Thoughts - Week 6

[AUChizad]

Chad's polls are only right 8/12 of the time. Thats 3/4 for you idiots on the board...

About that...

My moronic fraction misstatement aside...

Explain how my polls are so insanely ignorant, while you're at it, JR.

Here's what I said, so you don't have to dig.

1. Oregon
2. Ohio State
3. Oklahoma
4. Auburn
5. Nebraska
6. LSU
7. Boise State
8. TCU
9. South Carolina
10. Utah
11. Alabama
12. Arkansas

I'd like to know what you thing is absolute blatheringly baffoonery. Please share your vast insight with the class.

Because I ranked Oregon ahead of Ohio State? I flip-flopped one and two? At least six other pollsters agree with me. You know, not every voter just looks at the last week's final BCS consensus and rides it all season. At least not the ones with half a brain in their head.

I'll justify just for you since it is driving you insane.

Oregon: Beat the holy hell out of Stanford, who I believe is pretty good themselves. They just beat USC. Tennesse & Arizona State are better than Ohio State's second and third best opponents.

Ohio State: Marshall, Ohio, Eastern Michigan, Illinois, Indiana. Yawn. Miami? Fair enough, although they just got the ever-loving shit smashed out of them by FSU this week.

Oklahoma: Wins against FSU & Texas > both better wins than Ohio State's most impressive win (Miami). Really, they probably even belong ahead of Ohio State, bumping them to (gasp) third. You could even justify, in my opinion, putting them behind...

Auburn: one of two undefeated teams in the toughest conference in the nation. A win over South Carolina, obviously, should carry some weight.

Nebraska: 17-3 against South Dakota State. Most impressive win is against an unranked Washington who lost to BYU and Arizona State.

LSU: Another undefeated SEC team. SC > UF, and UK > UT, and they really had no business beating either of those teams anyway. That puts them two spots behind Auburn.

Boise & TCU: I guess these are my most controversial picks, since being on their nuts is en vogue right now. The most impressive win between them was to Virginia Tech, who proved to be a joke the next week. They don't belong over an undefeated SEC team at this point in the season. Period.

South Carolina & Arkansas: As previously stated, AU > SC > uat > Arkansas based on the transitive property of common opponents to this point. Could it be proven wrong if Arkansas beats our ass next weekend? Absolutely. That's what next week's poll is for.

Utah: If you're going to be all over TCU & Boise's nuts for beating one decent team and a bunch of jokes, why leave Utah out?

Now, please rebut with something of substance. Bonus if you abstain from using a single smilie.

[JR4AU]

JR...  This is real simple...

1.  You threw the  out at Chizad because you felt like his statement was entirely a "hope" rather than anything based on what you see as reality.  However, it's only because you immediately assumed he was just being a homer that you didn't just read what he said, which was perfectly justifiable, and simply an opinion.

Then you flip flop on how it's "bammers and their polsters" position that made you point and call Chizad AFTER the poll comes out dropping bammer as Chizad had hoped, and call it a common thing.  In fact, here's your quote:
 

So, in conclusion, you went from calling Chizad a sunshine pumper basically to agreeing with his position.  Now you're dancing around it like a jackass and acting like it's everyone else confusing the situation.

Get over yourself.  You just got it wrong.  They dropped more than you thought.  What's the big fucking deal?

Expecting the pollsters to treat bammer normally  got the:   

The fact they did, doesn't mean that me saying what's normal was a flip flop.  But have a fucking ball with your little victory if you feel like it. 

[AUChizad]

What Chad said WAS entirely a 'hope', which is poll logic. By logic he said the poll should read Auburn, SCe, then Bama. Yes, I agree with Chad that the order he said was the logical one, but totally a pipe dream thinking it would actually happen. And it didn't happen. These pollsters make no fucking sense. Thinking they will at this point is very naive. 2004 taught us that.

Again, I can't for the life of me find where I said the pollsters would see it the same way I did. I just said that it would defy logic not to see it that way. I never once indicated that I had faith in the pollsters to adhere to logic.

[JR4AU]

What Chad said WAS entirely a 'hope', which is poll logic. By logic he said the poll should read Auburn, SCe, then Bama. Yes, I agree with Chad that the order he said was the logical one, but totally a pipe dream thinking it would actually happen. And it didn't happen. These pollsters make no fucking sense. Thinking they will at this point is very naive. 2004 taught us that.

FUCKING THIS!

[GH2001]

About that...

My moronic fraction misstatement aside...

Explain how my polls are so insanely ignorant, while you're at it, JR.

Here's what I said, so you don't have to dig.

I'd like to know what you thing is absolute blatheringly baffoonery. Please share your vast insight with the class.

Because I ranked Oregon ahead of Ohio State? I flip-flopped one and two? At least six other pollsters agree with me. You know, not every voter just looks at the last week's final BCS consensus and rides it all season. At least not the ones with half a brain in their head.

I'll justify just for you since it is driving you insane.

Oregon: Beat the holy hell out of Stanford, who I believe is pretty good themselves. They just beat USC. Tennesse & Arizona State are better than Ohio State's second and third best opponents.

Ohio State: Marshall, Ohio, Eastern Michigan, Illinois, Indiana. Yawn. Miami? Fair enough, although they just got the ever-loving shit smashed out of them by FSU this week.

Oklahoma: Wins against FSU & Texas > both better wins than Ohio State's most impressive win (Miami). Really, they probably even belong ahead of Ohio State, bumping them to (gasp) third. You could even justify, in my opinion, putting them behind...

Auburn: one of two undefeated teams in the toughest conference in the nation. A win over South Carolina, obviously, should carry some weight.

Nebraska: 17-3 against South Dakota State. Most impressive win is against an unranked Washington who lost to BYU and Arizona State.

LSU: Another undefeated SEC team. SC > UF, and UK > UT, and they really had no business beating either of those teams anyway. That puts them two spots behind Auburn.

Boise & TCU: I guess these are my most controversial picks, since being on their nuts is en vogue right now. The most impressive win between them was to Virginia Tech, who proved to be a joke the next week. They don't belong over an undefeated SEC team at this point in the season. Period.

South Carolina & Arkansas: As previously stated, AU > SC > uat > Arkansas based on the transitive property of common opponents to this point. Could it be proven wrong if Arkansas beats our ass next weekend? Absolutely. That's what next week's poll is for.

Utah: If you're going to be all over TCU & Boise's nuts for beating one decent team and a bunch of jokes, why leave Utah out?

Now, please rebut with something of substance. Bonus if you abstain from using a single smilie.

I will let JR answer you since you asked him directly but I actually think you're poll is more logical than the AP or ESPN polls, even though I don't agree with it entirely.

I agree Oregon LOOKS like the best team in the country - RIGHT NOW. Them and tOSU are 1a and 1b IMHO. Okl and Neb look good and SHOULD meet in the Big 12 title game but Okie Lite might have a slight say so in that before its over. I'm with you on Boise St and TCU, good teams? yes...But great teams? only against inferior 'teams'.

1. Oregon
2. Ohio State
3. Oklahoma
4. Nebraska
5. Auburn
6. Boise State
7. TCU
8. South Carolina
9. Utah
10. Alabama
11. Arkansas
12. LSU

[GH2001]

Again, I can't for the life of me find where I said the pollsters would see it the same way I did. I just said that it would defy logic not to see it that way. I never once indicated that I had faith in the pollsters to adhere to logic.

Fair enough. I was just saying why I thought JR threw out the 

Thinking the pollsters would do the logical thing is something we'll never see.

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

Expecting the pollsters to treat bammer normally  got the:   

The fact they did, doesn't mean that me saying what's normal was a flip flop.  But have a fucking ball with your little victory if you feel like it.

No, you didn't explain shit.  In fact you did a HORRIBLE job of explaining or telling anyone anything of the sort.   Especially for a guy that normally basks in the glow of his normally long winded, overly verbose explainations of usually simple situations.

[JR4AU]

No, you didn't explain shit.  In fact you did a HORRIBLE job of explaining or telling anyone anything of the sort.   Especially for a guy that normally basks in the glow of his normally long winded, overly verbose explainations of usually simple situations.

I'll be short and sweet then...FUCK YOU!  GH clearly got what I meant.  The fact that you're too fucking stupid isn't my problem.

[GH2001]

No, you didn't explain shit.  In fact you did a HORRIBLE job of explaining or telling anyone anything of the sort.   Especially for a guy that normally basks in the glow of his normally long winded, overly verbose explainations of usually simple situations.

Chad must have a secret ransom video of you jerking off to horse porn or something.

[Token]

You're standing over there. And you're standing over there. And I don't know which way is up!

[JR4AU]

Chad must have a secret ransom video of you jerking off to horse porn or something.

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

I'll be short and sweet then...FUCK YOU!  GH clearly got what I meant.  The fact that you're too fucking stupid isn't my problem.

Lollerskates.   

Ah...actually that was an easy one.  You actually could have just used a " " this time.  That would have actually been the CORRECT time to use a smiley.  Not like you did earlier. 

You'll learn at some point. 

 

[JR4AU]

Lollerskates.   

Ah...actually that was an easy one.  You actually could have just used a " " this time.  That would have actually been the CORRECT time to use a smiley.  Not like you did earlier. 

You'll learn at some point.

Sadly, I doubt you will learn. 

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

Chad must have a secret ransom video of you jerking off to horse porn or something.

First, JR's addressed me personally also.   Second, Chizad doesn't need my help.  Thirdly, I can't stand Kaos type bullshit on here. 

Can't help it if I think JR comes across as a complete and total assclown a lot on here.  Many think the same about me.  That's about five years old news at this point.  Don't really care much.   I know when to turn it on and off.  Right now, it's flipped on.  I'll admit that.

[AUChizad]

Expecting the pollsters to treat bammer normally  got the:   

The fact they did, doesn't mean that me saying what's normal was a flip flop.  But have a fucking ball with your little victory if you feel like it.

Show me. Point to the point in the thread where I said that I expect the pollsters to vote logically.

And since we've decided that this thread will devolve into the pissing contest that it has, I'm going to have to organize your argument for you.

This is the argument from the other thread in its entirety, where supposedly I was sunshine pumping about the defense.

But with this defense, our opponents like Ark, and Ole Miss, and Bammer, will always be in the game unless we take a 4 TD lead in to the 4th quarter.

Dude. One game does not a pattern make.

Our last five games, we only gave up a total of 10 points in the fourth quarter.

This implied nothing about how Auburn's defense was an impenetrable iron curtain. This was reigning you in a bit on your comment that we have to have a 4 TD lead to beat Ark, Ole Miss, & Bammer going into the fourth quarter. You were implying that our 4th quarter performance has been awful all season.

I clarified this further...

I swear to God, if you are not Kaos trying to rebrand yourself with a new identity, you at least took his classes.

Here's what you said:

And here's what I said:

I think it's pretty clear that my comment was regarding your "We will need a 4 TD lead going into the 4th quarter in order to beat Ark, Ole Miss and Bammer" comment. It's silly, because even including this game, we have outscored opponents in the 4th quarter by a total of 44-13. Hell, we outscored Kentucky in the 4th quarter 6-3.

Nowhere in my comment can you find anything about how every facet of our team is sunshine and roses right now, and there is no way we can be beaten. This is the tried-and-true Kaos technique of spinning the argument by trying to morph someone else's comments into something easier for you to argue against.

Your response?

And here's my point, and you cannot dispute it if you're not looking through orange and blue glasses.  Number of TDs be damned...our defense is as likely to give up a score as our offense is to score, and just as quickly.

Where the hell did that come from? Although tangent to the actual discussion about how we fare against opponents in the 4th quarter, it in itself was ridiculous. You're looking through orange and blue glasses if you don't recognize the iron clad fact that "our defense is as likely to give up a score as our offense is to score, and just as quickly"? Well, actually that's not a fact. Like, at all.

I spell that out for you, making it is clear as I know how, here:

Ok. I never disputed that, nor tried to, although...I will now, since you've malformed the argument into this one.

If we were just as likely to give up a score, as we were to score, at the same rate, we wouldn't be 6-0. We wouldn't have outscored opponents in every single game so far, for a total of 220-128.

If we had actually stayed on topic, my point would be even more sound that we outscored our oponents 44-13 in fourth quarters alone.

But instead, you confuse the issue, then bring arguments I never made in one thread, and act like I tried to make them in another thread, when the whole position you're ascribing to me never took place anywhere but in your delusional head.

And now we have this giant bloated post where I have to reign you back into reality so that you can stay on topic instead of making up some position for me that I never held, and just arguing with that for the sake of being combative. That act got old before you ever even got to this board. Seeing it manifest in someone else, after thinking we were finally done with that shit, I have to admit, really grinds my gears.

[JR4AU]

First, JR's addressed me personally also.   Second, Chizad doesn't need my help.  Thirdly, I can't stand Kaos type bullshit on here. 

Can't help it if I think JR comes across as a complete and total assclown a lot on here.  Many think the same about me.  That's about five years old news at this point.  Don't really care much.   I know when to turn it on and off.  Right now, it's flipped on.  I'll admit that.

I can't stand  bullshit so there ya go.  Good that you recognize you're an assclown.  Old news or not, it's good to not forget it.

Show me. Point to the point in the thread where I said that I expect the pollsters to vote logically.

And since we've decided that this thread will devolve into the pissing contest that it has, I'm going to have to organize your argument for you.

This is the argument from the other thread in its entirety, where supposedly I was sunshine pumping about the defense.
This implied nothing about how Auburn's defense was an impenetrable iron curtain. This was reigning you in a bit on your comment that we have to have a 4 TD lead to beat Ark, Ole Miss, & Bammer going into the fourth quarter. You were implying that our 4th quarter performance has been awful all season.

I clarified this further...

Your response?

Where the hell did that come from? Although tangent to the actual discussion about how we fare against opponents in the 4th quarter, it in itself was ridiculous. You're looking through orange and blue glasses if you don't recognize the iron clad fact that "our defense is as likely to give up a score as our offense is to score, and just as quickly"? Well, actually that's not a fact. Like, at all.

I spell that out for you, making it is clear as I know how, here:If we had actually stayed on topic, my point would be even more sound that we outscored our oponents 44-13 in fourth quarters alone.

But instead, you confuse the issue, then bring arguments I never made in one thread, and act like I tried to make them in another thread, when the whole position you're ascribing to me never took place anywhere but in your delusional head.

And now we have this giant bloated post where I have to reign you back into reality so that you can stay on topic instead of making up some position for me that I never held, and just arguing with that for the sake of being combative. That act got old before you ever even got to this board. Seeing it manifest in someone else, after thinking we were finally done with that shit, I have to admit, really grinds my gears.

Amazing that I'm accused of being overly verbose. 

I give, you win.  Too much to re-read and comment on.   Whatever you said is right, whatever you think I said is wrong.  Victory to you.

[AWK]

I like penis and other gay things...discuss.

[AUChizad]

I can't stand  bullshit so there ya go.  Good that you recognize you're an assclown.  Old news or not, it's good to not forget it.

Amazing that I'm accused of being overly verbose. 

I give, you win.  Too much to re-read and comment on.   Whatever you said is right, whatever you think I said is wrong.  Victory to you.

For the record, we've see that show too.

Completely undeniably backed into a corner and called on the complete bullshit that was just being spewed, and "You didn't dignify it by reading it".

Talk about deja vu.

[JR4AU]

For the record, we've see that show too.

Completely undeniably backed into a corner and called on the complete bullshit that was just being spewed, and "You didn't dignify it by reading it".

Talk about deja vu.

Cowering here in my corner that I'm backed in to. 

[AWK]

Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?