Packers dominate all-division team on offense

[Patler]

I wanted to voice my displeasure with the whole concept. Who are you, my father?

Your displeasure with my thread?
Do you think we should care if you are interested in it, or not?
Am I (and others) to take from your remark that we should be concerned whether our threads will interest you?
Perhaps I should have not started it?

Am I your father? Doubt it! I believe all of my kids would simply not post in a thread they are not interested in, as would I.

[mraynrand]

Your displeasure with my thread?
Do you think we should care if you are interested in it, or not?
Am I (and others) to take from your remark that we should be concerned whether our threads will interest you?
Perhaps I should have not started it?

Am I your father? Doubt it! I believe all of my kids would simply not post in a thread they are not interested in, as would I.

I'm not only disinterested in the topic (not YOUR thread, but McGinn's column), but think it deserves a negative comment. That's why I posted Dad. You are a very saintly man of perfection. Congratulations.

[Patler]

I'm not only disinterested in the topic (not YOUR thread, but McGinn's column), but think it deserves a negative comment. That's why I posted Dad. You are a very saintly man of perfection. Congratulations.

"Saintly man of perfection"? "Lordly" (per your "comment" to me) HUH? I don't get it.
I have one more comment for you:

R-E-L-A-X

I started a thread thinking people might want to discuss the fact that all but one starter, and even the primary subs are "best in their division"; or that some we have wondered about (like Bakhtiari) have apparently stepped up or rebounded (Bulaga). Instead, most wanted to discuss the TEs, and You wanted to jab the concept of the poll. I decided to jab you all a bit, but apparently you want to argue your part of it. Since this thread is mostly a loser already anyway, I'm up for sparing.......SO.....

Just why is it that you often want to divert threads from the original topic?
More importantly, why do you resort so often to personal attacks, even name calling?

[mraynrand]

"Saintly man of perfection"? "Lordly" (per your "comment" to me) HUH? I don't get it.
I have one more comment for you:

R-E-L-A-X

I started a thread thinking people might want to discuss the fact that all but one starter, and even the primary subs are "best in their division"; or that some we have wondered about (like Bakhtiari) have apparently stepped up or rebounded (Bulaga). Instead, most wanted to discuss the TEs, and You wanted to jab the concept of the poll. I decided to jab you all a bit, but apparently you want to argue your part of it. Since this thread is mostly a loser already anyway, I'm up for sparing.......SO.....

Just why is it that you often want to divert threads from the original topic?
More importantly, why do you resort so often to personal attacks, even name calling?

I didn't force you to respond to my comments. But you kept coming back for more. All I did was voice my opinion about McGinn's "Best of the North" column, which I dislike. You never even thought to ask why. Please don't be hurt - it wasn't a negative comment against you, only McGinn.

You have a strange idea about personal 'attacks.' Still, you are very Lordly, kind Noble Sir.

[Patler]

I didn't force you to respond to my comments. But you kept coming back for more. All I did was voice my opinion about McGinn's "Best of the North" column, which I dislike. You never even thought to ask why. Please don't be hurt - it wasn't a negative comment against you, only McGinn.

You have a strange idea about personal 'attacks.' Still, you are very Lordly, kind Noble Sir.

So replying to you, or asking about your response is "coming back for more". Should I consider you untouchable?

Hurt? Me? About what? Why would you even think that any comment from you would "hurt" me. I don't even know you, nor you me.

I just think it is a bit funny when grown adults resort to name-calling of any sort.

[mraynrand]

So replying to you, or asking about your response is "coming back for more". Should I consider you untouchable?

Hurt? Me? About what? Why would you even think that any comment from you would "hurt" me. I don't even know you, nor you me.

I just think it is a bit funny when grown adults resort to name-calling of any sort.

I understand, Patler, I think. I am impressed with you. Although you have an occasional lack of curiosity (you still seem not to wonder what I find objectionable about the McGinn column), you are the sentinel of sportsmanship, a paragon of virtue, sinless and unblemished, the very paschal lamb of packer rats.

[Patler]

I understand, Patler, I think. I am impressed with you. Although you have an occasional lack of curiosity (you still seem not to wonder what I find objectionable about the McGinn column), you are the sentinel of sportsmanship, a paragon of virtue, sinless and unblemished, the very paschal lamb of packer rats.

and apparently you see me as naive, too????

I gave you several openings to explain your aversion to McGinn's annual endeavor, but you have offered nothing, not a single word in support or explanation of your original statement. Now, your greater interest seems to be in issuing backhanded compliments. Normally, I would simply ignore them, but I have been feeling a bit more argumentative the last day or so.

You are correct in one thing. I absolutely do not wonder what you find objectionable about the column, because I throw this column in the same category as pro-bowl selections. Neither is very meaningful in and of itself. One need look no further than the pro bowl selection of Jeff Saturday two years ago to see that. However, I still find reasons to discuss them.

If your objections are different, apparently they will have to remain one of the great mysteries of life, because I will not beg you for an explanation.