Selmon Rules wrote:I've been reading this with interest the past few days (its Spring Break and I have time) and its like I never left the classroom... I teach kids with emotional and behavioral disorders and arguments pop up all of the time and someone has to lose. I usually tell them that the first person to resort to using the word "technically" has lost the argument.
While you haven't actually used the word itself, you have resorted to arguing semantics and technicalities is this thread and have decided to defend this particular pile of dung. Nobody is arguing that .489 is better than .500 but we are saying that you're just being a contrarian and would have argued the other side of this if MJW had claimed he could not possibly with half of his games if needed for a short period of time....
I get it, you apparently suffer from ODD (Oppositional Defiance Disorder) and can't be satisfied with agreeing about anything and would likely argue about the particular shade of blue the sky happens to be today given the opportunity
I absolutely love this philosophy - if you use the word "technically" in your argument, or resort to arguing with technicality in mind, you've lost the argument.
Also, I'd like to remind the field of this point - I didn't say he was a mortal lock to win as many as he loses. If I'd said that, Bootz's argument would have at least been reasonable. But I never did. I said he was capable of doing so over a relatively short period of time. As such, not only was Bootz's argument totally misguided, it was statistically inert as well, as many have pointed out throughout this thread.
But instead of just saying, "I'm just making a point" or "I'm just busting chops," or, "Here's why I disagree Cutler would be a good backup," or even, "YOU'RE RIGHT, I DIDN'T THINK OF IT THAT WAY AT FIRST," Bootz can't help but Bootz, and double down on his indefensible point, and quadruple down, until he's getting ripped apart and pretending he possesses a rare vision that the commoners aren't up to understanding.
Let me state it again, clearly:
"I believe Jay Cutler would be a good backup for our team because he's capable of winning as many as he loses if Winston suffers a moderate injury, and he's the only backup on the market (besides maybe CK) I'd say that about."
Anybody want to mount a reasonable argument to that?