A.J. Jenkins

[Crimsoncrew]

Didn't go out of my way at all. They were two seperate points so I simply addressed them seperately. Just as I did in my previous post here:

"I don't know how you are defining or quantifying "on a regular basis" but IMO, throwing passes to either blanketed or tightly covered receivers 1/3 of the time seems pretty regular to me."

"Unless you have charted each of Manning’s 589 passes you have no way of knowing if Manning’s "regular basis" is higher or lower than Smiths "regular basis"."

Yes, you did. You quoted two consecutive sentences. But you ended one with an ellipsis, closed the quotes, and started the next one with new quotes. That is more work than simply pasting both sentences in their entirety.

As for the rest, as I said, you don't have numbers for Manning, so the numbers for Smith don't prove anything.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Now, that's textbook Crimsoncrew. Pointing out when anyone misquotes you. Typical.

Call me crazy. I'm a stickler for accurate quotes that are presented in context. I know those are out of style these days.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Look Bem, this is getting silly. I think Eli Manning is more willing to throw into coverage than Alex Smith. You disagree. Neither of us has definitively proven our point, or even offered much in the way of relevant evidence. I think my position is clearly superior after watching both players in a few games, but if you like Alex Smith in this area, that's fine.

 

[Bemular]

Yes, you did. You quoted two consecutive sentences. But you ended one with an ellipsis, closed the quotes, and started the next one with new quotes. That is more work than simply pasting both sentences in their entirety.

As for the rest, as I said, you don't have numbers for Manning, so the numbers for Smith don't prove anything.

Here, lets try this another way. This is what you said.

Eli will indisputably throw into much narrower windows than Smith on a more regular basis.

Since Eli does not at all throw into “narrower windows”, let alone “much narrower windows”, this claim in its entirety is 100% false.

My choice to address the preposition separately is actually to your advantage. Thus, to continue to raise an issue with my doing so, seems to exhibit a rather low level of efficacy.

Here is what you should have said: “Eli will throw into coverage more often than Alex” Although still based in speculation, this statement is at least plausible. However, what makes it plausible also makes it unpopular as this statement directs too much attention toward the receivers, and rightfully so.

"open" to Alex Smith is not the same as "open" to Eli Manning and other elite QBs.

Regarding this statement, without having each QB in for a film test there is no way to qualify this, but if we look at the quantifying data they’re respective “opens” appear to be about even and I’m not so sure I wouldn’t take Smith’s “open” over Manning’s “open”.

The “open” I want is Rodgers “open”.

 

[Bemular]

Look Bem, this is getting silly. I think Eli Manning is more willing to throw into coverage than Alex Smith. You disagree. Neither of us has definitively proven our point, or even offered much in the way of relevant evidence. I think my position is clearly superior after watching both players in a few games, but if you like Alex Smith in this area, that's fine.

I was in the process of writing my previous post when you posted this - Didn't you say in the post just above this how you're a stickler for correct quotes and context? Wow, that didn't take long for you to prove that statement to be hilariously false as well.

Why are you so afraid of the truth, which is that you make ridiculously exaggerated claims and then try to support them with just about every fallacy listed on Wikipedia? You should try a different strategy, but that’s just my opinion.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Here, lets try this another way. This is what you said.

Eli will indisputably throw into much narrower windows than Smith on a more regular basis.

Since Eli does not at all throw into “narrower windows”, let alone “much narrower windows”, this claim in its entirety is 100% false.

See, it doesn't work like that. You can't just remove the prepositional phrase. Doing so changes the meaning of the sentence.

For instance, if I said, "I am faster than anyone in my family," I am claiming only to be faster than a select group of people. If you remove the prepositional phrase "in my family," however, it would appear that I am claiming to be the fastest person in the world. Obviously that would dramatically change the meaning of the sentence, and would be a false statement.

I have to assume that you understand this and are deliberately manipulating my words to convey something other than what I said. If that's not the case, in all seriousness, you desperately need to study grammar.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I was in the process of writing my previous post when you posted this - Didn't you say in the post just above this how you're a stickler for correct quotes and context? Wow, that didn't take long for you to prove that statement to be hilariously false as well.

Why are you so afraid of the truth, which is that you make ridiculously exaggerated claims and then try to support them with just about every fallacy listed on Wikipedia? You should try a different strategy, but that’s just my opinion.

I guess I shouldnt' be too critical of you. After all, you did actually provide some statistics to support your argument here, which is more than we usually get from you. Unfortunately, the statistics you provided are not from a reliable source and have little relevance to the discussion as we are talking about two players relative to one another, and you only provided information for one of them.

As said, you misrepresented my statement to make it appear outrageous. It's a cute trick, but at the end of the day that's all it is.

Now, that aside, even if my initial statement was not clear, I have REPEATEDLY attempted to clarify it by amending it to, "Eli is more willing to throw into coverage than Smith." If you are hung up on my "open" comparison, then move past it. The sentence you encourage me to use - almost identical to one I have used earlier in this threat - is the idea that I am getting at. If you disagree with that statement, fine. If not, stop bitching.

 

[Bemular]

See, it doesn't work like that. You can't just remove the prepositional phrase. Doing so changes the meaning of the sentence.

For instance, if I said, "I am faster than anyone in my family," I am claiming only to be faster than a select group of people. If you remove the prepositional phrase "in my family," however, it would appear that I am claiming to be the fastest person in the world. Obviously that would dramatically change the meaning of the sentence, and would be a false statement.

I have to assume that you understand this and are deliberately manipulating my words to convey something other than what I said. If that's not the case, in all seriousness, you desperately need to study grammar.

You seem to be having difficulty with the fact that the noun phrase makes the entire sentence false including the preposition. Therefore, by my removing the preposition and addressing it separately I'm giving it credence toward a different idea; the idea that Manning throws into coverage more often than Smith.

Your example of "being faster" is not even in the same ball park as what you said about Eli & Alex. One, under normal circumstances is plausible - the other is not. I'm pretty sure my grammar is good enough for this board.

Look, Crimson, you can barely get your facts straight about football, I'm not going to entertain a debate with you about anything “school” related. You were 100% wrong about your "much narrower window" claim, but you raised an interesting point about the frequency issue for which I tried to give you credit. However, it seems the appeal of being 100% wrong and stupid is just too alluring for you - and that is fine with me, have it your way.

 

[Bemular]

I guess I shouldnt' be too critical of you. After all, you did actually provide some statistics to support your argument here, which is more than we usually get from you. Unfortunately, the statistics you provided are not from a reliable source and have little relevance to the discussion as we are talking about two players relative to one another, and you only provided information for one of them.

As said, you misrepresented my statement to make it appear outrageous. It's a cute trick, but at the end of the day that's all it is.

Now, that aside, even if my initial statement was not clear, I have REPEATEDLY attempted to clarify it by amending it to, "Eli is more willing to throw into coverage than Smith." If you are hung up on my "open" comparison, then move past it. The sentence you encourage me to use - almost identical to one I have used earlier in this threat - is the idea that I am getting at. If you disagree with that statement, fine. If not, stop bitching.

As I mentioned in my previous post - I was working on my response and did not see that you had posted your amending statement. Perhaps it is you who needs to take a Midol.

 

[TobyTyler]

Geez, Bemular and Crimson you sound like a couple of pedantic old Harvard professors.....and I don't mean that in a complimentary way.

 

[Bemular]

Geez, Bemular and Crimson you sound like a couple of pedantic old Harvard professors.....and I don't mean that in a complimentary way.

Well, that's better than being an Old Didactic Harvard Professor ;-)

...And FTR, that would be an Old Pedantic Harvard Professor Emeritus - ;-)

 

[TobyTyler]

Well, that's better than being an Old Didactic Harvard Professor ;-)

...And FTR, that would be an Old Pedantic Harvard Professor Emeritus - ;-)

Ha ha , fair enough. Excuse me for a minute, I gotta go look up the word "didactic".

 

[Bemular]

Ha ha , fair enough. Excuse me for a minute, I gotta go look up the word "didactic".

Well good! Then we're even mister! ;-)

 

[Arete Tzu]

Wow. That was a REALLY vague reference. I love it. The vaguer the better. If people got even 20% of my references I'm not being vague enough.

I still have no idea what it means or why someone would do that.

lol hip hop fans should know the reference, that's a very famous song.

and carrots = diamonds, the picture is just a random act of irony.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

You seem to be having difficulty with the fact that the noun phrase makes the entire sentence false including the preposition. Therefore, by my removing the preposition and addressing it separately I'm giving it credence toward a different idea; the idea that Manning throws into coverage more often than Smith.

Your example of "being faster" is not even in the same ball park as what you said about Eli & Alex. One, under normal circumstances is plausible - the other is not. I'm pretty sure my grammar is good enough for this board.

Look, Crimson, you can barely get your facts straight about football, I'm not going to entertain a debate with you about anything “school” related. You were 100% wrong about your "much narrower window" claim, but you raised an interesting point about the frequency issue for which I tried to give you credit. However, it seems the appeal of being 100% wrong and stupid is just too alluring for you - and that is fine with me, have it your way.

Here's the thing. Your grammar is fine if you're just going to post on the board. But you are calling me out because of the grammar of my sentence, and you are nowhere near knowledgeable enough about grammar to do so. Again, the prepositional phrase I used changed the meaning of my sentence. You cannot divorce it from the rest of the sentence.

And yet again, I believe I have made it very clear what my position is. If you disagree, fine. If not, why are we still having this conversation?

 

[MHSL82]

Here's the thing. Your grammar is fine if you're just going to post on the board. But you are calling me out because of the grammar of my sentence, and you are nowhere near knowledgeable enough about grammar to do so. Again, the prepositional phrase I used changed the meaning of my sentence. You cannot divorce it from the rest of the sentence.

And yet again, I believe I have made it very clear what my position is. If you disagree, fine. If not, why are we still having this conversation?

Why not? People divorce the "a well-regulated militia" from the Second Amendment all the time. The Constitution says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." People just read the second part, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now, I think the well-regulated militia part is just dicta explaining why the right to bear arms is there (for 'the security of a free state'), but everyone I've ever spoken to about it, ignores it altogether.

I know both say the exact same thing in modern interpretation, but the forefathers were clearly talking about a right to bear arms to fight governmental oppression/tyrrany, not self defense right that we now call it.

Having said that, I know you couldn't have a requirement for owning a gun be for "fighting governmental oppression" - that would just be stupid. The government requiring you to conspire or at least be ready to threaten the government to have a gun? :P So either way, the right to bear arms cannot be infringed.

P.S. I'm being sarcastic about being able to divorce parts of sentences from others.

 

[Bemular]

Here's the thing. Your grammar is fine if you're just going to post on the board. But you are calling me out because of the grammar of my sentence, and you are nowhere near knowledgeable enough about grammar to do so. Again, the prepositional phrase I used changed the meaning of my sentence. You cannot divorce it from the rest of the sentence.

This was never about grammar - I just thought the idea of frequency was interesting. But just to help you out a little in that department - while the pphrase does modify the meaning of your claim it does nothing to alter the accuracy of it. Thus, until it can do that its only value in the context of this discussion is as a stand-alone idea.

 

[Rvnight18]

Not to be a stickler, but you have the 2nd amendment wrong.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[MHSL82]

Not to be a stickler, but you have the 2nd amendment wrong.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is what I get for using wikipedia. It says (and this apparently is wrong):

Text

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

 

[Rvnight18]

Yea I went there too at first, and figured that is what happened. Didn't mean anything by it just thought it would fit in with all the damn grammer talk