Temp check: 7-5

[Red Dead Redemption]

I do know the real origin. I just stated what it was in a previous post. I even explained where it was.

I'm beginning to think you don't fully understand what you are even arguing about.

You said you would look, and now you won't. I can't help it if you go back on your word.

Okay, then let's just try this again then: point me to the post that is origin and I will reevaluate my position.

Are you seriously this incompetent? I've already told you where it is. I think you even had a quote of CM's post in one of your earlier posts. That is the one taken out of context, and made into your pedantic argument. I've told you this already. Should I use a special color crayon for you to finally understand? Ask your dad for help.

If you've already told me where it is, as you claim, then surely you can tell me again. If you're so certain it's going to help you win your argument I'd think you'd be copy and pasting the url like crazy.

Which argument? The one that shows you are a liar and/or incompetent? Oh, I'm clearly winning that one.

Or do you mean the pedantic, semantic argument that originated from a lack of integrity by taking someone's quote out of context that you are clinging on to dear life for feelz?

 

[wanderful]

I do know the real origin. I just stated what it was in a previous post. I even explained where it was.

I'm beginning to think you don't fully understand what you are even arguing about.

You said you would look, and now you won't. I can't help it if you go back on your word.

Okay, then let's just try this again then: point me to the post that is origin and I will reevaluate my position.

Are you seriously this incompetent? I've already told you where it is. I think you even had a quote of CM's post in one of your earlier posts. That is the one taken out of context, and made into your pedantic argument. I've told you this already. Should I use a special color crayon for you to finally understand? Ask your dad for help.

If you've already told me where it is, as you claim, then surely you can tell me again. If you're so certain it's going to help you win your argument I'd think you'd be copy and pasting the url like crazy.

Which argument? The one that shows you are a liar and/or incompetent? Oh, I'm clearly winning that one.

Or do you mean the pedantic, semantic argument that originated from a lack of integrity by taking someone's quote out of context that you are clinging on to dear life for feelz?

The second one.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

I do know the real origin. I just stated what it was in a previous post. I even explained where it was.

I'm beginning to think you don't fully understand what you are even arguing about.

You said you would look, and now you won't. I can't help it if you go back on your word.

Okay, then let's just try this again then: point me to the post that is origin and I will reevaluate my position.

Are you seriously this incompetent? I've already told you where it is. I think you even had a quote of CM's post in one of your earlier posts. That is the one taken out of context, and made into your pedantic argument. I've told you this already. Should I use a special color crayon for you to finally understand? Ask your dad for help.

If you've already told me where it is, as you claim, then surely you can tell me again. If you're so certain it's going to help you win your argument I'd think you'd be copy and pasting the url like crazy.

Which argument? The one that shows you are a liar and/or incompetent? Oh, I'm clearly winning that one.

Or do you mean the pedantic, semantic argument that originated from a lack of integrity by taking someone's quote out of context that you are clinging on to dear life for feelz?

The second one.

No objection to the first argument? Then I have won that one. But I still don't know if you are a liar or incompetent, could you please clarify which is the case?

 

[Swiv3D]

This argument is hilarious. Neither side is going to admit they're wrong, so now it's just a slap fight. Keep it going lol.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

This argument is hilarious. Neither side is going to admit they're wrong, so now it's just a slap fight. Keep it going lol.

It's my Father's Day gift to me.

 

[wanderful]

I do know the real origin. I just stated what it was in a previous post. I even explained where it was.

I'm beginning to think you don't fully understand what you are even arguing about.

You said you would look, and now you won't. I can't help it if you go back on your word.

Okay, then let's just try this again then: point me to the post that is origin and I will reevaluate my position.

Are you seriously this incompetent? I've already told you where it is. I think you even had a quote of CM's post in one of your earlier posts. That is the one taken out of context, and made into your pedantic argument. I've told you this already. Should I use a special color crayon for you to finally understand? Ask your dad for help.

If you've already told me where it is, as you claim, then surely you can tell me again. If you're so certain it's going to help you win your argument I'd think you'd be copy and pasting the url like crazy.

Which argument? The one that shows you are a liar and/or incompetent? Oh, I'm clearly winning that one.

Or do you mean the pedantic, semantic argument that originated from a lack of integrity by taking someone's quote out of context that you are clinging on to dear life for feelz?

The second one.

No objection to the first argument? Then I have won that one. But I still don't know if you are a liar or incompetent, could you please clarify which is the case?

I'm just waiting for the link to this supposed post that's going to prove why I was wrong. Which, for the third time now, I'm perfectly willing to reevaluate my position on the argument. If you would just point me to whatever the hell it is you were referencing in this post:

You need to go back further and see what actually started the pedantic argument you are supporting.

Again, I'm perfectly willing to reevaluate my position on the argument and the only thing I've asked you to do is point me to what you're referencing in that post. You've responded with a lot of personal attacks at me and a seemingly Fruedian obsession with my father.

 

[Husker Psycho]

If Riley win six or seven games this year to meet at the trend. And that's a problem.

If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well.

Those two are tied together at the hip.

Which leads right back to the argument of how long to keep an underperforming coach.

Nebraska made a name for themselves by keeping coaches for a long time and so many Nebraska fans believe that keeping coaches for a long time has some sort of magic to it.

It doesn't. Keeping Solich and Pelini past 3-4 years was a mistake with both. The damage they did to the program in the last years of their tenure here did great harm to the program. We just kept them both too long.

Alabama on the other hand never keeps a coach that does not win them a national championship... pronto. The longest they have kept a coach that did not win them a national championship since around 1960 was 4 years. During that time they won something like 12 national championships. They demand national championship level coaches. Produce a national championship for us or you're gone.

For the last 18 years Nebraska has had the attitude of "don't worry" if you don't perform we'll keep you anyway. By doing that they take the pressure off of the coaches to win and they send a message loud and clear that Nebraska no longer expects national championship level coaches. That cant go on any longer. We need to send a message loud and clear that we expect our coaches to perform at the highest level or the're gone. If we are not willing to send that message then we might as well tell the whole world that we no longer are dedicated to championship level coaches and a championship level program.

 

[wanderful]

If Riley win six or seven games this year to meet at the trend. And that's a problem.

If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well.

Those two are tied together at the hip.

Which leads right back to the argument of how long to keep an underperforming coach.

Nebraska made a name for themselves by keeping coaches for a long time and so many Nebraska fans believe that keeping coaches for a long time has some sort of magic to it.

It doesn't. Keeping Solich and Pelini past 3-4 years was a mistake with both. The damage they did to the program in the last years of their tenure here did great harm to the program. We just kept them both too long.

Alabama on the other hand never keeps a coach that does not win them a national championship for them pronto. The longest they have kept a coach that did not win them a national championship since around 1960 was 4 years. During that time they won something like 12 national championships. They demand national championship level coaches. Produce a national championship for us or you're gone.

For the last 18 years Nebraska has had the attitude of "don't worry" if you don't perform we'll keep you anyway. By doing that they take the pressure off of the coaches to win and they send a message loud and clear that Nebraska no longer expects national championship level coaches. That cant go on any longer. We need to send a message loud and clear that we expect our coaches to perform at the highest level or their gone. If we are not willing to send that message then we might as well tell the whole world that we no longer are dedicated to championship level coaches and a championship level program.

Man, that's crazy about Alabama, I'd never heard that before.

I think Husker fans are more impatient now than they have been possibly at any other time in the last 50 years. I think Eichorst has enough political cover for maybe one more season like last year, but then any more after that and both he and Riley will likely be gone.

Eichorst could have bought himself more patience from us if he'd have fired Pelini after the scandals of 2013 or held him on for the 2015 season, but he set expectations really high firing him at the end of 2014. So he's got that working against him.

 

[Husker Psycho]

If Riley win six or seven games this year to meet at the trend. And that's a problem.

If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well.

Those two are tied together at the hip.

Which leads right back to the argument of how long to keep an underperforming coach.

Nebraska made a name for themselves by keeping coaches for a long time and so many Nebraska fans believe that keeping coaches for a long time has some sort of magic to it.

It doesn't. Keeping Solich and Pelini past 3-4 years was a mistake with both. The damage they did to the program in the last years of their tenure here did great harm to the program. We just kept them both too long.

Alabama on the other hand never keeps a coach that does not win them a national championship for them pronto. The longest they have kept a coach that did not win them a national championship since around 1960 was 4 years. During that time they won something like 12 national championships. They demand national championship level coaches. Produce a national championship for us or you're gone.

For the last 18 years Nebraska has had the attitude of "don't worry" if you don't perform we'll keep you anyway. By doing that they take the pressure off of the coaches to win and they send a message loud and clear that Nebraska no longer expects national championship level coaches. That cant go on any longer. We need to send a message loud and clear that we expect our coaches to perform at the highest level or their gone. If we are not willing to send that message then we might as well tell the whole world that we no longer are dedicated to championship level coaches and a championship level program.

Man, that's crazy about Alabama, I'd never heard that before.

I think Husker fans are more impatient now than they have been possibly at any other time in the last 50 years. I think Eichorst has enough political cover for maybe one more season like last year, but then any more after that and both he and Riley will likely be gone.

Eichorst could have bought himself more patience from us if he'd have fired Pelini after the scandals of 2013 or held him on for the 2015 season, but he set expectations really high firing him at the end of 2014. So he's got that working against him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Alabama_Crimson_Tide_head_football_coaches

 

[wanderful]

If Riley win six or seven games this year to meet at the trend. And that's a problem.

If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well.

Those two are tied together at the hip.

Which leads right back to the argument of how long to keep an underperforming coach.

Nebraska made a name for themselves by keeping coaches for a long time and so many Nebraska fans believe that keeping coaches for a long time has some sort of magic to it.

It doesn't. Keeping Solich and Pelini past 3-4 years was a mistake with both. The damage they did to the program in the last years of their tenure here did great harm to the program. We just kept them both too long.

Alabama on the other hand never keeps a coach that does not win them a national championship for them pronto. The longest they have kept a coach that did not win them a national championship since around 1960 was 4 years. During that time they won something like 12 national championships. They demand national championship level coaches. Produce a national championship for us or you're gone.

For the last 18 years Nebraska has had the attitude of "don't worry" if you don't perform we'll keep you anyway. By doing that they take the pressure off of the coaches to win and they send a message loud and clear that Nebraska no longer expects national championship level coaches. That cant go on any longer. We need to send a message loud and clear that we expect our coaches to perform at the highest level or their gone. If we are not willing to send that message then we might as well tell the whole world that we no longer are dedicated to championship level coaches and a championship level program.

Man, that's crazy about Alabama, I'd never heard that before.

I think Husker fans are more impatient now than they have been possibly at any other time in the last 50 years. I think Eichorst has enough political cover for maybe one more season like last year, but then any more after that and both he and Riley will likely be gone.

Eichorst could have bought himself more patience from us if he'd have fired Pelini after the scandals of 2013 or held him on for the 2015 season, but he set expectations really high firing him at the end of 2014. So he's got that working against him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Alabama_Crimson_Tide_head_football_coaches

I always forget Alabama won a NC in 92 since they were so quiet for so much of the rest of the decade.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

I do know the real origin. I just stated what it was in a previous post. I even explained where it was.

I'm beginning to think you don't fully understand what you are even arguing about.

You said you would look, and now you won't. I can't help it if you go back on your word.

Okay, then let's just try this again then: point me to the post that is origin and I will reevaluate my position.

Are you seriously this incompetent? I've already told you where it is. I think you even had a quote of CM's post in one of your earlier posts. That is the one taken out of context, and made into your pedantic argument. I've told you this already. Should I use a special color crayon for you to finally understand? Ask your dad for help.

If you've already told me where it is, as you claim, then surely you can tell me again. If you're so certain it's going to help you win your argument I'd think you'd be copy and pasting the url like crazy.

Which argument? The one that shows you are a liar and/or incompetent? Oh, I'm clearly winning that one.Or do you mean the pedantic, semantic argument that originated from a lack of integrity by taking someone's quote out of context that you are clinging on to dear life for feelz?

The second one.

No objection to the first argument? Then I have won that one. But I still don't know if you are a liar or incompetent, could you please clarify which is the case?

I'm just waiting for the link to this supposed post that's going to prove why I was wrong. Which, for the third time now, I'm perfectly willing to reevaluate my position on the argument. If you would just point me to whatever the hell it is you were referencing in this post:

You need to go back further and see what actually started the pedantic argument you are supporting.

Again, I'm perfectly willing to reevaluate my position on the argument and the only thing I've asked you to do is point me to what you're referencing in that post. You've responded with a lot of personal attacks at me and a seemingly Fruedian obsession with my father.

What Fruedian [sic] obsession would that be? Do you even know what that means? All I was saying was that if you need help you should ask someone close to you to help you. I'm sorry if you don't have anyone.

I don't understand why you seem so incapable of looking at your own posts. Is it that hard? Did you quote CM in your replies to me so many times you can't find it? I told you how to find it. Multiple times. No need to play coy. You quoted CM yourself when you tried to accuse me of saying something I didn't say. You then continued to mischaracterize my posts, and even some of yours. You also attributed quotes to me that I didn't say. Funny that the guy who is deliberately dishonest is complaining about being attacked. You also said you would go look and now you won't. Why are you incapable of admitting his quote was taken out of context? It makes you look like you have some kind of revisionist agenda. For several posts/pages, there was a lot of rationalization going on to try to make last seasons record not look as bad as it was. Then someone cherry-picked a post of CMs out of context and they even later admitted as much, as did you I think, just to make a silly trivial point. And you continued to perpetuate the pedantic semantics even after CM corrected and clarified. Are you trying to make the point to rationalize that because of just 3-5 plays we weren't that bad of a team last year? Are your feelz that important to you? Again, use the arrow button to go back further in the post where I said you need to go back further. It's really that simple. Don't play coy. You know what I'm referencing (and I just told you again in this post) and you know where it is (and I just told you again in this post)

 

[Elf]

It appears we are getting back to the argument that Nebraska almost won the game versus Purdue… And that if you really think about it Nebraska was basically undefeated last year.

In my Xbox game Nebraska WAS undefeated....so there!

 

[Landlord]

If I kill someone while driving my car drunk, what do you guys think about this legal defense?


"Well officer, me being drunk behind the wheel wasn't really directly responsible for their death. You see, every decision made all day beforehand had an equal part to play in it. If I would have decided to eat dinner somewhere else it wouldn't have happened. If I would have accidentally stubbed my toe instead of walking through the living room efficiently, I would have been late. If he wouldn't have decided to walk on the street at that exact moment in time, I would have never hit him!"

Paging QMany, I need to know about the validity of this logical sort of reasoning.

 

[cm husker]

If Riley win six or seven games this year to meet at the trend. And that's a problem.

If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well.

Those two are tied together at the hip.

Which leads right back to the argument of how long to keep an underperforming coach.

Nebraska made a name for themselves by keeping coaches for a long time and so many Nebraska fans believe that keeping coaches for a long time has some sort of magic to it.

It doesn't. Keeping Solich and Pelini past 3-4 years was a mistake with both. The damage they did to the program in the last years of their tenure here did great harm to the program. We just kept them both too long.

Alabama on the other hand never keeps a coach that does not win them a national championship... pronto. The longest they have kept a coach that did not win them a national championship since around 1960 was 4 years. During that time they won something like 12 national championships. They demand national championship level coaches. Produce a national championship for us or you're gone.

For the last 18 years Nebraska has had the attitude of "don't worry" if you don't perform we'll keep you anyway. By doing that they take the pressure off of the coaches to win and they send a message loud and clear that Nebraska no longer expects national championship level coaches. That cant go on any longer. We need to send a message loud and clear that we expect our coaches to perform at the highest level or the're gone. If we are not willing to send that message then we might as well tell the whole world that we no longer are dedicated to championship level coaches and a championship level program.

For every Alabama, there are a dozen programs that try the "fire and forget" method to absolutely no avail.

Nebraska should not try to follow the USC/Alabama model.

 

[cm husker]

If I kill someone while driving my car drunk, what do you guys think about this legal defense?

"Well officer, me being drunk behind the wheel wasn't really directly responsible for their death. You see, every decision made all day beforehand had an equal part to play in it. If I would have decided to eat dinner somewhere else it wouldn't have happened. If I would have accidentally stubbed my toe instead of walking through the living room efficiently, I would have been late. If he wouldn't have decided to walk on the street at that exact moment in time, I would have never hit him!"

Paging QMany, I need to know about the validity of this logical sort of reasoning.

Actually, every outcome is usually a culmination of little events/decisions. Rarely can any outcome be attributed to any single thing.

There's an interesting documentary/case study about the challenger accident that illustrates the point.

In that case, someone could say "well if that single coupling hadn't failed, the outcome would be totally different." But that's exactly the wrong way to evaluate negative outcome when trying to determine the cause and appropriate remedial measures.