Raiderstation

raider_kin wrote: Thu Oct 16, 2025 1:33 pm Thanks Jeevo. Apologies if you are our capologist.

I am not the cap guy, that’s definitely Chucker.

NoClapsPlease wrote: Thu Oct 16, 2025 4:37 pm Man please.

I'm not here for a philosophy class. Forget the sentence structure. We're talking football, specifically about whether receivers can actually get open.
The whole context we were operating under was that Meyers needs a perfect, tight-window throw just to even get a target in the first place.
You're pretending that established context doesn't exist just to make my argument sound weak. That's not the debate. It’s you reaching and reaching HARD I might add.

you keep insisting I have to figure out the context of your bullshit statement. I do not.

I had a crush on a girl in high school named Chaz. I guess that is a unisex name

RenoRaiders75 wrote: Fri Oct 17, 2025 5:43 am I had a crush on a girl in high school named Chaz. I guess that is a unisex name

I love the name Alex for a girl. I know its short for Alexandria, but still cool...

Attyla wrote: Fri Oct 17, 2025 4:28 am you keep insisting I have to figure out the context of your bullshit statement. I do not.

Well given that my response was to someone else, I don’t owe you an explanation. Several folks in here understood what was said - you’re just deliberately being obtuse and disingenuous.

NoClapsPlease wrote: Sat Oct 18, 2025 12:00 pm Well given that my response was to someone else, I don’t owe you an explanation. Several folks in here understood what was said - you’re just deliberately being obtuse and disingenuous.

nope, I looked at a stand alone statement and destroyed it. But you feel free to stand by a statement that is a joke.

Attyla wrote: Sat Oct 18, 2025 12:03 pm nope, I looked at a stand alone statement and destroyed it. But you feel free to stand by a statement that is a joke.

Dude just keeps making himself look more foolish with each post.

BoKnows81 wrote: Sat Oct 18, 2025 12:20 pm Dude just keeps making himself look more foolish with each post.

it just seems to me that if you said something, you should either own it or refute it. I mean, who gives one fuck who you quoted before you make a statement. Are you saying that what you said is not true to you? If so, that becomes a lie. If you think what you said is true, support it. Seems simple to me. But blaming the quality of the receiver for the pass does not make sense to me. That is why conditional/conclusion statements are interesting. You put up a condition and draw a conclusion based on the condition.

Raider727 wrote: Sat Oct 18, 2025 2:52 pm

Defensive lineman and corners? This staff is absolutely oblivious to our O line situation.

BoKnows81 wrote: Sat Oct 18, 2025 12:20 pm Dude just keeps making himself look more foolish with each post.

I can confidently state, and I declare that no context is needed for this statement, that I do not care how I ‘look’ to you [fact]. You’re pretty irrelevant on these forums [opinion].

Hope that brings the clarity needed for everyone [optimistic].

NoClapsPlease wrote: Sat Oct 18, 2025 3:10 pm I can confidently state, and I declare that no context is needed for this statement, that I do not care how I ‘look’ to you [fact]. You’re pretty irrelevant on these forums [opinion].

Hope that brings the clarity needed for everyone [optimistic].

Lol. Typical response from a troll that knows he's wrong.

BoKnows81 wrote: Sat Oct 18, 2025 3:14 pm Lol. Typical response from a troll that knows he's wrong.

so does he believe his stand alone statement or not. Are there caveats to his statement that requires context and has he ever made clear what that caveat is? And most importantly, is any caveat going to make his bullshit statement make his statement even remotely true? And why is he fighting the notion that his stand alone statement needs context given it is a bullshit statement to begin with?

Bullshit is bullshit no matter how indignant someone gets.

Attyla wrote: Sat Oct 18, 2025 3:30 pm so does he believe his stand alone statement or not. Are there caveats to his statement that requires context and has he ever made clear what that caveat is? And most importantly, is any caveat going to make his bullshit statement make his statement even remotely true? And why is he fighting the notion that his stand alone statement needs context given it is a bullshit statement to begin with?

Bullshit is bullshit no matter how indignant someone gets.

I gotta be honest. I don't even think he knows.

Go DM guys, this is getting tiresome.