither of the first two leagues are even in existence anymore, and the QFL no longer has their own web site, which was something they would have needed to maintain to remain in the FFLA (Fantasy Football League Alliance).
 
Quote:
Wrong, you SOMEHOW (mis) interpretted my point...........NOR was better off receiving those funds than if not as compared to what he was asking for in return AND when I said he was going to get it anyhow - all i meant was a jersey with a number on it - sure maybe he wasn't going to get that EXACT same number but again, you SOMEHOW (mis) interpretted my point which was .......ITS JUST A JERSEY,,,.... ITS JUST A NUMBER,,,,,,,, if I were a peep in NOR, I could care LESS!!! about either as compared to the luxurious 25% sales of his #5 frikkin shirt

 
What's the point again? I'm not following... Are you saying you've heard he's now agreed to give 25% of his jersey sales to Katrina victims regardless of what number's on it??? If that's not it, I don't understand...
 
 
(continued in next post...)
« Last Edit: May 20th, 2006, 11:17pm by Stegfucius » Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #96 on: May 20th, 2006, 5:44am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

(...continuation from immediately prior post...)
 
 
on May 14th, 2006, 8:16pm, KillerKingSting wrote:

Its a situation that is already exploited.

Quote:
How are you not???? Its part of the VERY SUBJECT you brought up. And I believe you made statement on if you were one of the peeps of NOR of the victims of Katrina, you wouldn't want that money,
its using the victims of Katrina to make your philosophical point IMO
 
What do you have to gain? This is your baby - the grid - you want it ACTIVE during the inactive times - don't you? so if your telling me you could care LESS about the activity on the GRID or LACK of - I have totally misunderstood you for quite sometime now.....so YOU tell ME, what you actually gain Steg?
 
...
 
I find it ill that someone would exploit THIS situation w/ Bush and the Katrina victims to make their philosophical point.
 
...
 
Then how are you NOT exploiting Katrina, the victims, or Bush by what you just said?????
 
...
 
 
Did you not use him, the victims of Katrina, and the disaster that happened in conjunction with "your bigger ethical" pic to do so,.......sincerely man, throw that at someone else, I ain't buying.
 
...
 
if its NOT that important to you (if you GAIN nothing from this) then,
 
why even bother a SECOND time for response?
 
Surely you won't get rich doing this - THATS absurd but, you gain nevertheless, in other ways (maybe we have a difference in opinion on what actually GAIN is ......to you its money???? - I don't know - but to me its much more than that).
 
...
 
but, thats just my opinion and to me, thats just your exploitation of Reggie Bush and the Katrina Victims as well - as they were also a big part of the DRAW to this all

 
Wow! This, your incessant, mean-spirited reference to my "exploitation of Katrina and Reggie" after I explicitly indicated that I didn't like it, and then that "LACK of" jab, a brand of jab your writing (which is not intended to hurt any feelings, right?) is laced with, mind you, coming from a dude who took offense to an insinuation of his being called asinine... Anyway,... you want to go on calling what I am doing "exploitation" of the masses and poor Reggie, you go right ahead. Our disagreement, then, is not substantive. It's now just semantics. On your own terms, I am exploiting Katrina no more than Reggie or anybody else. So, what the fuck ever... I'm encouraging discussion on a news item, period... What do I stand to gain? Why do you even ask this question? Of course, I gain something... As you suggest, I agree... Monetary gain is definitely not the only kind of gain. It's not even the most important kind of gain in my book. What Reggie gains from his "exploitation" (your use of the term, not mine) of Katrina victims isn't money, either. But, moving right along, the move you are trying to pull here is so transparent, it's patronizing... But, let me entertain you for a moment... What I gain,... perhaps some deeper reflection on matters which could cause people to better understand the underlying (co-op) philosophy behind my efforts here; a little discussion to keep things moving during the offseason... That's not a whole lot "concrete". A lot of hopeful speculation and hypotheses and a belief in progressing little-by-little and that's about it. But, all that is just so you can go, "Aha... See... You're gaining, and, therefore, you are exploiting!"? Again, a) no different than Reggie, so, whatever, we're either all exploiting or we're all not, however you want it fed to you, and b) if you think that what I stand to gain and how it relates to my encouraging a critical discussion of and deep ethical reflection on this particular news item constitute "exploitation of Katrina and poor Reggie", what the fuck ever... There's obviously no reasoning with you. Hell, Bill, why stop there? You're not one to pull punches, clearly (or hurt feelings, not so clearly ). Why not point out how I am exploiting YOU and EVERY MEMBER here by "gaining" from each of your posts, how I am exploiting all my writers and everybody else here who volunteers their efforts??? That is, of course, on my site where I have yet to have a year not three solid digits in the red. To do so would surely be consistent with your loose usage of the word "exploitation". Again, mind you, you, "Mr. I Don't Want To Hurt Anybody's Feelings And The Fact That I'm A Nurse Shows That", wrote all this after I explicitly stated that I found your comments about "exploitation" VERY insulting and personal. That seemed to just cause you, "Mr. I Don't Want To Hurt Anybody's Feelings And The Fact That I'm A Nurse Shows That", to drive the knife in deeper and go on about my "exploitation" in this post EXPONENTIALLY more than any of your prior posts. Boy,... I can see how you don't like to hurt others' feelings. It's "clear"...
 
Quote:
Doesn't matter, I agree with my take over yours - period hands down.
 
...
 
Yup. Hands down, I agree with myself even more now that you mention it as well.

 
GREAT! We disagree. Now, let's just agree to disagree, and it's over.
 
Quote:
to me, you took this way into left field when the importance of the topic you wanted to stress was the "shouldn't expect anything in return" stuff, and nevertheless, used Reggie's name - because he is popular - (lets face it - if it were some dick joe and harry that mattered to NO-ONE - no one would have been interested in your philosophical statement now would they have? - I doubt it seriously - ).

 
Don't see how the first part of that (before "and nevertheless") flows into the second part (after "and nevertheless"). But, anyway, I didn't "use" his name, per se. I referenced the article. They, by printing it, made it newsworthy. I just wanted to discuss it. It didn't matter "who" it was about. It happens to be about your boy Reggie and a situation he put himself in. Ultimately, nobody is responsible for Reggie's actions and "context" except Reggie,... right? Nobody controls you. Nobody controls me. Nobody controls Reggie. He's famous. That puts him in the spotlight and his actions under a microscope. He gets compensated for that. ... Aw, fuck... Jeff already explained this. I don't want to have to again. Do you not understand that famous people are subject to a level of scrutiny that the rest of us aren't? (I thought "I" was the "idealist".) ... In any event, I'm not so sure that if I brought this up for discussion "in general", in relation to just anyone (but then it wouldn't be an "NFL issue") or to my "telethon" idea, that it wouldn't have received a ton of attention. As a matter of fact, if I had brought it up regarding my "telethon" idea, I am almost certain it would have garnered a lot of attention and responses (and, ironically, I think I would have been dissuaded from doing it, which is what I sensed and why I decided not to pursue the idea). The point, though, is that this couldn't happen to just any Tom, Dick or Harry... At least, it couldn't happen to just any Tom, Dick or Harry and be newsworthy... At least, it couldn't happen to just any Tom, Dick or Harry and be an "NFL Issue"... Reggie and the agent Reggie chose (yes, given how you've pushed and that you wouldn't even take this bone I threw you, I'm now backing off deflecting responsibility away from Reggie and putting it on his agent as he chose his agent) made it all that. Your words...
Quote:
First off. YOU can't cause ME to do anything. There seems to be a helluva lotta "he said - he is thinking - Reggie said, Reggie is thinking - I caused you" crap going on here and mind you probably innocently so,
but still,
I can SPEAK and take action for myself, and take any critique for myself as well.

 
...
 
Quote:
LOLOLOL, this is f'n funny man - you lend me WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much credit -no,...I wasn't pulling anything. Whatever.

 
(Here's your psychoanalysis, sd...) Just because you don't know you are doing it doesn't mean you aren't. We do things all the time we're not aware of, habits and behaviors we've acquired for better or worse along the way, some of them simple, some of them quite elaborate. Whether or not you know it, that's what you're doing. I'm just recognizing its manifestation. You don't recognize your set of double-standards, either, and you probably don't realize the passive-aggressive tendencies you exhibit, most notably, by your threatening to leave the site along with your "Insane Gang" in response to this tiff.
 
on May 16th, 2006, 7:01pm, KillerKingSting wrote:
Furthermore, Mario.
he played at N. CAR. State.
Not too long ago, they too were victims of a cane -if it happens again, lets eee if he puts up or not.

Quote:
Yah but did they give to the teams that drafted them? Nope. Reggie did just by going to the place in which he was drafted - unlike either of those 2.

 
Oh, come on... (I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but...) This is juvenile. Neither Denver or Baltimore circa 1982/83 nor San Diego or New York circa 2003/04 had endured a catasrophe, no less one the size of Katrina. There is NO circumstantial comparison! However, Elway and Manning stepped it up for a city in need when they were in need... Nothing in return and no numbers announced! Nothing really to gain, might I add, especially compared to Reggie, who stands not just to gain his jersey number, but also the hearts and minds of the fans he in some way needs the support of. However, to put it bluntly, Reggie has yet to donate anything from what I gather. But, hold on... Let's tease your reasoning out a little bit. New York circa 2001/02 surely endured a most horrific tragedy. Did Jeremy Shockey donate money? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't... But, he should have... The whole 2002 draft class for both the Giants and Jets should have, right? So should the whole 2002 draft class of the Washington Redskins, right? And, that's just the football players. A-Rod, given how much he is fleecing the city of New York, should be bankrolling all 9/11 victims,... and Katrina victims for that matter. Can't you see how "out of control" this line of reasoning can get? (And, note that just by answering "no" to that question doesn't mean you've shown that this line of reasoning can't get out of control.)
 
Quote:
Maybe a bit but, my main theme was the victims of Katrina were better off by going agianst your philosophical bigger picture.

 
Your "theme" was that "the victims of Katrina were better off by going against my philosophical bigger picture". I didn't know they were paying attention... But, anyway, my philosophical bigger picture suggests that Reggie should just give the $400,000 or whatever now or as soon as possible and, most importantly, with NO strings attached. My philosophical picture suggests that if he wants to give, he should just do it! Making it contingent on an NFL ruling at least has to make you wonder if he really wants to do it OR get his #5. And, AGAIN, I'm NOT saying the latter is the case. I'm just saying that this particular tack has to make you wonder and, in that sense, it was/is an inadvisable tack. That's all. This could be something that Reggie could learn and grow from or it could be something he just rationalizes and justifies and walks away (wearing #25, mind you) no better of a man from.
 
Quote:
Simple. I dealt with the HUMANITY REALITY of the situation.
 
You dealt with the IDEALISTIC portion of it.

 
I don't know what that means other than just labeling your position in a more palatable way than mine. I don't think yours was the "human reality" position or mine was the "idealistic" position and vice-versa. We were just working with different definitions of "bigger picture", period. My point there is not an opportunity for you to give your position a better (in my mind and I think yours) label than mine. It wasn't an opportunity to label either of our positions. In any case, the labels "human reality" position and "idealistic" position don't get us anywhere. The simple acknowledgment that we were working with different definitions of "bigger picture" actually does. It actually could make the difference to get us beyond this... It's really the key to all of the problems we're having here...
 
Quote:
Sorry, I thought you brought that up - my bad! sincerely!

 
Dude, how could you think I brought that up? Are you paying that little attention? Your prior posts are laced with the $400,000 figure. Again, this is a trivial point... BUT, I think it is indicative of a, dare I say it, "bigger picture"... of (the way) you (have gone about things on this thread).
 
Okay, now, alas, the big announcement...
Quote:
Steve, THIS isn't worth my time anylonger. I am going to contemplate my league's whereabouts (yes, I may move).
Simply put, I am not enjoying myself on the Grid and haven't been for some time now.
Though, I sincerely tried - its just not happening for me.

 
And, then, down on his league board...
 
on May 19th, 2006, 3:02pm, KillerKingSting wrote:
Guys, I will keep everyone updayed on where and when we are moving to another web site. those who follow - most welcomed. Those who don't, nothing personal taken.
There have been times I have enjoyed myself here on the grid and the people within. BHut its like any relationship - its the percentage of that enjoyment and/or time that counts the most./
Unfortunately, that percentage for the most part has been 50 or lower, at least for myself.
 
A while back, I was approached by someone else to move my ship to another place. This might be the time to do so.
I do apologize for the inconvienence.

 
Right after I spend 40 minutes of my life between 1:00 a.m. and 1:40 a.m. doing something specific and special, but very small in the relative spectrum of things I need to do, just for you, and you write this...
on May 15th, 2006, 8:11am, KillerKingSting wrote:
Your efforts are greatly appreciated!
 
I triple my donations this year.
 

 
How droll! How empty are the words! The paradox,... this very move itself is rather "Reggie 'Bush League'-like"... ... I'm sure you'll find a forum admin who will go out of his way just for you for little bullshit like smiley bees like I have... within an hour of your bringing it up, no less. More likely, if you ask, he'll probably laugh his ass off (behind your back, mind you, while you never get your bee). This is not to mention all the other cool special perks of "the Gridiron", which you likely won't find anywhere else, like, most notably, your league's champion's name in lights on our index page... ... "Greatly appreciated!" Give me a break! Show it! Don't tell me about how being a nurse makes you a caring person who doesn't like to hurt people's feelings! You're too good at hurting people's feelings... Why give it up?
 
Bottom line, I don't need dudes who can be so easily shaken and so quickly forget the "bigger picture" here and turn against me. I don't need dudes with such short-term memories (I mean... this is extreme). I don't need dudes who take my efforts so quickly for granted. You called me just a year ago after a duel you were having then telling me you were considering leaving the site and moving your guys. Is this going to be an annual event? If so, please spare me... I don't need unstable dudes, who are always a tiff away from threatening to leave. I need committed dudes, who will hang in there through thick and thin for the long haul. Just the fact that you even think you can find a better home than "the Gridiron" and someone who will give you the personal attention I have and be willing to support your project with plans of incorporating it to a greater degree as it matures so easily and even entertain the idea of leaving (based on measly disagreements on the boards) belies the very appreciation you claim to have of the site and my efforts. Shit... It's proof in the pudding of your lack of appreciation and commitment. So, in that sense, as per your own words and actions, you're no loss... in the "bigger picture". Quite the contrary, your departure would represent a small, albeit regretful, setback. I don't need this passive-aggressive bullshit.
 
I hope your defense of this football player Reggie Bush at the expense of your friendship with real-live, phone-call-away Steve Stegeman was worth it. I'm sure he'll care about and give you sound advice regarding your "Insane Gang", help you get through the rough times with it, and afford you some phone calls. If not, I'm sure the admin of whatever site you move on to will fill the bill... as you expect.
« Last Edit: May 22nd, 2006, 12:34am by Stegfucius » Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #97 on: May 20th, 2006, 6:45am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

The question here is going to become...
 
How much is Reggie donating to survivors of HurricaneSteg??? ...
Logged
MordecaiCourage
Guest

Email

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #98 on: May 20th, 2006, 10:19pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify Remove Remove

Somebody ...please be the bigger man here and stop this disagreement. Maybe your argument can continue in private messages or something!! Both you guys are wasting your time with this issue because you are on complete opposite sides of the spectrum and neither is willing to budge. However....you are both very much alike in a way too. You both wear your feelings on your sleeves and neither of you have a problem expressing yourselves about it. One of you, or both of you have already said "let's agree to disagree". How 'bout you BOTH live up to that and let's move on.
 
P L E A S E ! ! !
 
 
BTW...please do not reply back with mind your own business MC.... because your public posts have made it every gridironers business, and it is becoming a bit tiresome at the moment. That's about as nice as you'll hear this old   put it.
« Last Edit: May 20th, 2006, 10:23pm by MordecaiCourage » Logged
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: NFL "issues"
« Reply #99 on: May 20th, 2006, 10:45pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Whatever...
 
Your other post...
 
This post...
 
Don't get me wrong...  I understand whence you are coming, MC, and the "thought" is well-taken,... but... "Nothing forced!  Let everything run its course!"  It's not like it will really go on forever.  I don't think I nor Bill (I hope I can speak for you on this one) need others forcing their moral compasses on us here.  I know mine works just fine...
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6  ...  11 Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

Previous topic|Next topic

Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.1!
YaBB 2000-2002,
Xnull. All Rights Reserved.

Most smilies provided by "MySmilies.com", "Jason's Smiley Collection" or "Clicksmilies.com".
"the Gridiron" Copyright 2002-2016 - Product of FantasyFootballer.com. All rights reserved.