idzik.. just how bad was he at drafting players ? ? ?

[phill1c]

1 minute ago, #27TheDominator said:

Is this why you quote and then cut and paste?  So you can quote us without "quoting" us? Do you even know "someone else"'s name? It is in the thread title, but I doubt you do. 

I quote to TRY and keep aware of what I'm responding to. I have a lot of people throwing opinions at me and want to keep them separate. Sometimes I don't remember a person's name and am trying to keep up with responding.

Have I upset you with my football-related opinions?

[#27TheDominator]

Just now, phill1c said:

I quote to TRY and keep aware of what I'm responding to. I have a lot of people throwing opinions at me and want to keep them separate. Sometimes I don't remember a person's name and am trying to keep up with responding.

Have I upset you with my football-related opinions?

If you want to quote one post, use quote.  If you want to quote more than one use +quote.  If you want to be an idiot keep using the cut and paste and not putting things in quotes.  Ignorance doesn't upset me.  It saddens me

[phill1c]

2 minutes ago, thadude said:

$5 mil is couch change in the NFL?  You could sign a good starter on defense or the offensive line 

I guess you could. But, IMO, it's couch change in a league where the salary cap is about $155 million.

[phill1c]

Just now, #27TheDominator said:

If you want to quote one post, use quote.  If you want to quote more than one use +quote.  If you want to be an idiot keep using the cut and paste and not putting things in quotes.  Ignorance doesn't upset me.  It saddens me

Wow, that didn't read like a "sad" post. It read like you're very very angry. Remember, i'm not actually Maccagnan.

 

[slats]

6 minutes ago, phill1c said:

Yeah, if only hostility could win an argument. You'd be dominant.

True that, i'm sure some trumped up bullsh!t will ban me from here. But, until then...STFU cause you can't tell me every player on the 2014 roster (without looking it up) either.

You're hostile, now STFU. Can't make this trumped up bullsh!t up. 

[phill1c]

Just now, slats said:

You're hostile, now STFU. Can't make this trumped up bullsh!t up. 

that's not football-related is it?

[#27TheDominator]

 

4 minutes ago, phill1c said:

Wow, that didn't read like a "sad" post. It read like you're very very angry. Remember, i'm not actually Maccagnan.

 

I don't really care about your opinion on my demeanor, but I would hope that you would learn from my post.  About the quote feature at a minimum.  I am not particularly optimistic.

[phill1c]

BTW, since we're talking "gross negligence" I figured I check to see where the Jets rank in "dead money" and I came across this article about teams with significant salary cap issue. And, low and behold the Jets were not listed in the top 10:

http://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/nfl-teams-facing-salary-cap-issues-2017.html/?a=viewall

Probably damning with faint praise though.

[dbatesman]

16 minutes ago, phill1c said:

Did you? I was responding to Sperm's listing of his contract in the "$90M gross negligence" rant.

So, who signed him? was it Maccagnan, as stated in Sperm's rant or someone else, as you contradicted?

 

11 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Is this why you quote and then cut and paste?  So you can quote us without "quoting" us? Do you even know "someone else"'s name? It is in the thread title, but I doubt you do. 

 

7 minutes ago, phill1c said:

I quote to TRY and keep aware of what I'm responding to. I have a lot of people throwing opinions at me and want to keep them separate. Sometimes I don't remember a person's name and am trying to keep up with responding.

Have I upset you with my football-related opinions?

 

5 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

If you want to quote one post, use quote.  If you want to quote more than one use +quote.  If you want to be an idiot keep using the cut and paste and not putting things in quotes.  Ignorance doesn't upset me.  It saddens me

This is legitimately the funniest exchange in the history of this website.

[phill1c]

1 minute ago, #27TheDominator said:

155/5 

 

I don't really care about your opinion on my demeanor, but I would hope that you would learn from my post.  About the quote feature at a minimum.  I am not particularly optimistic.

I cant' say that I understand what you mean by "155/5"

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, phill1c said:

Everytime I think I'm out, they pull me back in... (OK, I wanted in...)

• $12m for Fitzpatrick for his sh*tty 2016 season (passed off as less when incorrectly looked at as $7m and $5m)
  • I don't think he was paying him for his sh*tty season. He did have one though.
  • He had a record-setting season prior and the options were limited.
• $5m for a PUP'd Breno for 2016
  • He didn't pay him before he was PUP'd so, not really a good example
• $7m for Cromartie for 2015
  • Terrible, I mean, who pays $7m for a veteran CB?
  • Not sure of the cap impact after the $7m either (because there was none)
• $15m for Harris for 2015-2016
  • Overpaid, but he's David Freaking Harris for crise sake
  • And he's gone
• $6m for Revis to actually sit on a couch in 2017
  • The dreaded dead money
• $10m (easily $2-3m/yr additional) for painting himself into a corner on B.Wlliams
  • Doesn't seem extravagant to me.
• $3m for Jarvis Jenkins for 2016
  • Doesn't seem extravagant to me.
• $5.5m for Ijalana for 2017
  • Doesn't seem extravagant to me for a young OL starter.
• $9m guaranteed (plus losing a 5th round comp pick) for 31-32 yr old Matt Forte for 2016-17
  • Wasn't very good here.
• $6m for Josh McCown
  • What would you pay? Who would you pay?
  • Seems like a great signing when compared to how you lambasted Mac for Fitzpatrick's money
• $3m to keep Richardson in a dead-end 2016, instead of taking a good 2017 draft pick, which has led to paying another $8m for him in this tear-down 2017 season because now he has so little trade value.
  • This is just a fantastical, agenda-driven account.
  • You know of no offers made
  • His trade value is what it is. Richardson is primarily responsible for how much people will pay for Richardson, not the GM.

I think you can't lump a bunch of contracts together and say "rubbish". There are a few contracts I personally wouldn't have negotiated: Fitzpatrick, David Harris, Breno Giaocomini. But I understand why they were done. And, in the end, it's seems more about crying over spilled milk and supporting the investment in an opinion and using hindsight to do it rather than valid criticism.

 

 

Fitz:

• you are 100% wrong. He had a **** season, and there was enough evidence - even on this fan site - to show how lucky he got. A fool has getting super-lucky yet again as his plan.
• what kind of GM cares if he set a couple of meaningless Jets records in an ideal situation that was never going to repeat, especially in light of his displaying how unreliable he is in crunch time with the season on the line? A fool.

Breno

• you are wrong. He was PUP'd, which guaranteed his full salary for the year by CBA rules. Don't get snippy and stick your head in the sand because you don't understand how things work.

Cromartie

• Wrong. If you want to be taken seriously, you don't separate the cap impact after overpaying him from overpaying him in the first place. He cost $7m for 1 season. It was foolish, and he was called out for this foolishness at the time. Cro was a $3-4m/yr CB at the time, and all he did was lump 2 years' payment into 1 year to eliminate the line-item that says "dead cap". Meanwhile, the money is all gone, and for nothing. Just stupid.

Harris

• I have no idea what you mean by "and he's David Freaking Harris"
• He was a mid-30s ILB who was already slow and suspect in coverage before his prior preposterous contract. Good career Jet, but still badly overrated by Jets fans.
• He's gone, but the team has $15m less to spend on players with an actual future here because they instead paid it to Harris. It was stupid.

Revis

• yeah, I see you have no reply requiring any thought process; just meaningless words to fill up space.

B.Winters

• Extravagant isn't the point at all, if you were able to comprehend it (and I'm sensing you can't).
• The point is he overpaid for a player over whom he had all the leverage a GM could want. He surrendered that leverage and the player then reversed it on him. 

J.Jenkins

• $3m for half a season of Jarvis Jenkins seems reasonable to you? Even Maccagnan's biggest supporters acknowledge this was an indefensible blunder.

Ijalana

• How is he a starter, if Beachum (whom he guaranteed $12m) and Shell (for whom he gets so much kudos here) is also starting? Or is Shell just a backup in your opinion, and therefore not worth the high 4th round pick he cost?

Forte

• Wasn't very good? That isn't the point: he is only a good pickup if you're hell-bent on using a rookie starter who'd need his experience, receiving skills, and blitz pickups. Or more correctly, that one use is only defensible if you sign him OR re-sign Powell. Not both. But he's a fool, so this is what we get.

McCown

• What would I pay? For a 38 year-old Josh McCown? Zero.
• The going rate was half, or less than half, what we're paying. We overpaid for no reason. It could be justified if we were SB contenders and we wanted super-insurance in case our productive franchise QB went out for a few weeks so the season wouldn't go down the toilet. This is $6m of cap room for a quasi QBC and role model, for QBs the GM doesn't even believe in.

Richardson

• Deny it all you want. Dallas really wanted him. What put the kibosh on it was Maccagnan's ludicrous line in the sand of a 1st round pick that nobody would offer even on a crack bender.

 

Crying over spilt milk is a position to take - maybe - if we had more to show despite these blunders. When we have the league's worst roster, it's a list of justification for his dismissal and reason to believe he will never build a winner here. People who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. There's a reason this line is repeated so often.

 

[thadude]

7 minutes ago, phill1c said:

I guess you could. But, IMO, it's couch change in a league where the salary cap is about $155 million.

Coo bra

[#27TheDominator]

1 minute ago, phill1c said:

BTW, since we're talking "gross negligence" I figured I check to see where the Jets rank in "dead money" and I came across this article about teams with significant salary cap issue. And, low and behold the Jets were not listed in the top 10:

http://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/nfl-teams-facing-salary-cap-issues-2017.html/?a=viewall

Probably damning with faint praise though.

Pretty sure they rank 2nd.  Since it is bad, I guess that is actually 31st.

They are not in that article because they do not have a significant salary cap issue.  They also do not have much in the way of significant players on the roster.

[thadude]

2 minutes ago, phill1c said:

I cant' say that I understand what you mean by "155/5"

Who needs cap room or cap space to be used on signing good football players?  Mac has the plan baby

[phill1c]

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Deny it all you want. Dallas really wanted him. What put the kibosh on it was Maccagnan's ludicrous line in the sand of a 1st round pick that nobody would offer even on a crack bender.

I don't have to deny it. You have to prove it.

[thadude]

I don't know what is dumber:

 

--$5 million in cap room for Fitz to NOT play

--$6 million plus another $3 million in incentives for Josh McClown to play

[phill1c]

B.Williams

• Extravagant isn't the point at all, if you were able to comprehend it (and I'm sensing you can't).
• The point is he overpaid for a player over whom he had all the leverage a GM could want. He surrendered that leverage and the player then reversed it on him. 

I don't see it that way. I see it as he signed one of the OL the team developed to a fair contract.

and you can't say "extravagant isn't the point at all.." and then in the next sentence say how the contract was an overpayment without being either insincere or mendacious.

[phill1c]

Ijalana

• How is he a starter, if Beachum (whom he guaranteed $12m) and Shell (for whom he gets so much kudos here) is also starting? Or is Shell just a backup in your opinion, and therefore not worth the high 4th round pick he cost?

Nobody is sure of who is starting, certainly not Shell. Ijalana could be a good backup and in the OL rotation and be fairly paid $5.5 million, IMO.  And, of course, Shell could be a quality back up THIS SEASON and develop into a starter and be worth price Maccagnan paid for him.

Leave it up to you to take a "feel good" story and sh!t on it.

[#27TheDominator]

9 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

 

Richardson

• Deny it all you want. Dallas really wanted him. What put the kibosh on it was Maccagnan's ludicrous line in the sand of a 1st round pick that nobody would offer even on a crack bender.

To be fair, waiting for Jerry Jones to go on a crack bender has been sound GM philosophy for years.  

Am I the only one watching you guys argue about Brian Williams? 

[phill1c]

McCown

• What would I pay? For a 38 year-old Josh McCown? Zero.
• The going rate was half, or less than half, what we're paying. We overpaid for no reason. It could be justified if we were SB contenders and we wanted super-insurance in case our productive franchise QB went out for a few weeks so the season wouldn't go down the toilet. This is $6m of cap room for a quasi QBC and role model, for QBs the GM doesn't even believe in.

The going rate two years ago was $6 million. I remember because that is what the Jets at one point offered Fitzpatrick. I don't think $6 for a backup is anything extraordinary. But I do understand that you were probably running out of steam at that point in your list.

[dbatesman]

1 minute ago, #27TheDominator said:

Am I the only one watching you guys argue about Brian Williams? 

Nope. I'm here for it

[nyjunc]

6 hours ago, neckdemon said:

to be fair, my 13 year old son could have picked williams and adams. the jets got luck AF that both those guys fell to #6. they were no-brainer picks

maybe but it would have been easy to reach for a need.

4 hours ago, slats said:

Tannenbaum drove me crazy with his trading away of draft picks. He (probably correctly) had no confidence in his ability to scout players, so traded up for "sure things,' or for veterans, or paid veterans a premium, rather than build thru the draft. He did, however, build a team almost good enough, so I have to give him credit for that. The frequently maligned back-to-back AFC Championship game appearances were the heyday of this franchise outside of the superbowl and '98. 

Idzik gets credit for basically pulling the cord on Tannenbaum's contracts exactly as Tannenbaum designed them. He acquired comp picks, but was an absolutely miserable drafter incapable of consummating a trade while on the clock. Those twelve picks, what a complete waste. He's a guy I wouldn't mind having around in the background, never knowing his name, doing the numbers work. But to me, that's the easy part of the job. People who post here could do that job. 

Maccagnan hasn't mastered that easy part of the job, but I do continue to have some faith that he's a better drafter than either Tanny or (especially) Idzik. His biggest issue there, to date, is his religious following of the best available player method. It's my preferred way to go, too, but he has to take positional value into account - and he just doesn't. There's a lot of room for him to improve on the job, and I think that he can - while also really understanding the criticism he gets. I don't even particularly like the Adams pick. I'm concerned that he might be a college overachiever that just doesn't have the elite athleticism to perform at the same level in the pros. I hope I'm wrong. 

Tannenbaum was far from the perfect GM but he made moves to help us win.  I didn't like always trading picks either but look at BP from 1997-1999 where we had about 40 picks and only a few vs. what MT did when he traded for picks and only had a few yet selected a HOFer in revis and borderline HOfers in Mangold and Brick. there are many different ways to build.

what Idzik did was easy, he made easy moves that Mike would have made.  the difference is once Mike got the cap room he would have used it instead of sat on it waiting to fire Rex.

the jury is still out on Macc, we'll see how these next couple of years shape up.

[phill1c]

Sperm said: "First of all, you've been given a long leash by a few moderators already, in the form of simply having many of your posts hidden. If you continue breaking our site's easily-followed rules - like discussing topics we disallow, or making personal attacks -"

Here's a list of personal attacks IN THE LAST THREE HOURS I'VE HAD HURLED AT ME WITH NO ADMONISHMENT:

• Extravagant isn't the point at all, if you were able to comprehend it (and I'm sensing you can't). [I'm dumb, so you say]
• You won't be here long enough for it to matter [I don't matter...enough; kinda personal I would say]
• You're hostile, now STFU. Can't make this trumped up bullsh!t up. [just an angry post with no football whatsoever in it] 
• I don't really care about your opinion on my demeanor, but I would hope that you would learn from my post.  About the quote feature at a minimum.  I am not particularly optimistic.  [An angry, condescending post that advanced no particular football-related argument, just to put me in my place I guess]
• yeah, I see you have no reply requiring any thought process; just meaningless words to fill up space. [I'm dumb, again, says you]

so, it seems that the rules are not so easily-followed. To be fair, one of the moderators is a prime offender, so I guess it's ludicrous to think he would admonish himself.

But, WOW, I'm just arguing football, I think fairly respectfully and politely. I did say "STFU" but only after someone else told me to do the same first. And I don't belittle your intelligence, like you guys do mine, which is a personal attack.

WTF?!

[slats]

2 minutes ago, phill1c said:

Sperm said: "First of all, you've been given a long leash by a few moderators already, in the form of simply having many of your posts hidden. If you continue breaking our site's easily-followed rules - like discussing topics we disallow, or making personal attacks -"

Here's a list of personal attacks IN THE LAST THREE HOURS I'VE HAD HURLED AT ME WITH NO ADMONISHMENT:

• Extravagant isn't the point at all, if you were able to comprehend it (and I'm sensing you can't). [I'm dumb, so you say]
• You won't be here long enough for it to matter [I don't matter...enough; kinda personal I would say]
• You're hostile, now STFU. Can't make this trumped up bullsh!t up. [just an angry post with no football whatsoever in it] 
• I don't really care about your opinion on my demeanor, but I would hope that you would learn from my post.  About the quote feature at a minimum.  I am not particularly optimistic.  [An angry, condescending post that advanced no particular football-related argument, just to put me in my place I guess]
• yeah, I see you have no reply requiring any thought process; just meaningless words to fill up space. [I'm dumb, again, says you]

so, it seems that the rules are not so easily-followed. To be fair, one of the moderators is a prime offender, so I guess it's ludicrous to think he would admonish himself.

But, WOW, I'm just arguing football, I think fairly respectfully and politely. I did say "STFU" but only after someone else told me to do the same first. And I don't belittle your intelligence, like you guys do mine, which is a personal attack.

WTF?!

Sorry if gently pointing out your hypocrisy felt like a personal attack.

Really all of these posts were in response to your hypersensitivity. referring to people as angry, insulted, immature, hostile, etc. Someone suggesting that you won't be around long enough to matter is simply making an observation. Sperm already mentioned your leash length (boldly quoted by you once again), and your skirmishes here probably aren't advancing your cause. Calling out the mods is rarely helpful. You need to be able to take a little bit around here, and that's what we're talking about - a very little bit. 

$12M for Ryan Fitzpatrick was completely senseless. 

[Sperm Edwards]

57 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

To be fair, waiting for Jerry Jones to go on a crack bender has been sound GM philosophy for years.  

Am I the only one watching you guys argue about Brian Williams? 

LOL

Fixed.

[phill1c]

Just now, slats said:

Sorry if gently pointing out your hypocrisy felt like a personal attack.

Really all of these posts were in response to your hypersensitivity. referring to people as angry, insulted, immature, hostile, etc. Someone suggesting that you won't be around long enough to matter is simply making an observation. Sperm already mentioned your leash length (boldly quoted by you once again), and your skirmishes here probably aren't advancing your cause. Calling out the mods is rarely helpful. You need to be able to take a little bit around here, and that's what we're talking about - a very little bit. 

$12M for Ryan Fitzpatrick was completely senseless. 

Wow STFU is "pointing out my hypocrisy"???

I'd love to see where I called you "dumb" or told you you didn't matter.

I don't think defending a position is inciting anything other than debate on the topic.

That kind of personal attack goes against the rules and no amount of "justification" should allow it. If I did it, I'd be wrong. You did it, and you were wrong. And, of course, instead of apologizing, you call me hypersensitive.

Just pointing out how unfairly the admonishment standards are and how your comments really do hurt my feelings.

[#27TheDominator]

Just now, phill1c said:

Wow STFU is "pointing out my hypocrisy"???

I'd love to see where I called you "dumb" or told you you didn't matter.

I don't think defending a position is inciting anything other than debate on the topic.

That kind of personal attack goes against the rules and no amount of "justification" should allow it. If I did it, I'd be wrong. You did it, and you were wrong. And, of course, instead of apologizing, you call me hypersensitive.

Just pointing out how unfairly the admonishment standards are and how your comments really do hurt my feelings.

Do you want a tissue?  Maybe you should re-read what you called people in this thread. 

 

[slats]

5 minutes ago, phill1c said:

Wow STFU is "pointing out my hypocrisy"???

I'd love to see where I called you "dumb" or told you you didn't matter.

I don't think defending a position is inciting anything other than debate on the topic.

That kind of personal attack goes against the rules and no amount of "justification" should allow it. If I did it, I'd be wrong. You did it, and you were wrong. And, of course, instead of apologizing, you call me hypersensitive.

Just pointing out how unfairly the admonishment standards are and how your comments really do hurt my feelings.

Seriously, if you're that offended by that post, you won't last long around here. You'll self-deport. I don't know where you can safely go, though. That was less than nothing. No wonder you feel like the rules are applied unfairly to you. I bet this isn't the only place that happens to you. 

[phill1c]

Just now, #27TheDominator said:

Do you want a tissue?  Maybe you should re-read what you called people in this thread. 

 

I was admonished and haven't called anyone anything today.

And, of course, two wrongs do not make a right, do they? Personally, I would engage in a free-for-all, but I was told that I cannot or risk banishment. But, apparently you feel it's ok and appropriate that you engage.

And for what? We're f*cking talking about a GM of a football team...It's not even Geno Smith or Ryan Fitzpatrick or any political thing.

I think I deserve the same respect you demand I show you.

[Sperm Edwards]

20 minutes ago, phill1c said:

Sperm said: "First of all, you've been given a long leash by a few moderators already, in the form of simply having many of your posts hidden. If you continue breaking our site's easily-followed rules - like discussing topics we disallow, or making personal attacks -"

Here's a list of personal attacks IN THE LAST THREE HOURS I'VE HAD HURLED AT ME WITH NO ADMONISHMENT:

• Extravagant isn't the point at all, if you were able to comprehend it (and I'm sensing you can't). [I'm dumb, so you say]
• You won't be here long enough for it to matter [I don't matter...enough; kinda personal I would say]
• You're hostile, now STFU. Can't make this trumped up bullsh!t up. [just an angry post with no football whatsoever in it] 
• I don't really care about your opinion on my demeanor, but I would hope that you would learn from my post.  About the quote feature at a minimum.  I am not particularly optimistic.  [An angry, condescending post that advanced no particular football-related argument, just to put me in my place I guess]
• yeah, I see you have no reply requiring any thought process; just meaningless words to fill up space. [I'm dumb, again, says you]

so, it seems that the rules are not so easily-followed. To be fair, one of the moderators is a prime offender, so I guess it's ludicrous to think he would admonish himself.

But, WOW, I'm just arguing football, I think fairly respectfully and politely. I did say "STFU" but only after someone else told me to do the same first. And I don't belittle your intelligence, like you guys do mine, which is a personal attack.

WTF?!

You don't see the difference between pointing out your faulty logic, and replies that clearly point to your failure or inability - it's one of those two things - in not comprehending the point made. 

A lot goes back & forth here and is launched at me or others. The list of people banned here is a short one. That response above was after your post that included "wow you're a nutcase" on top of many previous posts of yours that needed to be removed.

[#27TheDominator]

Just now, phill1c said:

I was admonished and haven't called anyone anything today.

And, of course, two wrongs do not make a right, do they? Personally, I would engage in a free-for-all, but I was told that I cannot or risk banishment. But, apparently you feel it's ok and appropriate that you engage.

And for what? We're f*cking talking about a GM of a football team...It's not even Geno Smith or Ryan Fitzpatrick or any political thing.

I think I deserve the same respect you demand I show you.

I gave you some advice yesterday afternoon on what to do to avoid banishment. Kudos on following that advice.  If only you were as quick at picking up the quote function.  

[phill1c]

Just now, slats said:

Seriously, if you're that offended by that post, you won't last long around here. You'll self-deport. I don't know where you can safely go, though. That was less than nothing. No wonder you feel like the rules are applied unfairly to you. I bet this isn't the only place that happens to you. 

So, because you said it, it was "less than nothing..."  Slats, you can't have a standard that nobody but me has to follow and rightly call it a standard.

But, yeah, I was offended that you felt it ok to tell me to STFU. I mean, we're talking football and because you don't like what I write you feel it's appropriate to do tell me to STFU? it was not appropriate and it certainly doesn't adhere to the policy.

There's really no need for personal attacks. I've been told it. You went to great lengths to say the policy was fairly and objectively applied and I just showed how wrong you are.

[phill1c]

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You don't see the difference between pointing out your faulty logic, and replies that clearly point to your failure or inability - it's one of those two things - in not comprehending the point made. 

A lot goes back & forth here and is launched at me or others. The list of people banned here is a short one. That response above was after your post that included "wow you're a nutcase" on top of many previous posts of yours that needed to be removed.

again, STFU is not pointing out my faulty logic.

"if you can comprehend (i'm sensing you can't)" is not pointing out faulty logic.

And, if you really thought I was unable to comprehend what you're saying I suspect you'd be smart enough not to engage with me for the hours you have. Let's not insult everyone's intelligence with that fabrication. No, the simple fact is that you got upset because you can't convince me of the validity of your OPINION and launched a personal attack. We've all done it. I've been admonished for it. I think you should show leadership the moderator role requires and take the same actions you took on me when I ran afoul of policy and not just whitewash my complaint.

You don't want me to be a dick, I get it. But then you can't just be a dick to me either, not and be anything close to fair and objective in your role.

[slats]

5 minutes ago, phill1c said:

So, because you said it, it was "less than nothing..."  Slats, you can't have a standard that nobody but me has to follow and rightly call it a standard.

But, yeah, I was offended that you felt it ok to tell me to STFU. I mean, we're talking football and because you don't like what I write you feel it's appropriate to do tell me to STFU? it was not appropriate and it certainly doesn't adhere to the policy.

There's really no need for personal attacks. I've been told it. You went to great lengths to say the policy was fairly and objectively applied and I just showed how wrong you are.

Here's the post you made, and my reply to it. The one that has your feewings all upset:

1 hour ago, phill1c said:

Yeah, if only hostility could win an argument. You'd be dominant.

True that, i'm sure some trumped up bullsh!t will ban me from here. But, until then...STFU cause you can't tell me every player on the 2014 roster (without looking it up) either.

 

1 hour ago, slats said:

You're hostile, now STFU. Can't make this trumped up bullsh!t up. 

Look at it again. Please. If you can't see that I'm simply taking your words and tossing them back to show you how you read to others, I don't know what to tell you except that if you were offended, then clearly you must have intended to offend in your post above. That's the only conclusion I can possibly come to. To anyone else reading the thread, It's pretty clear I never told you to STFU, and that there's absolutely nothing offensive in there. 

[phill1c]

9 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

I gave you some advice yesterday afternoon on what to do to avoid banishment. Kudos on following that advice.  If only you were as quick at picking up the quote function.  

advice apparently ONLY I have to follow.

Make no mistake, If I get banished it's not the end of my world. I just enjoy chatting about the Jets and sports. But if you can't show ANY respect, that's a different thing. I think if you actually read my comments, the overwhelming majority of them are fact-based. There are guys I mess around with, Tom Shane, for example. He can take it and I can take it from him. I'm not going to run the moderator or admonish him for his crazy posts. But you guys made a big stink about me calling you a dick and how fairly objectively the policy against personal attacks is applied and today you, personally, have launched several personal attacks and been extremely hostile. 

Do you see how hypocritical and disrespectful that is? or you just don't want to see...