- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/24/08 at 4:56 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Of course, it will be. You don't seem to hold your own posts to the standards you hold others' posts.
I sure do. Now, run along to a USC board.
Posted on 8/24/08 at 5:17 pm to Rocket
quote:
I don't know why you'd tell me that because predicting things in the future was not what I was talking about.
Say what?: You know as well as I do there will be plenty of fans, right or wrong, who will be a little on edge if we get knocked out of the conference title race early.
That is exactly what you did in the post I referred to.
quote:
Are you really thinking what I said had to do with what you say about the future? Geez
No. You missed the boat again. I am using your own quotes to show you behave hypocritically and do not hold your posts to the same standards. I'll be clear. I said I was going outside and I'd get wet. You said I need to be careful about saying such as thing about the future.
quote:
As long as you acknowledge you weren't around in 2003 and you're just guessing, it's cool.
Let's be clear. I am not guessing. I am sure of it. Since you now have a disagreement with that. I will say again" Check out the "data", I am not guessing. I did not need to be here to be sure of the truth. Of course you will say again that you have no disagreement with me being sure and certain, although you have explicitly stated it. You can see saw back and forth on what you contend all you want.
quote:
Please spare us this nickel and dime crybaby bullshite. Uhhwhaaha "I didn't say this, I didn't say that". You're fool because you think you have to say something directly in order for people to know what you're talking about.
No crying here. You just need to stop making false assumptions. Especially after you find out it is false.
quote:
No, just making sure it's crystal clear you acknowledge that you didn't witness what you claim.
ALready did that. You either failed to understand or failed to accept and continued to badger
quote:
Actually, the problem lies in the fact that you think in order for someone to know what you're saying you have to directly say it. Semantics. Take your tit for tat bullshite to a USC board.
So you can "tit" first, but when one "tats" back it is BS. Typical of you.
quote:
Not false. When you state what you did in such a strong manner what you claim, one can interpret you think you witness what was or wasn't said back then.
It was false. You interpreted it wrong and I told you so. I would be the one who knows. At that point, you should have known it was false. But you either failed to understand or refused to accept sp you could badger.....check out above. Either way, at that point you were proven wrong.
Posted on 8/24/08 at 5:31 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Say what?: You know as well as I do there will be plenty of fans, right or wrong, who will be a little on edge if we get knocked out of the conference title race early.
That is exactly what you did in the post I referred to
Exactly right. I never told you to be careful about predicting the future did I? Nope.
Let me rephrase my post for the fellow mentally challenged USC poster:
In the future, be careful about the things you recall(not be careful about predicting the future).
Your reading comprehension skills are terrible.
quote:
No. You missed the boat again. I am using your own quotes to show you behave hypocritically and do not hold your posts to the same standards. I'll be clear. I said I was going outside and I'd get wet. You said I need to be careful about saying such as thing about the future.
You didn't "show" me anything other than you are unable to comprehend what I was saying.
I never said you needed to be careful about the future...just that in the future, be careful about what you recall. Your inability to acknowledge speaks largely about your intelligence.
quote:
Let's be clear. I am not guessing. I am sure of it. Since you now have a disagreement with that. I will say again" Check out the "data", I am not guessing. I did not need to be here to be sure of the truth
As long as you acknowledge you didn't witness what you claim, that's fine and my point is proven.
quote:
Of course you will say again that you have no disagreement with me being sure and certain, although you have explicitly stated it. You can see saw back and forth on what you contend all you want
Nope, you've indirectly stated that you weren't here to acknowledge what you claim and that's all I need to know I'm right and my point is proven.
quote:
crying here. You just need to stop making false assumptions. Especially after you find out it is false.
No crying here? That's all you've been doing. My point is you weren't around to witness what you claim. Thanks for helping me prove my point. You like that, don't you?
quote:
ALready did that. You either failed to understand or failed to accept and continued to badger
You beated the bush around it and wouldn't come out and say that for some time. WHy? Because you were scared. YOu didn't have the courage to admit it.
quote:
So you can "tit" first, but when one "tats" back it is BS. Typical of you.
Nope, playing by the same rules as you.
quote:
It was false. You interpreted it wrong and I told you so.
And you help me back up my claim when you acknowledge it. Now, you're catching on.
quote:
would be the one who knows. At that point, you should have known it was false. But you either failed to understand or refused to accept sp you could badger.....check out above. Either way, at that point you were proven wrong
My point was proven true because my point was you weren't around to witness what you claim and you, albeit indirectly, acknowledge it. Therefore I'm right and my point stands. Thanks.
Posted on 8/24/08 at 5:45 pm to Rocket
quote:
Exactly right. I never told you to be careful about predicting the future did I? Nope.
Depends how it is read. Reading comp has nothing to do with the of two ways to interpret. I chose the wrong one. Unclear due to poor writing skills on your part. Plain and simple.
Posted on 8/24/08 at 5:47 pm to Rocket
quote:
You beated the bush around it and wouldn't come out and say that for some time. WHy? Because you were scared. YOu didn't have the courage to admit it.
There you go again with false assumptions about feelings again. You obviously did not learn your lesson.
Posted on 8/24/08 at 5:50 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Depends how it is read. Reading comp has nothing to do with the of two ways to interpret. I chose the wrong one. Unclear due to poor writing skills on your part. Plain and simple.
Nope, my sentence was as clear as day. Get over it.
If I wanted to tell you to be careful about predicting things about the future, I would have said "be careful about predicting things about the future".
You read my sentence wrong and thought I said something I didn't. Pretty simple as to the problem you had.
Posted on 8/24/08 at 5:51 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
There you go again with false assumptions about feelings again. You obviously did not learn your lesson.
If you weren't scared, you would have come out and directly stated earlier that you didn't witness what you claim. You were scared. I'm certain, sure, and CONFIDENT about it.
Posted on 8/24/08 at 5:58 pm to Rocket
quote:
No crying here? That's all you've been doing. My point is you weren't around to witness what you claim. Thanks for helping me prove my point. You like that, don't you?
Contention, yes. Only contention? hardly:
These look familar?
In other words, you're not really positive how LSU fans talked about USC on this website, but you bet they didn't talk about USC as a rivalry then, eventhough you spouted off as if you knew first-hand earlier in the thread when you really didn't know first-hand.
Maybe it was mentioned, maybe it wasn't. You're not certain of anything that was posted on here in 2003.
So I will refute those points again. I am certain of my original statement, even though you dispute the statement (as noted above) then later return to say your only point had nothing to do with that.
Thanks for proving yourself wrong.
This post was edited on 8/24/08 at 6:02 pm
Posted on 8/24/08 at 6:01 pm to Rocket
quote:
If you weren't scared, you would have come out and directly stated earlier that you didn't witness what you claim. You were scared. I'm certain, sure, and CONFIDENT about it.
Scared of what? Being beat up, cyberbullied? Losing face?
I would be the one to know my feelings and those were not it at all. So you are proven wrong again---"first hand", which you always seem to require. 
Please stop while you are only a mile behind.
Posted on 8/24/08 at 6:06 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Contention, yes. Only contebntion? hardly:
In other words, you're not really positive how LSU fans talked about USC on this website, but you bet they didn't talk about USC as a rivalry then, eventhough you spouted off as if you knew first-hand earlier in the thread when you really didn't know first-hand.
Maybe it was mentioned, maybe it wasn't. You're not certain of anything that was posted on here in 2003.
So I will refute those points again. I am certain of my original statement, even though you dispute the statement (as noted above) then later return to say your only point had nothing to do with that.
Nope, I was summarizing your posts there. You didn't witness anything first hand. I'm not wrong there.
quote:
Thanks for proving yourself wrong
The only way you could prove me wrong is to prove that you witnessed what you claimed first hand. Since you can't, I'm right and my point stands. Thanks very much.
Posted on 8/24/08 at 6:08 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Scared of what? Being beat up, cyberbullied? Losing face?
You tell me. Only you know why you're scared.
quote:
Scared of what? Being beat up, cyberbullied? Losing face? I would
If you weren't, you wouldn't have had such a hard time directly stating you weren't around to witness what you claim.
quote:
So you are proven wrong again---"first hand", which you always seem to require
Since you don't need to witness anything you claim was said on here in 2003, I don't need you to tell me you were scared. I know. In fact, I'm sure, certain, and confident about it.
quote:
Please stop while you are only a mile behind
I've been ahead for a long time, especially now that you acknowledge I was right that you weren't around to witness what you claim.
Posted on 8/24/08 at 6:13 pm to Rocket
quote:
Nope, I was summarizing your posts there.
As indicated earlier you were making false assumptions, misinterpeting. In other words, summaraizing to your liking.
Posted on 8/24/08 at 6:15 pm to Rocket
quote:
Since you don't need to witness anything you claim was said on here in 2003, I don't need you to tell me you were scared. I know. In fact, I'm sure, certain, and confident about it.
There is hard data to prove that I am correct and you are wrong on both of these counts.
Posted on 8/24/08 at 6:16 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
As indicated earlier you were making false assumptions, misinterpeting. In other words, summaraizing to your liking.
Incorrect. In order to be certain(in my book), you would have to know witness first hand what was posted on here. You didn't so you're not certain.
This post was edited on 8/24/08 at 6:19 pm
Posted on 8/24/08 at 6:18 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
There is hard data to prove that I am correct and you are wrong on both of these counts
I'm entirely correct. My data is that you were unwilling to directly say you weren't around to witness what you claimed happened in the time you stated, thus you were scared and my claim is correct.
Posted on 8/24/08 at 6:21 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Anyway, I'm done with this thread. This thread stopped going anywhere a long time ago. Take care
Posted on 8/24/08 at 6:35 pm to Rocket
quote:
In order to be certain(in my book), you would have to know witness first hand what was posted on here. You didn't so you're not certain.
1. free from doubt or reservation; confident; sure: I am certain he will come.
2. destined; sure to happen (usually fol. by an infinitive): He is certain to be there.
3. inevitable; bound to come: They realized then that war was certain.
4. established as true or sure; unquestionable; indisputable: It is certain that he tried.
5. fixed; agreed upon; settled: on a certain day; for a certain amount.
6. definite or particular, but not named or specified: A certain person phoned. He had a certain charm.
7. that may be depended on; trustworthy; unfailing; reliable: His aim was certain.
8. some though not much: a certain reluctance.
9. Obsolete. steadfast.
–pronoun 10. certain ones: Certain of the members declined the invitation.
—Idiom 11. for certain, without a doubt; surely: I know for certain that I have
quote:
I'm entirely correct.
Unfortunately for you, you use intuitive reasoning.
Like you said--- "in your book", which I am sure is fiction.
Agreed, end of thread.
This post was edited on 8/24/08 at 6:39 pm
Posted on 8/24/08 at 7:11 pm to FtBelvoirTiger
I'd be pulling for LSU and really wanting them to win. But I think the "PAC 10 is weak" stuff I hear a lot around Baton Rouge is kind of questionable since the PAC 10 has a winning record against the SEC in head to head during the BCS era (I'm not going to look it up again but I have in the past and it's the case...there's nothing at all in the head to head series to suggest some tremendous superiority on the part of the SEC over the PAC 10).
You have stuff like USC beating Arkansas 50-14 on the road in 2006, when Arkansas went on to win the SEC West by going 7-1 during regular season conference play with the one loss being by 5 to LSU. Then the Hogs lost by 10 in the SEC title game to Florida.
And stuff like Cal, which finished tied for 7th in Pac 10 play at 3-6, beating eventual SEC East champ Tennessee by 14 to start the 2007 season.
Seriously, given the fact that the SEC has had its head handed to it many times during the BCS era by the Pac 10, I do think the "Pac 10 is weak" stuff is pretty lame.
USC has lost only one non conference game during the past 5 seasons; and that was the 3 point loss to Texas in the 2005 BCS title game. The only thing that's kept them out of BCS title games is other PAC 10 teams. The SEC teams they've played sure haven't done it.
You have stuff like USC beating Arkansas 50-14 on the road in 2006, when Arkansas went on to win the SEC West by going 7-1 during regular season conference play with the one loss being by 5 to LSU. Then the Hogs lost by 10 in the SEC title game to Florida.
And stuff like Cal, which finished tied for 7th in Pac 10 play at 3-6, beating eventual SEC East champ Tennessee by 14 to start the 2007 season.
Seriously, given the fact that the SEC has had its head handed to it many times during the BCS era by the Pac 10, I do think the "Pac 10 is weak" stuff is pretty lame.
USC has lost only one non conference game during the past 5 seasons; and that was the 3 point loss to Texas in the 2005 BCS title game. The only thing that's kept them out of BCS title games is other PAC 10 teams. The SEC teams they've played sure haven't done it.
Posted on 8/25/08 at 6:05 am to JohnStOnge
quote:I think folks want to believe it, so they believe it. They won't let facts get in the way of a good myth.
I'd be pulling for LSU and really wanting them to win. But I think the "PAC 10 is weak" stuff I hear a lot around Baton Rouge is kind of questionable since the PAC 10 has a winning record against the SEC in head to head during the BCS era (I'm not going to look it up again but I have in the past and it's the case...there's nothing at all in the head to head series to suggest some tremendous superiority on the part of the SEC over the PAC 10).
In all fairness, this season is probably the one where anti-PAC 10 SEC fans will crow the loudest. I have a hard time believing the ASU hype, and I think Georgia wins in the desert.
ucla may find it's arse by the end of the season, but they are a team in tatters right now. I'll be very surprised if they don't get blown out by Tinnersee.
So if you take those 2 games as SEC locks, the balance tips back in favor of the SEC when compared to the PAC 10 over the last 10 years.
By one game, I believe.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News