This guy looks like a moron now

[Scott Campbell]

1990
30 TD's
13 Int's
3466 Yards
91.6 QB Rating


Historically poor passing stats? Vince Young would kill for these numbers. Dayum.

Shall we start calling your Mobb Jr?

BRING BLACK ANTONIO FREEMAN!

[th87]

It's not Partial's thesis statement that gets him in trouble (i.e. that Rodgers is average).

It's how he argues it that does. He attempts to back it up with "facts" that get proven wrong over and over again. And instead of conceding that his backing is faulty, he'll stubbornly move onto another "fact" that will be proven wrong again. Then he will assert that he never said the now debunked fact, which is ridiculous, since it can so easily be checked.

For example, a Partial-type arguer would make a statement logically akin to:

Thesis: The Packers are one of the worst teams in the NFL.
Support: Because they went 4-12 last year.

Someone will come in and say, no, the Packers went 6-10 last year, not 4-12. Then this Partial-type arguer will at first assert that he never said they went 4-12. Then he'll say that they weren't a top 10 offense. Someone will then post offensive stats, showing that they were a top 5 offense. Then another refutable argument will be presented, and predictably refuted. Finally, in a last-ditch effort, the Partial-type arguer will say, "Yeah, well, the Packers lack the 'it' factor to be anything better than a bad team." This of course is an unprovable position, which enables the Partial-type arguer to delude himself into thinking he has a winning argument.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Wow, just wow. Thanks for having the voice of rationality of RG.

We are all awaiting your defense of the blue chip WRs in philly when cunninngham was an all-pro.

I never watched Randall Cunningham. Too young. Only his year in Minne. Beyond that, how did I make a single thing up as you claim? What did I make up? I took every data point directly from his NFL.com stat sheet.

Sure, he may have been a great player, but look at his passing numbers. Historically poor outside of years with elite wideouts like Moss.

Pro bowl and all pro without great receivers.

You said his career was made by blue chips. Do i need to post that as well.

BTW, why would we look at his passing numbers? Didn't you tell all of us that numbers mean nothing. Wins and losses.

Now, you are back to your numbers. LOL

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sure, he may have been a great player, but look at his passing numbers. Historically poor outside of years with elite wideouts like Moss.

1990
30 TD's
13 Int's
3466 Yards
91.6 QB Rating


Historically poor passing stats? Vince Young would kill for these numbers. There weren't any elite receivers on that team. His top pass catcher was Fullback Keith Byars with a whopping 819 yards.

Scott,

I already posted all of that.

But, you are falling into the Partial trap. Numbers/passing stats don't mean anything...see Vince Young, Arod, etc.

Wins and losses mean EVERYTHING.

[Partial]

I guess two years over 90... not good passing wise.

[Scott Campbell]

I guess two years over 90... not good passing wise.

That isn't what you said Partial.

Sure, he may have been a great player, but look at his passing numbers. Historically poor outside of years with elite wideouts like Moss.

I did what you asked and looked at his passing numbers. He was not historically poor outside of years with elite wideouts like Moss. You were wrong.

[SkinBasket]

Actually you sticking up for another poster this vehemently is kinda nuts.

I'm with Zool on this one, and not just because he might be my illegitimate son.

We've been through several iterations of this kind of episode and what it comes down to is that when a poster makes a ridiculous argument, they are going to receive an overwhelming contrary response. That's not "ganging up" or "bashing." It's the logical progression of someone attempting, for whatever reason, to make the case for an opinion (being foisted as "fact," "reason," or the "truth") that is only unpopular because it is unsustainable through argument.

Asking the majority of posters to somehow show restraint simply because they're the majority on a topic doesn't make any kind of sense unless you also believe in stifling every other opinion that's held by the majority because it's supportable by fact and reason. Should we have a cap on supportable argument and a quota for inane babble to strike some kind of humanisticly appropriate balance that won't offend those who are habitually wrong?

[Bossman641]

Should we have a cap on supportable argument and a quota for inane babble to strike some kind of humanisticly appropriate balance that won't offend those who are habitually wrong?

Yes. Every post should be met with encouragement and gold stars.

[Zool]

Should we have a cap on supportable argument and a quota for inane babble to strike some kind of humanisticly appropriate balance that won't offend those who are habitually wrong?

Yes. Every post should be met with encouragement and gold stars.

Ringo: Look guys I wrote a song

Paul: thats great Ringo, I'm gonna put it here on the fridge so we can look at it every day.

Partial is our Ringo.

[PlantPage55]

Partial is our Ringo.

So this argument is Octopus's Garden?

[cpk1994]

Should we have a cap on supportable argument and a quota for inane babble to strike some kind of humanisticly appropriate balance that won't offend those who are habitually wrong?

Yes. Every post should be met with encouragement and gold stars.

When did this board go to Socialism?

[Zool]

Partial is our Ringo.

So this argument is Octopus's Garden?

Pretty much. Once in a while we'll get a Yellow Submarine that's catchy, but usually he'd like to be under the sea.

[Administrator]

uh oh, kool aid man is on his high horse again

Are you suggesting at some point in time he dismounted?

It took me a long time to read through this thread. Very passionate on both sides.

I picked this series of posts to respond to, because I can find no way that these contributed to the discussion, other than to personally bash one of the posters. Falco, was there another reason that I'm unaware of? Tyrone? How is this different than the Brando WV references?

My take is this - I don't disagree with Skinbasket for the most part. However, his point is only valid on things that can be "proven". The discussion on ARod largely centers on things that can't be proven.

Retailguy is right in this regard, you've got 16 games of proof. It isn't enough, especially for the stuff that's been directed at Partial. It stopped being about the issue a long time ago, it has become about the poster. That's unfortunate, because it had the potential of being a good debate.

A number of you made statements that "he brings this on himself". Ok, but isn't that true of all of us at times? Can't we discuss issues without personal slams like the above? Saying he won't admit wrong is beside the point, a significant number of you on the "majority" side of the fence are displaying that also.

Several of you pulled previous references without resorting to "you're a moron".

I appreciate the spirited discussion. It is what a lot of us come here to read and participate. It is my goal to provide an environment where those discussions can not only take place, but can be hotly debated, without the distraction of personal insults.

I thank all of you long timers for speaking up, your voices will silence this stuff. I would hope that as time goes on, that posts like the ones I've quoted above will cease. It's starting to happen, and I hope it can continue without stifling good debates. I personally enjoy reading those especially in the offseason.

Thanks for reading.

[retailguy]

The real problem is that Partial will never admit to when he is wrong. In fact to prove he isn't wrong he was willing to argue the definition of "grooming". Until some one quoted him from Websters.

Couldn't that be said about a lot of folks on your side of the aisle too Dan?

Seriously. Think about that. That's my whole point. Again, you guys talk about Rodgers like it's "past tense". You got 16 games, THAT'S IT.

Are you positive you want to stand on that mountain with 16 games of data? Really?

He argued about a definition of a word. Not Rodgers stats in that thread a definition of a word.

Do you now understand? A word!!! Not until Vince (I think it was Vince) posted the Webster's definition did he admit anything.

Dan,

I'm not defending everything Partial has or hasn't done since birth. I'm talking about ARod and the viciousness (is that a word? ) of the debate. That's all.

Partial has wacky ideas at times. I don't agree with him on Arod. I'm excited about Arod. But I get his concern, and I don't get the vitrole.

Vince posted in this thread too. Go back and read it. Used the term "overwhelming proof", and gave what I expect as the typical Vince, I know I'm right, attitude. Heck, I wouldn't give ground to that either. Vince is a passionate fellow with some good ideas, but he doesn't get it all right either. He wanted to "lock up" Bigby after like 4 or 5 games.... Bigby has been a fine player, but looking back it was way premature to do anything with his contract, and it still hasn't happened. So, the majority isn't always rock solid in their thoughts either.

Dan, the kid is 24. You've talked multiple times here about being a CPA, chances are you've got a bit more experience than he does. I don't know about you, but I had some crazy ideas when I was 24... It'll pass.

Just think, if ARod doesn't flop, he'll learn something, and we'll watch winning football at the same time. win win. I think.

[Scott Campbell]

Several of you pulled previous references without resorting to "you're a moron".

I doubt anyone has had more fun calling posters morons over the years than I have. But I get it, and agree. Hate the post - not the poster.

There are other PackerRats sub forums available as a creative outlet for this kind of horseplay.