Playing by your rules (that you hold yourself to), we cherry pick which questions we respond toâŚit makes it easier to move the goal post & frame your âargumentâ as a winner. Isnât that how it works? Then you pretend you donât know you do it & that it isnât real.
âŚoooorrr⌠I could contend that you xonât know what a double standard is & find an obscure link (not the actual definition) as âproofâ
Was he lucky that he nailed several clutch throws to overcome the 4 fumbles his teammates flubbed away? To watch that game & come away with âluckyâ is some reeeeeaaally strong fishing⌠Iâm talking deep sea fishing.
Donât you just love February in The Den.
I started this thread as a joke/jab.
We love to argue about the QB, donât we!
Harrington, Kitna, Stafford, Goff, the next guy (even if itâs AR). Doesnât matter.
This is close to word-soup nonsense. Again thatâs not a cherry pick and there arenât ârulesâ here other than no personal attacks and be collegial. Iâm also not moving the goal posts. I was asking you to clarify what statements I made that support your claim I was the one showing a double standard.
You didnât because you canât. What you should consider doing in the future is take a step back from the weeds and try to think about the actual statements and arguments being made
Again read my statements. But donât just read them try to actually understand them. I said it takes talent, good coaching, complimentary football and some luck
Stafford was lucky when his pick was dropped. He showed talent when he made clutch throws. Iâm
not sure how you canât see that. What you do is ignore statements and get all wonky when any mention of luck is brought up.
Iâm not weighing in on Allen vs. Goff cuz I honestly havenât watched Josh Allen nearly enough to have an informed take on his game.
But I suspect that âflashâ has a LOT more to do with the perceived difference between them than a lot of folks will acknowledge. Allen plays QB the ways we did as kids in the neighborhood. Allen has a bazooka arm, can ad-lib for days, uses his legs, and doesnât slide. Goff is the anti-flash.
Creating threads mocking a certain position of thinking is okay thoughâŚâŚâŚinsinuating people canât think critically or comprehend words is 100% okay.
There ya go then.
Zero curiosity â just âIâm right & you are wrongâ
No self accountability. Not saying âever,â but I can say Iâve never seen it.
Youâll make suggestions as to where others can âtake a look,â but as for your own self growth -->âŚno interest
Growth driven vs significance driven.
Pure deflection, or taking a look at it?
the definition of collegial isnât âpassive aggressive, indirect, cherry-picking, accusational languaging,â bro
Always looking for a reframe, redefining terms, others âcanât understand,â etc.
Itâs almost hyperbolic at times, like a character in a sit com. Highly predictable.
Of course there are no rulesâŚthey are unwrittenâŚ& you have different standers for others than you hold yourself to.
Fantastic example of what Iâm talking about.
Coulx understand me, my drivers, what Iâm here for, & ask if that story even makes senseâŚ
OR just show up likeâŚ
Naaahhh⌠deflect, chalk it up to âNattyâs just full of shit,â & I will dismiss what he says (nothing dismissive or avoidant about that, btw)
Yeah, yeah, âbut youâre dismissing what I say tooââŚyupâŚNow I am, because itâs the same merry-go-round with you, & at some point you have to consider the source & take it for what itâs worth.
Hereâs the differenceâŚ
â is it a pattern? Is it how they show up in conversations with lots of ppl, or just one person?
vs
â it only shows up here, in this conversation.
How many ppl in my life would consider me dismissive?
if it is more than a few, itâs time to look in the mirror.
I disagree w/ppl on here all the time, & 90% of the time, ppl are at least open to discussion & taking a look at themselves.
It is a very select few that are not.
Well humor has its place. If any of your posts were ever funny Iâd probably like your posts more.
Iâm not insinuating some people arenât thinking critically. Iâm saying it outright. Natty accuses me of a double standard while not even coming close to seeing the actual arguments I have made and refusing to answer when I asked for clarification
Iâve never really cared about your opinion. And there is no point to really try with you. Itâs simply calling you out on your bullshit and keep it moving.
Word soup again. Itâs not a metaphorical or rhetorical âyou canâtâ. Itâs literally âyou canâtâ because I never made the statements you are characterizing. I donât need a lecture on self-growth because you make a claim. I was arguing a double standard when it was actually you projecting yours
Thereâs nothing passive aggressive about âok show me what statements I made that are a double standard. Actual statements not your idea of what I saidâ
If anything thatâs normal aggressive. But Iâd say I was lending the courtesy of allowing you to clarify and support yourself
Someone needs to sponsor a logic clinic so people can understand what cherry picking actually means
he knows heâs flame baiting, which was the entire point of the thread.
designed to get ppl riled upâŚbut then play dumb, pretend you canât understand how someone could see it that way, & pull the victim card. Gaslighting. Continually telling others what they thinkâŚlike the goff wheel. If you canât see it my way, then itâs because of a reason on the goff wheel. Why? Cuz I say so.
humor can bring us together, for connection.
it can give us significance, by tearing others down,
it can detensify a situation & create calmness
it can create secondary gain by self deprecating,
it can build ppl up
etc
You think thatâs gaslighting? I assume youâre referring to my parody post on drafting AR which made fun of the 1,000 post thread and the three other exact same threads that popped up about it. Thatâs using humor. Not gaslighting. It wasnât emotionally manipulating you in order to control you
Then go do them. I could not care less if you post here or not
