Raji Torn Up

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:Like I said Duck--it's there if it's important for you to find it...  Two minutes and I can see that Football outsiders had GB #1 in the league in, I think, 2012 and #3 in the league last year among finishing among the top in other recent years.  You're the one disputing my claim.  Prove me wrong if you care to rather than whining like a little bitch because I won't do your work for you...  I've got a cherry bar to build.  



The team with the most injuries in the league over the past FOUR years

Yes--it was stated in, I believe, a Press Gazette or JS article...  Try to google it...

I'm certainly not going to take the time to do the math myself.

Like I said--it makes no difference to me whether you believe it or not...

I won't do your work for you...



Well HD, thanks for taking time away from your cherry bar to attempt to back up your initial assertion that Green Bay was "the team with the most injuries in the league over the past FOUR years."  I see you've scaled that down to Football Outsiders (in some vague rating system) rating the Packers in injuries #1 one year, #3 in another and "among the top" in other years.

Maybe your reduced claim is true.  Maybe your initial assertion is true.  As I said, I don't necessarily disbelieve either.  The Packers have been hammered by injuries ever since 2010.

It just makes me raise my eyebrow when you make bold assertions like this (and TT's offer to Jennings) without having proper documentation... or feeling like you even need to go through the indignity of providing such.

I see...  Your problem, therefore, isn't in the veracity of the claim--it's in the process, eh?  If your world the only truths require proof to be so...  It's flawed reasoning, Duck.  Maybe JnC is right about Stanford...


If I boldly say the sky is blue and offer nothing in the way of support--does that impact the reality in truth of what color the sky really is?  You can sit there and, refusing to look up into the sky say, well--maybe your assertion is true, I don't necessarily disbelieve it--but until you cite your sources, I simply cannot believe it...


Fuck--Duck...you should have been a math teacher 'cause this is what people like me do when you sing your song...   


<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/NqpNQ9AJYgU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

milani wrote:In talking to a number of fans the agree that this may open the door to find a way to bring Jolly back for one more.

throttleplate wrote:

milani wrote:In talking to a number of fans the agree that this may open the door to find a way to bring Jolly back for one more.

jolley had neck surgery and is old,packers dont need jolly,the solution is boyd,pennel and guion all on the roster.Get over the old retreads like jolly

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:Like I said Duck--it's there if it's important for you to find it...  Two minutes and I can see that Football outsiders had GB #1 in the league in, I think, 2012 and #3 in the league last year among finishing among the top in other recent years.  You're the one disputing my claim.  Prove me wrong if you care to rather than whining like a little bitch because I won't do your work for you...  I've got a cherry bar to build.  



The team with the most injuries in the league over the past FOUR years

Yes--it was stated in, I believe, a Press Gazette or JS article...  Try to google it...

I'm certainly not going to take the time to do the math myself.

Like I said--it makes no difference to me whether you believe it or not...

I won't do your work for you...



Well HD, thanks for taking time away from your cherry bar to attempt to back up your initial assertion that Green Bay was "the team with the most injuries in the league over the past FOUR years."  I see you've scaled that down to Football Outsiders (in some vague rating system) rating the Packers in injuries #1 one year, #3 in another and "among the top" in other years.

Maybe your reduced claim is true.  Maybe your initial assertion is true.  As I said, I don't necessarily disbelieve either.  The Packers have been hammered by injuries ever since 2010.

It just makes me raise my eyebrow when you make bold assertions like this (and TT's offer to Jennings) without having proper documentation... or feeling like you even need to go through the indignity of providing such.

I see...  Your problem, therefore, isn't in the veracity of the claim--it's in the process, eh?  If your world the only truths require proof to be so...  It's flawed reasoning, Duck.  Maybe JnC is right about Stanford...


If I boldly say the sky is blue and offer nothing in the way of support--does that impact the reality in truth of what color the sky really is?  You can sit there and, refusing to look up into the sky say, well--maybe your assertion is true, I don't necessarily disbelieve it--but until you cite your sources, I simply cannot believe it...


Fuck--Duck...you should have been a math teacher 'cause this is what people like me do when you sing your song...   

That's fine and dandy, HD.  The problem is, you often say that the sky is green or orange... and offer nothing in support.

Too much ice fishing, St. Stefanus, or 100 mph rides on LSD??

Confide in us.  We're your friends.  We can help you work through this troublesome time.    

Blah Blah Blah, Duck...  I made a claim and stand by it.  If you'd like to draw issue with it--then get off your ass spandexed ass and come up with something to refute it and I'll stand corrected.  Otherwise STFU, huh?  See how that works in the real world?    

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:Like I said Duck--it's there if it's important for you to find it...  Two minutes and I can see that Football outsiders had GB #1 in the league in, I think, 2012 and #3 in the league last year among finishing among the top in other recent years.  You're the one disputing my claim.  Prove me wrong if you care to rather than whining like a little bitch because I won't do your work for you...  I've got a cherry bar to build.  



The team with the most injuries in the league over the past FOUR years

Yes--it was stated in, I believe, a Press Gazette or JS article...  Try to google it...

I'm certainly not going to take the time to do the math myself.

Like I said--it makes no difference to me whether you believe it or not...

I won't do your work for you...



Well HD, thanks for taking time away from your cherry bar to attempt to back up your initial assertion that Green Bay was "the team with the most injuries in the league over the past FOUR years."  I see you've scaled that down to Football Outsiders (in some vague rating system) rating the Packers in injuries #1 one year, #3 in another and "among the top" in other years.

Maybe your reduced claim is true.  Maybe your initial assertion is true.  As I said, I don't necessarily disbelieve either.  The Packers have been hammered by injuries ever since 2010.

It just makes me raise my eyebrow when you make bold assertions like this (and TT's offer to Jennings) without having proper documentation... or feeling like you even need to go through the indignity of providing such.

I see...  Your problem, therefore, isn't in the veracity of the claim--it's in the process, eh?  If your world the only truths require proof to be so...  It's flawed reasoning, Duck.  Maybe JnC is right about Stanford...


If I boldly say the sky is blue and offer nothing in the way of support--does that impact the reality in truth of what color the sky really is?  You can sit there and, refusing to look up into the sky say, well--maybe your assertion is true, I don't necessarily disbelieve it--but until you cite your sources, I simply cannot believe it...


Fuck--Duck...you should have been a math teacher 'cause this is what people like me do when you sing your song...   


<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/NqpNQ9AJYgU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That's fine and dandy, HD.  The problem is, you often say that the sky is green or orange... and offer nothing in support.

Too much ice fishing, St. Stefanus, or 100 mph rides on LSD??

Confide in us.  We're your friends.  We can help you work through this troublesome time.    

   Blah Blah Blah, Duck...  I made a claim and stand by it.  If you'd like to draw issue with it--then get off your ass spandexed ass and come up with something to refute it and I'll stand corrected.  Otherwise STFU, huh?  See how that works in the real world?    

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:Like I said Duck--it's there if it's important for you to find it...  Two minutes and I can see that Football outsiders had GB #1 in the league in, I think, 2012 and #3 in the league last year among finishing among the top in other recent years.  You're the one disputing my claim.  Prove me wrong if you care to rather than whining like a little bitch because I won't do your work for you...  I've got a cherry bar to build.  



The team with the most injuries in the league over the past FOUR years

Yes--it was stated in, I believe, a Press Gazette or JS article...  Try to google it...

I'm certainly not going to take the time to do the math myself.

Like I said--it makes no difference to me whether you believe it or not...

I won't do your work for you...



Well HD, thanks for taking time away from your cherry bar to attempt to back up your initial assertion that Green Bay was "the team with the most injuries in the league over the past FOUR years."  I see you've scaled that down to Football Outsiders (in some vague rating system) rating the Packers in injuries #1 one year, #3 in another and "among the top" in other years.

Maybe your reduced claim is true.  Maybe your initial assertion is true.  As I said, I don't necessarily disbelieve either.  The Packers have been hammered by injuries ever since 2010.

It just makes me raise my eyebrow when you make bold assertions like this (and TT's offer to Jennings) without having proper documentation... or feeling like you even need to go through the indignity of providing such.

I see...  Your problem, therefore, isn't in the veracity of the claim--it's in the process, eh?  If your world the only truths require proof to be so...  It's flawed reasoning, Duck.  Maybe JnC is right about Stanford...


If I boldly say the sky is blue and offer nothing in the way of support--does that impact the reality in truth of what color the sky really is?  You can sit there and, refusing to look up into the sky say, well--maybe your assertion is true, I don't necessarily disbelieve it--but until you cite your sources, I simply cannot believe it...


Fuck--Duck...you should have been a math teacher 'cause this is what people like me do when you sing your song...   

That's fine and dandy, HD.  The problem is, you often say that the sky is green or orange... and offer nothing in support.

Too much ice fishing, St. Stefanus, or 100 mph rides on LSD??

Confide in us.  We're your friends.  We can help you work through this troublesome time.    

   Blah Blah Blah, Duck...  I made a claim and stand by it.  If you'd like to draw issue with it--then get off your ass spandexed ass and come up with something to refute it and I'll stand corrected.  Otherwise STFU, huh?  See how that works in the real world?    

Translation:  I'll say whatever the fuck I want but I don't need to cite my sources.  It's everyone else's job to prove me wrong.    

Again, with regard to the injury statistic I stated--I honestly don't recall the source...but I rarely ever do.  If I read it and stored it in my mind as credible fact...then I would have had to have well considered to what degree it was credible and for that to have come out green to be stored as such.  From there, I just don't have room in my fucking mind to clutter it with bullshit like secondary sources.  If it's there, I own it.  I'm the source...