110 to 48
Comments
-
Are you kidding me? Even I thought doogman would at least go 50/50. Our fans are awful, dying in a fire would be an insult to the fire.
-
That is fucking sad. They really do only have non-thinking retards left there. It's Kim perfect sycophant Army. Oh well, I'm proud to be a 1%er and carry the banner for standards and accountability.
Hope they all take a napalm bath and shove road flares up their asses while Citrus is shown on a 120 foot JumboTron behind the fireball. -
Could we get more than 158 votes here? #cooginternetpollsuperiorityguy
-
We could.RaceBannon said:Could we get more than 158 votes here? #cooginternetpollsuperiorityguy
multiple handle superiority guy
-
7 of 10 Doogs are ok with 7 win football. Boy, Lake Warshington sure is wet this time of year.
-
7-6 is the new 11-1
-
The poll was better than that after the ASU game. Sounds like some doogs calmed down after Cal. Take the poll after UCLA and we'll see how many still want 7 as the HC.
BTW, anyone who thinks 7 shouldnt be fired should die of AIDS. -
ChuckFBA!!? True!??HeretoBeatmyChest said:The poll was better than that after the ASU game. Sounds like some doogs calmed down after Cal. Take the poll after UCLA and we'll see how many still want 7 as the HC.
BTW, anyone who thinks 7 shouldnt be fired should die of AIDS. -
Surprised I'm the first person to call BS on this. Dawgman mods have been famously overinflating their statistics for years, and yes -- they can edit any poll they'd like. They also refuse to allow public polls, an eye opener.
Another example: there is a basketball thread called "Robert Upshaw at practice." If you click, the only post in the OP is a link to a youtube video. According to Dawgman's view count, 1300 people have clicked on the thread. But if you look at the youtube link in the post, youtube says only 255 people have seen that video.
So we're supposed to believe that 1300 opened the thread, but only 255 actually clicked on the video? Yeah, right. -
Very good point. That would be a very logical explanation, although if you asked Kim about it, he would call it silly.Gladstone said:Surprised I'm the first person to call BS on this. Dawgman mods have been famously overinflating their statistics for years, and yes -- they can edit any poll they'd like. I don't in a thousand years believe that. They also refuse to allow public polls, an eye opener.
Another example: there is a basketball thread called "Robert Upshaw at practice." If you click, the only post in the OP is a link to a youtube video. According to Dawgman's view count, 1300 people have clicked on the thread. But if you look at the youtube link in the post, youtube says only 255 people have seen that video.
So we're supposed to believe that 1300 opened the thread, but only 255 actually clicked on the video? Yeah, right.






