Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options
43-8 speaks loud and clear.
Tailgater
Member Posts: 1,389
The 43-8 final score suggests that talking can't score TD's, FG's, of safeties. Two weeks of talking head analysis on how Peyton Manning the all-American hero would deal with Seahawk thugs and their camp following 12's to walk away from his game into the sunset a winner....... was stifled immediately on the Bronco's very first snap of the ball. The indomitable Seattle defense took control on that very first play from scrimmage and did what they always do,..... talk smack and take no prisoners.
Yesterday's championship game was I suppose like most Super Bowls, a boring blowout dominated by the only team that showed up prepared to play. But I must say that at least at Tailgater's cave, we roared the arrival of all 43 points. It's still hard to believe and yet so cool and predictable.
Yesterday's championship game was I suppose like most Super Bowls, a boring blowout dominated by the only team that showed up prepared to play. But I must say that at least at Tailgater's cave, we roared the arrival of all 43 points. It's still hard to believe and yet so cool and predictable.
Comments
This pleases me.
But that's why I love him...
DUCKIZATION
The Ducks are just unbearable every time they win it all.
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position. The ostensible argument that Person 2 makes has the form:
"Don't support X, because X has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."
However, the actual form of the argument is:
"Don't support X, because Y has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."
This argument doesn't make sense; it is a non sequitur. Person 2 relies on the audience not noticing this.
I watched the game at a party with about 50 people, all but three were Denver fans. Said nothing when everyone told us the Hawks had no chance. When we got up 15 - 0 I said, "They're in deep trouble." That's all. At 22 - 0 I gave a silent cut throat gesture to the crowd for Sherman. Followed by a one liner, "It's over." Never said another word after that in honor of Lynch.
If you don't know plenty of Hawk fans like this, consider who you hang out with. One in 100,000 bird fans could keep their gloating mouths shut like this.