ROLL WITH COLE!

[HerdFB1]

Imo we will be lucky to make a bowl game. Need to win 2 of the next 4. And I don't see it. App st - L , S Alabama - L, Georgia Southern - L, Arkansas St - W. That's a 5-7 record.

does the FCS win with Albany count towards bowl eligibility? If not, we need 3 wins out of the next 4 games.

 

[johns1124]

does the FCS win with Albany count towards bowl eligibility? If not, we need 3 wins out of the next 4 games.

It does.

 

[mlblack16.]

does the FCS win with Albany count towards bowl eligibility? If not, we need 3 wins out of the next 4 games.

You get to count one win per season against a I-AA for bowl eligibility.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Moron, the posts that you made/liked were entirely based on what a college coach said to the press. So if you can’t believe what they say, you’re arguing against fallacies.

This is why you’re referred to as Tier Three. My god.

1) Person says something
2) You argue illogically against what that person said
3) As a defense to your illogical argument, you then say a person would have to be a fool to believe anything the person says, so now you’ve just argued an illogical position against something you now believe isn’t even true.

Brilliant.

Now you're just making shit up, liar. The entire point of 429's post was that Huff was being disingenuous in his press conference and just played Pennington so he could say "told you so." Huff most certainly stated that Fancher's injuries/health played a part in him turning the ball over - "not 100% healthy . . . got hit there," etc. I agreed with that assessment. The turnover line was also complete bullshit because Fancher has been throwing it up for grabs for weeks now, with no repercussions. If he were actually looking for a "spark" or change, he would have played the backup with the most experience - the 5th year guy from Rice. Nothing I said or liked contradicts my position that you're a fvcking idiot for taking what Huff said at face value and acting like it was truthful. If that's your position, you missed the whole point of 429's post to begin with.

Let me break this down for you since you seem to be slow. 429 said Huff was full of shit. I agreed. You argued that Huff was not full of shit and that 429 misconstrued his comments and it wasnt about his injuries (not true as I've already pointed out). 429 clarified stating that Fancher turned the ball over last week with no repurcussions. I said you were a fool for believing Huff's bullshit. Now you say I'm arguing out of both sides of my mouth by saying Huff's a liar - which was the original point of the argument to begin with. Get out of here with that bullshit. You're placing value on one part of Huff's statement (the turnover angle) while completely ignoring the other half of that same statement (Fancher was hurt, which played a role in the turnover). Talk about a comprehension deficit. In any event, both parts of the statement were lies.

Bottom line, either you're a moron for misunderstanding the premise of 429's post to begin with, or you're a moron for believing Huff. Either way, you're still a moron.

 

[Jartard]

Now you're just making shit up, liar. The entire point of 429's post was that Huff was being disingenuous in his press conference and just played Pennington so he could say "told you so." Huff most certainly stated that Fancher's injuries/health played a part in him turning the ball over - "not 100% healthy . . . got hit there," etc. I agreed with that assessment. The turnover line was also complete bullshit because Fancher has been throwing it up for grabs for weeks now, with no repercussions. If he were actually looking for a "spark" or change, he would have played the backup with the most experience - the 5th year guy from Rice. Nothing I said or liked contradicts my position that you're a fvcking idiot for taking what Huff said at face value and acting like it was truthful. If that's your position, you missed the whole point of 429's post to begin with.

Let me break this down for you since you seem to be slow. 429 said Huff was full of shit. I agreed. You argued that Huff was not full of shit and that 429 misconstrued his comments and it wasnt about his injuries (not true as I've already pointed out). 429 clarified stating that Fancher turned the ball over last week with no repurcussions. I said you were a fool for believing Huff's bullshit. Now you say I'm arguing out of both sides of my mouth by saying Huff's a liar - which was the original point of the argument to begin with. Get out of here with that bullshit. You're placing value on one part of Huff's statement (the turnover angle) while completely ignoring the other half of that same statement (Fancher was hurt, which played a role in the turnover). Talk about a comprehension deficit. In any event, both parts of the statement were lies.

Bottom line, either you're a moron for misunderstanding the premise of 429's post to begin with, or you're a moron for believing Huff. Either way, you're still a moron.

Damn it! Now we are gonna get hit with about a 10 page manifesto.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Damn it! Now we are gonna get hit with about a 10 page manifesto.

Do what I do and ignore him when he writes those rambling diatribes. I just say "okay" at that point because I've accomplished what I set out to do.

 

[muthed]

I can like a post with the little like button. Don't read too much into that. In some cases, I have even liked posts I disagree with.

Are you getting so petty that you are actually looking to see who likes certain posts? Also, I didn't read your entire post. I am a busy man.

He even goes back and counts the posts you have made. Kinda like stalking.

 

[ru4_mu2]

I can like a post with the little like button. Don't read too much into that. In some cases, I have even liked posts I disagree with.

Are you getting so petty that you are actually looking to see who likes certain posts? Also, I didn't read your entire post. I am a busy man.

exactly. I've never seen "likes" referenced on any other page I visit. I like some posts if they're funny, not always because I agree or disagree with it.

 

[ThunderCat98]

exactly. I've never seen "likes" referenced on any other page I visit. I like some posts if they're funny, not always because I agree or disagree with it.

This^^^

Or sometimes you like a portion of what is said in a post. Doesn't mean you approve of the entire statement. And who takes time out to clarify? It's a message board ffs.

 

[Jartard]

This^^^

Or sometimes you like a portion of what is said in a post. Doesn't mean you approve of the entire statement. And who takes time out to clarify? It's a message board ffs.

Obviously a personal assistant. Ya know, rich.

 

[elginherd]

I will 'like' a well-reasoned argument whether I agree with the opinion or not.
Adults have open minds.

 

[Catfanatic1979v1]

Chad did have Randy, true. But this team doesn't have a Darius Passmore. We are truly hurting at WR and any QB is going to suffer because of it. You have to be really accurate and throw with proper touch to make the most of this bunch because they ain't bailing you out on bad balls.

 

[riflearm2]

Now you're just making shit up, liar. The entire point of 429's post was that Huff was being disingenuous in his press conference and just played Pennington so he could say "told you so."]

Wrong, Tier Three.

The entire point of '429's initial post was that Huff was lying by saying he took Cam out due to an injury. That was what his entire post was about. Your premise is already destroyed based on that.

If that's your position, you missed the whole point of 429's post to begin with.

Again, that wasn't the point of his post. This goes back to me routinely calling out just how shitty you are at basic reading comprehension. His entire post was about Huff lying about saying he made the change due to injury. But as those of us with basic communication skills know, Huff never made that claim.

Let me break this down for you since you seem to be slow. 429 said Huff was full of shit.

Wrong again, Tier Three. '429 said he was full of shit due to Huff allegedly saying he pulled Cam due to an injury. So by agreeing with that, like you did, you're agreeing that Huff saying that is bullshit. However, Huff never made that claim. So agreeing with the "full of shit" line means you're wrong, because the whole "full of shit" belief was built on a false claim.

.

Bottom line, either you're a moron for misunderstanding the premise of 429's post to begin with,

I really do think you're a good guy, but my god, you really struggle with basic intelligence and comprehension. Here is what '429 posted:

Bullshit. You had cam out there last week on one leg and refused to take him out but tonight it’s because he wasn’t healthy?!?! Get out of here with that weak shit. The only reason Cole was in the cam was to stroke huffs ego and say see I told you so

His entire point about sayiing "bullshit" was the false belief that Huff claimed he pulled Cam due to the injury. I didn't even remotely misunderstand his premise. You're the moron who did that.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Wrong, Tier Three.

The entire point of '429's initial post was that Huff was lying by saying he took Cam out due to an injury. That was what his entire post was about. Your premise is already destroyed based on that.


Again, that wasn't the point of his post. This goes back to me routinely calling out just how shitty you are at basic reading comprehension. His entire post was about Huff lying about saying he made the change due to injury. But as those of us with basic communication skills know, Huff never made that claim.


Wrong again, Tier Three. '429 said he was full of shit due to Huff allegedly saying he pulled Cam due to an injury. So by agreeing with that, like you did, you're agreeing that Huff saying that is bullshit. However, Huff never made that claim. So agreeing with the "full of shit" line means you're wrong, because the whole "full of shit" belief was built on a false claim.


I really do think you're a good guy, but my god, you really struggle with basic intelligence and comprehension. Here is what '429 posted:



His entire point about sayiing "bullshit" was the false belief that Huff claimed he pulled Cam due to the injury. I didn't even remotely misunderstand his premise. You're the moron who did that.

Okay, champ.

 

[mlblack16.]

"Huff gets a B- grade so far"

*Rifleturd2

 

[riflearm2]

Okay, champ.

No, don't be a pussy.

Here is his post:

Bullshit. You had cam out there last week on one leg and refused to take him out but tonight it’s because he wasn’t healthy?!?! Get out of here with that weak shit. The only reason Cole was in the cam was to stroke huffs ego and say see I told you so

The entire premise of his "bullshit" was that Huff said he pulled Cam due to an injury. That premise is bogus. I didn't misunderstand it. You did.