(07-14-2015, 06:47 PM)PDub80 Wrote: I can't believe you're referring to me in the above?


Then, I guess the above #2 statement makes you a liar because you've mentioned being a lawyer many times across several message boards. Oh, wait, you didn't mean ever in the history of the world? I guess maybe I shouldn't take what you say out of context and instead give you credit for what you actually mean. Which, in this case you would probably be referring to your quoted post, an earlier rebuttal, or this tread.


You see, I give you credit because I don't need to discredit you with BS to defend my point and because I'm not an idiot and can understand context. Although, my IQ is 147 so maybe I'm giving you too much credit?





I love how people pick and choose to accept the literal. It's easy to take what someone types on a message board out of context and only shows who likes to play the contrarian. It's the clearest of victory for me in debates like this when people choose to stretch to the absurd and take things out of context in order to hold on to some sort of point. Facts and logical reasoning aren't on your side so you find something to take out of context. That's hilarious to me and yet so satisfying because it just shows that I am right.


Clearly and in no way, shape, or form, did I literally mean that every single player and coach can play perfectly and the Bengals would lose because of Andy Dalton playing poorly. To take that from what I said, or have said, is lunacy and is such a reach that it's moronic. The Bengals have won games Andy Dalton has played poorly in and they have lost games he has played great in. I have acknowledged this, happily.

When I said that they can't win if he plays poorly I was inferring to the previous playoff games where he clearly was so bad that he negated a lot of the good play of those around him and the defense that held opponents to within a reasonable distance before Andy crapped the bed. I was pointing to his poor play in the playoffs and the nature of his position as the major glaring problem and that with the QB playing that way it is so so so much tougher for the Bengals to win. Well, for those of us living in the real world, anyway.

To snipe at that one statement I made, take it out of context from all of my other posts over numerous threads and try to draw on that as a literal meaning is to put yourself out there as a wanna be contrarian stooge who has no better argument then point away from the obviously worst problem (Dalton) and cry "What if". I have dealt in the facts of what has happened in the 4 playoff games and I was clearly speaking in the context of the realistic probabilities of success based on NFL history and trends. If that wasn't obvious to you, Zoolander has a school you should attend. Dalton homers keep asking "What if" and praying for miracles. Good luck with that. Maybe if you shill hard enough AD will send you an autographed WWJD bracelet.

(07-15-2015, 09:11 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote:  If you did not mean what you wrote, then I suggest the next time you don't write something you don't mean.

Your comment was very matter of fact and actually validated your thoughts in other posts you have made involving AD.

(07-14-2015, 06:47 PM)PDub80 Wrote: Clearly and in no way, shape, or form, did I literally mean that every single player and coach can play perfectly and the Bengals would lose because of Andy Dalton playing poorly. To take that from what I said, or have said, is lunacy and is such a reach that it's moronic. The Bengals have won games Andy Dalton has played poorly in and they have lost games he has played great in. I have acknowledged this, happily.

When I said that they can't win if he plays poorly I was inferring to the previous playoff games where he clearly was so bad that he negated a lot of the good play of those around him and the defense that held opponents to within a reasonable distance before Andy crapped the bed. I was pointing to his poor play in the playoffs and the nature of his position as the major glaring problem and that with the QB playing that way it is so so so much tougher for the Bengals to win. Well, for those of us living in the real world, anyway.

(07-14-2015, 06:47 PM)PDub80 Wrote: Then, I guess the above #2 statement makes you a liar because you've mentioned being a lawyer many times across several message boards. Oh, wait, you didn't mean ever in the history of the world? I guess maybe I shouldn't take what you say out of context and instead give you credit for what you actually mean. Which, in this case you would probably be referring to your quoted post, an earlier rebuttal, or this tread.

(07-15-2015, 10:49 AM)fredtoast Wrote: That is how you explain how someone is taking a quote out of context.  You explain and provide the missing context instead of just accuse.