All the talk about heart

I'm not pretending about anything, and no, I've never seen you get this worked up defending the above based on so little that's been said about Carr. I'm not biased against him, and don't have any reason to be so. I know you always run this public relations smear shit every time we disagree, which typically does nothing but lessen its impact to anyone that's read it more than once, but seriously, you seem to have a specific sensitivity here.

also, double standard time - why is it you set out to be a huge prick, but have sensitivity toward what you feel is that action against you?
Maybe not double standard. Maybe you just take the assumption that everyone that shows any knowledge is going to react like you with the same motives. I just made an observation.

 

Calling someone a moron is not a sufficient response if you want to have an adult conversation. Its sad that you resort to such things when you do have a pretty good grasp on the game, and have knowledge to share with other people. I wouldn't be surprised if your attitude runs people off. Its either this board or the Huddle (ugh), and its really unfortunate that your shtick brings down an otherwise great place to talk football.

 

Dude, you say this practically every time I ever get worked up about a player. It's just a means for you to attack my credibility by suggesting that I'm biased, which you also hope will discredit the idea that you're biased. Every single time you say it, it's supposedly the most you've ever seen me get worked up. And for the record, anyone who remembers Charlotte.com can attest that nothing I've done since can ever rival the way I bashed idiots who wanted us to get rid of Steve Beuerlein. It was the football forum version of Dynasty Warriors.

You called his performance against New Orleans "crap," "awful," and "ineffective." You can't even pretend that such statements aren't indicative of bias.

In case you wondered, this is one of the reasons you rub people the wrong way. You attack people in a backhanded way and then deny that you're doing any such thing, just like you deny that you're a narcissist or an asshole. Love me or hate me (presumably the latter), I admit my faults and my motivations. Clearly you don't want to look in the mirror, while I'm ok with what I see.

Your problem is in how you define an adult conversation. If you look historically, there has never been a time when insults did not feature prominently, even going back to ancient Greece. If you want to argue that such comments shouldn't be part of adult conversations, that's fine and valid, but it's incorrect to say that they aren't. They are. Look around.

This has been discussed before, and the reality is the opposite of what you're suggesting. When magnus, I, and a few others aren't as active, this place becomes more like the Huddle. Idiotic threads run rampant. I said it before and some didn't believe me, then acknowledged it was true during a period of extended absence.

 

I guess, if you're the logical person you say you are, I don't see you having the need to do so. How many other threads have you actually started, to tell people not to say bad things about a player? You find absolutely nothing curious in that?

You also had to take an entire week off directly after what you could term Carr's single worst game as a pro.

No. Your dealings with me alone prove you have extreme bias and your thoughts can be colored by that bias. I don't need to try to point out anything for ulterior motives. I just don't get why it's specifically that important for you that people not say bad things about Carr.

And yes, it's an observation. You can dress it up all day, but you're not immune to people saying this.

Plus, in two separate paragraphs you used a person's emotions against them, knowing that you're pushing their buttons to piss them off and get them to make a mistake (you're absolutely not being honest if you don't believe you do), and then besides the obvious ideal that you're angry, are pointing it out as proof of how wrong they are.

They were statements made during the game, just as "letting us down" was. I'm going to stand by them because I said them. I regret "awful", the other two I'm not that concerned about. You've often used statements like these about players, so I don't see the specific difference other than that you feel that it's okay when you do it.
I expected more from a 5 year starter than what he gave. He was accurate? Yes. Did he make plays? No. Did he play like I was hoping? No.

Did I want him to fail? No. Did I want him to do something retarded and hurt himself? No. That's the point at which I said he was letting us down, and I feel like he was. He redeemed with a good drive and efficient, if very conservative, play after he returned.

Nope. You just lack the perspective to believe that I'm not just a lesser version of you, with the same faults, instead of bothering with the idea that I don't have your motivations and that I have different traits. I said a couple asshole things a day back when, which is obviously a unique thing here at the kitten farm, so somehow I'm supposed to be a similar character, and by all means I am not.


And yes, KT, people might bother paying more attention if he didn't lose his own message in his anger. Taking the role of expecting people to listen to you and learn from you means doing, in most cases, the exact opposite of what he does, but that's not really the idea here.

 

Clearly you find it amusing to lie implicitly in suggesting that I was so depressed about Carr that I had to take that week off. Nevermind the fact that I said all along this season that I hoped Carr wouldn't play a down, you'd prefer to pretend that I'm his cheerleader or something. The truth is that I haven't said anything biased at all. All my comments about Carr, as with any other player, have been fact-based. Meanwhile you're the one who has demonstrated consistent, extreme bias against him.

Actually my dealings with you prove the opposite. Even though I despise you more than anyone on this board, we regularly agree on subjects. Whether or not I have an issue with you depends entirely on your behavior, not the fact that you're the poster.

No, that's another lie. I never suggested that someone being emotional is proof that they're wrong. I said that their emotional reactions show that they care about the subject when they're saying that they don't. Meanwhile I'm not pretending that I don't care.

There is no defense for calling Carr's performance against New Orleans "crap," "awful," or "ineffective." There just isn't. You were letting your bias shine through, and I don't mean bias specifically against Carr so much as anyone you perceive as a threat to Jake.

Yeah, you're a regular unique snowflake despite the fact that people joke about us being the same person typing incredibly fast.

 

didn't even directly state it. I just said you did take a week off directly after he had an awful showing. Didn't make the direct statement that it was why, but the timing is interesting. People were saying Carr is awful, and he was awful that game, and you weren't around. Then, after the fact, and after correcting everyone who said negative things about Carr, and making a thread telling people not to say bad things about him, you also noted how glad you were that you didn't see Meat's sentiment about him.

did I say otherwise? And no, you're not his cheerleader. You're just telling people not to say bad things, and getting sensitive about people saying bad things about same. Granted, you tend to get all positive and angry when the team starts to tank and people give up overall, but I can't specifically remember a time when any one player got this much undying support.

No. I found his play to be lackluster, and I owned to the statements I now feel incorrect. I also still have reservations about his play last week and don't know about using other factors as unapologetic excuses for the non-failings when I've never seen you use these excuses before. If I were "extremely biased" against him, I wouldn't be saying any of the things about him that I am this week.

And when we disagree, it's nonetheless epic, and you've admitted many times that your bias against me is clear and evident. It also obviously shows how it colors your arguments.

You don't have to pretend to care or not care. I think the ideal is more that you get angry to the point of losing control and most people don't think that's normal.

Here's the thing, though. You're insulting him, berating him, and looking to trap him into a mistake. And then you're telling him that he's emotional, which was your intent to cause, and saying that said emotion is because he was embarrassed. By you. Besides the obvious - that this has nothing to do with the subject - it's more than slightly odd to crown yourself winner when you decide your own criteria and force the opponent into that criteria on purpose.

This doesn't even enter into it. I never realistically believed Jake was going to be cut in 2008, while you've tried to cut him every year since his contract. I've obviously stated a couple hundred times now that I want Jake to get well, and that Carr is our only realistic hope for success this year.
You're not fazed by that, though. It doesn't make your case, so let's omit that.

Plus, going around and spouting "liar!!!!" every time anyone says anything about literally anything that you disagree with? It really just doesn't make the reaction for people when you use it fifty fucking times a day. There used to be a time when you were at least trying to be creative, now you're using the same old tricks every time.

People also joke about you being Sandy, so maybe the chat consensus doesn't work. Maybe offhand jokes aren't the facts and proof you're looking for.

 

GOOD GRIEF!

 

The timing is irrelevant to Carr specifically. I even said why I took a week off, because I was more disappointed in the Panthers as a team than I had ever been. You want to pretend that it was about Carr because you're trying to make me seem biased for him to deflect the fact that you're biased against him.

I'm telling people not to bitch. If someone wants to make legitimate criticisms, I always welcome that. Well-reasoned arguments are one thing, calling someone "crap" or "awful" or "ineffective" without providing the slightest bit of evidence to support those claims is something else entirely. I'm tired of the bitching. If someone wants to say "Carr sucks," then prove why that opinion is valid, otherwise keep your mouth shut.

And you're right back to lying. As I said, I've done this with any number of Panthers who were being crapped on and you've made this same statement in pretty much all of those instances. You accused me of being a Henning cheerleader when I defended him from your biased attacks, and you've made the same accusation in other instances. Moreover, as noted, anyone still around from the Charlotte.com days knows that I have never been more animated than when I defended Steve Beuerlein against the idiots who wanted us to dump him.

I haven't used any excuses, magnus. I've only used facts and statistics. You're the one who has provided exactly zero evidence for calling him "crap," "awful," and "ineffective."

I've admitted many times that I hate you and wish you would die, but when you make a good argument I acknowledge that, even when I disagree with it. I do not disagree with you just because you're the one who said something, while you have admitted that you've done that to me because you enjoy tweaking me.

Someone who loses control doesn't keep relying on facts. Someone who loses control loses arguments. Instead I've so humiliated you and your obvious bias for saying that Carr was "crap," "awful," and "ineffective" that you're now backing off those statements.

Seriously, what kind of idiot are you? He claimed that he doesn't care about the argument, when I said that his emotion is evidence that he does. Meanwhile I never claimed that I didn't care.

Only when someone actually lies, which you do regularly any time you feel like you're losing an argument. I could give literally hundreds of examples of where you claimed that I said things that I did not.

I haven't seen anyone say that, while I've seen plenty say that we're two sides of the same coin, and that you're a narcissistic ass too. You have never wanted to take responsibility for your own behavior, while I've always been willing to do so because I'm not ashamed of who I am.

 

It does, certainly, have some very odd timing if not. It's not that the loss wouldn't bother you if Carr had played well, I'm not saying that. But you did take an entire week off, and then lamented that you wouldn't have handled reading some of the things being said about Carr at the time. Since, you've told people not to say bad things about him.

It's specifically telling people not to have an opinion you disagree with. You've never been so bothered as to start a topic for such a purpose.

I've never once heard you criticize playcalling for the detriment of a QB's stats on this team. I'd not expect that 100% of anything that happens is on anyone but the QB.

No, not true. I have, however, said many times that you're barely tolerable when you're not unhappy, so I don't enjoy the fact that me disagreeing with you inevitably means you getting into a
The only time I specifically took you to anger for a purpose was at the lair, in 2004. And certainly in every bit of honesty I'd rather you be logical and rational than wishing people to die or talking about their families, intellect, and character as a function of your anger.

I owned these statements and explained them. You can keep bringing them up over and over but they aren't concerning to me. I made a statement and I was able to recant it as he improved from the start of the game and after the Bucs game, to where he finished. Which my opinion changed at that point. You also conveniently fail to note that, of course, and that my reaction was directly tied to him doing something really stupid to bring him out of the game when the one thing we needed was for that not to happen.

.

And I stated that you were the one directly causing his emotion by insult, beration, and trying to trap him into mistakes. Which was the point, one you've dodged now a couple times. You were angry, you set out to make him angry, and then tried to use his anger as proof he was somehow humiliated.

And I could come up with numerous ones you directly shaped my words to say something I didn't. The difference is I correct you on it, rather than froth off at the mouth, because I know that looks really stupid and isn't going to help my argument. Which is why I don't call every person I disagree with stupid, retarded, ignorant, a liar, and so on. That and the simple idea that some of the best people here you've called fucking idiot liars.

People have.
And I take responsibility for my behavior. The idea that it's a way of making yours acceptible, or that similar, is untrue. The idea that I'm not taking responsibility if I don't agree with your view of things in an argument where you also just happen to use such as a tactic to score "points", is dishonest and self serving.