Pro Bowl Game Thread! (1 Viewer)

[MikeApf]

Dude, regarding who the post was aimed at...you do realize that you call me out by name in your post. "The one I was responding to (Apf) wasn't kidding, DOH!" That's why I responded.

Beyond that, listen...as I say above, I am fine if you and I just agree to disagree on this one. You and I read PN's post differently. We've discussed it in detail. We've said all that we can say about it probably. I am fine just agreeing to disagree. OK?

yeah, I was telling Maxie who the post he responded to as if it were to him, had actually been intended for. Just because I mention your name is a post doesn't make that post directed at you. You wrote the bolded, does that mean your post was aimed at PN or at me? I mean, PNs name is in there after all.

I do see what you are saying. If you want to carry on a dialogue with Max without me, that is fine. I can let you guys talk without horning in.But, I guess my confusion came from the fact that this is a message board, and not a private email or text conversation. The nature of a message board is that people respond to posts that are not directly addressed to them all the time. It's kind of the nature of the beast. I guess I don't find that to be abberant behavior.

As to your example...absolutely as I am naming ProNinja in posts to you...if he wants to jump in and argue with me based on that post, I would think he was well within his rights to do so. I can't just mention him and call him out and whatnot and expect no reply. I guess in that case, once again you and I see things differently.

Which....once again...I am fine with. We disagree on a number of things. We've fought about it. Perhaps gone over the line at times. But I am trying to just end it now. Agree to disagree. I am cool with it if you are.

 

[mr roboto]

Worst. Thread. Ever.

 

[mad sweeney]

Dude, regarding who the post was aimed at...you do realize that you call me out by name in your post. "The one I was responding to (Apf) wasn't kidding, DOH!" That's why I responded.

Beyond that, listen...as I say above, I am fine if you and I just agree to disagree on this one. You and I read PN's post differently. We've discussed it in detail. We've said all that we can say about it probably. I am fine just agreeing to disagree. OK?

yeah, I was telling Maxie who the post he responded to as if it were to him, had actually been intended for. Just because I mention your name is a post doesn't make that post directed at you. You wrote the bolded, does that mean your post was aimed at PN or at me? I mean, PNs name is in there after all.

I do see what you are saying. If you want to carry on a dialogue with Max without me, that is fine. I can let you guys talk without horning in.But, I guess my confusion came from the fact that this is a message board, and not a private email or text conversation. The nature of a message board is that people respond to posts that are not directly addressed to them all the time. It's kind of the nature of the beast. I guess I don't find that to be abberant behavior.

As to your example...absolutely as I am naming ProNinja in posts to you...if he wants to jump in and argue with me based on that post, I would think he was well within his rights to do so. I can't just mention him and call him out and whatnot and expect no reply. I guess in that case, once again you and I see things differently.

Which....once again...I am fine with. We disagree on a number of things. We've fought about it. Perhaps gone over the line at times. But I am trying to just end it now. Agree to disagree. I am cool with it if you are.

None of that means that posts that are direct responses to another poster are to be taken as direct responses to others, even if they're mentioned in the post. You seem to have a context issue, both in seeing what isn't there in PNs post and in thinking that a response to Maxine can be construed as being to you (alias aside). I don't mean that as an insult, but that's the source of the problem. I'm fine with leaving you to your gross misinterpretations and letting it lie. You can come back with your Max alias and I won't worry about it then either.

 

[MikeApf]

Dude, regarding who the post was aimed at...you do realize that you call me out by name in your post. "The one I was responding to (Apf) wasn't kidding, DOH!" That's why I responded.

Beyond that, listen...as I say above, I am fine if you and I just agree to disagree on this one. You and I read PN's post differently. We've discussed it in detail. We've said all that we can say about it probably. I am fine just agreeing to disagree. OK?

yeah, I was telling Maxie who the post he responded to as if it were to him, had actually been intended for. Just because I mention your name is a post doesn't make that post directed at you. You wrote the bolded, does that mean your post was aimed at PN or at me? I mean, PNs name is in there after all.

I do see what you are saying. If you want to carry on a dialogue with Max without me, that is fine. I can let you guys talk without horning in.But, I guess my confusion came from the fact that this is a message board, and not a private email or text conversation. The nature of a message board is that people respond to posts that are not directly addressed to them all the time. It's kind of the nature of the beast. I guess I don't find that to be abberant behavior.

As to your example...absolutely as I am naming ProNinja in posts to you...if he wants to jump in and argue with me based on that post, I would think he was well within his rights to do so. I can't just mention him and call him out and whatnot and expect no reply. I guess in that case, once again you and I see things differently.

Which....once again...I am fine with. We disagree on a number of things. We've fought about it. Perhaps gone over the line at times. But I am trying to just end it now. Agree to disagree. I am cool with it if you are.

None of that means that posts that are direct responses to another poster are to be taken as direct responses to others, even if they're mentioned in the post. You seem to have a context issue, both in seeing what isn't there in PNs post and in thinking that a response to Maxine can be construed as being to you (alias aside). I don't mean that as an insult, but that's the source of the problem. I'm fine with leaving you to your gross misinterpretations and letting it lie. You can come back with your Max alias and I won't worry about it then either.

OK, you come back with your ITS alias and I'll come back with my Max alias and we can have a party. LOL. Funny I struck a nerve with the alias comment...I think I may be on to something there... That said, I'm talked out on this one. You take the last word. Have a great day!

 

[mad sweeney]

Dude, regarding who the post was aimed at...you do realize that you call me out by name in your post. "The one I was responding to (Apf) wasn't kidding, DOH!" That's why I responded.

Beyond that, listen...as I say above, I am fine if you and I just agree to disagree on this one. You and I read PN's post differently. We've discussed it in detail. We've said all that we can say about it probably. I am fine just agreeing to disagree. OK?

yeah, I was telling Maxie who the post he responded to as if it were to him, had actually been intended for. Just because I mention your name is a post doesn't make that post directed at you. You wrote the bolded, does that mean your post was aimed at PN or at me? I mean, PNs name is in there after all.

I do see what you are saying. If you want to carry on a dialogue with Max without me, that is fine. I can let you guys talk without horning in.But, I guess my confusion came from the fact that this is a message board, and not a private email or text conversation. The nature of a message board is that people respond to posts that are not directly addressed to them all the time. It's kind of the nature of the beast. I guess I don't find that to be abberant behavior.

As to your example...absolutely as I am naming ProNinja in posts to you...if he wants to jump in and argue with me based on that post, I would think he was well within his rights to do so. I can't just mention him and call him out and whatnot and expect no reply. I guess in that case, once again you and I see things differently.

Which....once again...I am fine with. We disagree on a number of things. We've fought about it. Perhaps gone over the line at times. But I am trying to just end it now. Agree to disagree. I am cool with it if you are.

None of that means that posts that are direct responses to another poster are to be taken as direct responses to others, even if they're mentioned in the post. You seem to have a context issue, both in seeing what isn't there in PNs post and in thinking that a response to Maxine can be construed as being to you (alias aside). I don't mean that as an insult, but that's the source of the problem. I'm fine with leaving you to your gross misinterpretations and letting it lie. You can come back with your Max alias and I won't worry about it then either.

OK, you come back with your ITS alias and I'll come back with my Max alias and we can have a party. LOL. Funny I struck a nerve with the alias comment...I think I may be on to something there... That said, I'm talked out on this one. You take the last word. Have a great day!

There was no nerve struck, but it did strike me as curious because there were almost back to back and identical incidents of you and Max going on about a post that clearly wasn't directed at the one who responded. Almost as if the person responding was t sure who they were. When you brought up aliases then that coincidence seemed a little more odd. Regardless, anyone, even LHUCKs would be upset if they were accused if being an ITS alias. I guess is be almost as upset if someone called me Max too.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Seahawks dominating the pro bowl. Leon 93 yard return, Lynch TD, Thomas pick, Wilson three TD passes and a likely MVP now.

I can't wait for next season.

I hope youre joking.

Not at all. Seahawks are playing well in a stupid game and I can't wait for next year.

Okay. Got it. Can't wait to see how good they play in next year's pro bowl as well.

Like I said earlier, it's unlikely they're in the Super Bowl next year. That's a tall order, especially in the NFC.What team do you root for?

What does it matter what team he roots for?Maybe if a player on *his* team made a tackle or something during the Pro Bowl he should use it as "evidence" for how superior his team is.

It seems like you are trying to learn his team so you can just throw insults at that team. You are missing the point. The point is, superior performance in the Pro Bowl is not significant, so the implication of your original comment is not valid. If you disagree with that assertion, then argue the point. If you can't argue the point, then by all means try to learn who his favorite team is so that you can sidetrack the conversation...

There's nothing in proninja's posts that make anything accomplished in the probowl seem like more than good performance in a stupid game. He even says it's a stupid game. The entire tone of his posts about it is that the probowl is stupid. Makes guys like you and max seem triply as stupid for trying to pull out something that isn't there. Your interpretation of proninja is invalid. Seems like sine ITS won't acknowledge anyone that some of you just want to slam any Seahawks fans. Unfortunately for you, nothing in pro's posts come anywhere near what you're trying to argue against. Congrats, you've made yourself look as stupid as ITS.

Actually,i was joking/kidding as well. So the only one who looks stupid is you because you just did EXACTLY what you accused us of doing. Way to go, genius.You and ITS are two sides of the same coin.

DOH!

Actually, DOH! I wasn't even responding to you! DOH! The one I was responding to (Apf) wasn't kidding, DOH! I think it's cute that you don't think you're just like that too, DOH! Except less smart (DOUBLE DOH!) because you can't even tell that a comment isn't aimed at you. DOH! But that won't stop you from showing yourself to be dumb DOH!

Sad Weeney is an appropriate name for you. In fact, maybe Sad AND Stupid Weeney would be even better.Let me help you out:

[/SIZE]

Ring a bell? Looks like you were responding to me (indirectly). YOU'RE interpretation of what we interpreted is completely wrong, making you look extraordinary stupid.

But then again, "extraordinary stupid" and Sad Weeney go hand in hand like peanut butter and jelly. Have you and ITS got a place yet? You're the perfect couple.

 

[mad sweeney]

I hope youre joking.

Not at all. Seahawks are playing well in a stupid game and I can't wait for next year.

Okay. Got it. Can't wait to see how good they play in next year's pro bowl as well.

Like I said earlier, it's unlikely they're in the Super Bowl next year. That's a tall order, especially in the NFC.What team do you root for?

What does it matter what team he roots for?Maybe if a player on *his* team made a tackle or something during the Pro Bowl he should use it as "evidence" for how superior his team is.

It seems like you are trying to learn his team so you can just throw insults at that team. You are missing the point. The point is, superior performance in the Pro Bowl is not significant, so the implication of your original comment is not valid. If you disagree with that assertion, then argue the point. If you can't argue the point, then by all means try to learn who his favorite team is so that you can sidetrack the conversation...

There's nothing in proninja's posts that make anything accomplished in the probowl seem like more than good performance in a stupid game. He even says it's a stupid game. The entire tone of his posts about it is that the probowl is stupid. Makes guys like you and max seem triply as stupid for trying to pull out something that isn't there. Your interpretation of proninja is invalid. Seems like sine ITS won't acknowledge anyone that some of you just want to slam any Seahawks fans. Unfortunately for you, nothing in pro's posts come anywhere near what you're trying to argue against. Congrats, you've made yourself look as stupid as ITS.

Actually,i was joking/kidding as well. So the only one who looks stupid is you because you just did EXACTLY what you accused us of doing. Way to go, genius.You and ITS are two sides of the same coin.

DOH!

Actually, DOH! I wasn't even responding to you! DOH! The one I was responding to (Apf) wasn't kidding, DOH! I think it's cute that you don't think you're just like that too, DOH! Except less smart (DOUBLE DOH!) because you can't even tell that a comment isn't aimed at you. DOH! But that won't stop you from showing yourself to be dumb DOH!

Sad Weeney is an appropriate name for you. In fact, maybe Sad AND Stupid Weeney would be even better.Let me help you out:

[/SIZE]

Ring a bell? Looks like you were responding to me (indirectly). YOU'RE interpretation of what we interpreted is completely wrong, making you look extraordinary stupid.

But then again, "extraordinary stupid" and Sad Weeney go hand in hand like peanut butter and jelly. Have you and ITS got a place yet? You're the perfect couple.

It's YOUR, not YOU"RE and "extraordinarily" for the first time you used it above. Love it when people show themselves to be mindless dolts when trying to say others are being stupid. Context is your friend. Your backpedal attempt doesn't take context into account at all. My comments were clearly directed directly at Apf (Even though you were mentioned, that doesn't make it directed at you. Oddly enough, you even pointed it out as indirect then try to slam me as if it were direct) , yet you wallow around in it like a pig in your own posts. Thank you for the laughs.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Sad Weeney is an appropriate name for you. In fact, maybe Sad AND Stupid Weeney would be even better.

Let me help you out:

[/SIZE]

Ring a bell? Looks like you were responding to me (indirectly). YOU'RE interpretation of what we interpreted is completely wrong, making you look extraordinary stupid.

But then again, "extraordinary stupid" and Sad Weeney go hand in hand like peanut butter and jelly. Have you and ITS got a place yet? You're the perfect couple.

It's YOUR, not YOU"RE and "extraordinarily" for the first time you used it above. Love it when people show themselves to be mindless dolts when trying to say others are being stupid. Context is your friend. Your backpedal attempt doesn't take context into account at all. My comments were clearly directed directly at Apf (Even though you were mentioned, that doesn't make it directed at you. Oddly enough, you even pointed it out as indirect then try to slam me as if it were direct) , yet you wallow around in it like a pig in your own posts. Thank you for the laughs.

Indirect...Direct...it doesn't matter (well, only in your mind) as you you we're responding to me by referencing my name in one of your jabs.You know you've won the debate when someone has to resort to pointing out spelling errors on a fantasy football forum. How pathetic - but that's par for the course with you.

So, Sad And Stupid Weeny? maybe Even Sadder Weeney? Pathetically Sad Weeney? I'll let you choose one of the three but really, you can't go wrong with any one of them since they all fit. Maybe you can get your boyfriend to help you choose?

 

[mad sweeney]

Sad Weeney is an appropriate name for you. In fact, maybe Sad AND Stupid Weeney would be even better.

Let me help you out:

[/SIZE]

Ring a bell? Looks like you were responding to me (indirectly). YOU'RE interpretation of what we interpreted is completely wrong, making you look extraordinary stupid.

But then again, "extraordinary stupid" and Sad Weeney go hand in hand like peanut butter and jelly. Have you and ITS got a place yet? You're the perfect couple.

It's YOUR, not YOU"RE and "extraordinarily" for the first time you used it above. Love it when people show themselves to be mindless dolts when trying to say others are being stupid. Context is your friend. Your backpedal attempt doesn't take context into account at all. My comments were clearly directed directly at Apf (Even though you were mentioned, that doesn't make it directed at you. Oddly enough, you even pointed it out as indirect then try to slam me as if it were direct) , yet you wallow around in it like a pig in your own posts. Thank you for the laughs.

Indirect...Direct...it doesn't matter (well, only in your mind) as you you we're responding to me by referencing my name in one of your jabs.You know you've won the debate when someone has to resort to pointing out spelling errors on a fantasy football forum. How pathetic - but that's par for the course with you.

So, Sad And Stupid Weeny? maybe Even Sadder Weeney? Pathetically Sad Weeney? I'll let you choose one of the three but really, you can't go wrong with any one of them since they all fit. Maybe you can get your boyfriend to help you choose?

Geez, just how could I have possibly thought you and Mike were the same? Same absurd theory, though it's nice to see you butcher more sentences while trying to convince me that I'm stupid (speling errors, word choice errors, whats the difference?!! Your stoopid anyway, durrrr!!! ). Also, yes direct and indirect are different, sort of opposites, actually. And you call it pathetic (and an iLoss) to point out that while calling someone stupid that their post ought to be correct, yet you go to a gay joke? Srsly? You should call me Laughing At A Progressively Funnier Fool Sweeney for all the chuckles you're giving me.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Wow. It's amazing to watch you post, Weeney, because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Does spouting out nonsensical crapola come naturally or do you have to work at it? I also see you got nothing other than the "you spelled something wrong" comeback. The last refuge of a defeated man. How sad.So Pathetically Foolish Sad Weeney it is.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

this is the perfect pro bowl threadmods - sticky, plz

 

[mad sweeney]

Wow. It's amazing to watch you post, Weeney, because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Does spouting out nonsensical crapola come naturally or do you have to work at it? I also see you got nothing other than the "you spelled something wrong" comeback. The last refuge of a defeated man. How sad.So Pathetically Foolish Sad Weeney it is.

I only hinted it, so here it is straight out: Using the wrong word(s) is not a "spelling something wrong" problem, it's a "being stupid" problem (and is probably related to your "not knowing that opposites are opposites" problem.Having a "being stupid" problem while trying to show how someone else is stupid is called irony.A guy who relies on "witty" name puns and gay jokes shouldn't act superior to a guy who corrects someone's "spelling wrong" problems (even though they're not actually spelling problems, but rather using the wrong words problems).By all means, please keep digging. It's the most humorous thing I've read other than the attention demands of the new girl.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

What the hell is going on in here?

 

[mr roboto]

What the hell is going on in here?

It's a nearly perfect collection of #####y SP posters. I think we should drag them all in here and nuke the thread, causing glorious iDeaths for those involved.

 

[mad sweeney]

What the hell is going on in here?

It's a nearly perfect collection of #####y SP posters. I think we should drag them all in here and nuke the thread, causing glorious iDeaths for those involved.

I agree. Especially the people that keep bumping it and wondering why it's still around! Thread's been dead for awhile. I'm just having fun stringing along a short busser with enough string to hang himself. I don't know why anyone would read it, especially after some misinformed ding dongs turned psycho over words that were never said, intended, meant or existed.