HawkAroundTheClock
New member
How does one person start with:
"'I am not sure if these are true as they are more speculation from 'multiple reports'" when posting a link to a columnist's opinion that cites zero sources...
Follow it with:
"all the reports say..." and "everyone has said..." and "like the media you are making stuff up..." in order to defend his belief in one opinion presented by one member of the media...
And then demand proof. Repeatedly:
"You have not proven..."
"you cannot prove any of this"
"you are really wasting your time and proving nothing as usual"
"you are assuming, and that proves nothing"
in order to denounce others' opinions...
??????????
Nobody can prove speculative opinion. By definition.
So how can you present one person's opinion as speculation then use that opinion to identify other people's ideas as assumptions, which suggests that the speculative column is factually correct? Why is Troy Renck in Denver the bedrock upon which you have built your stringent burden of proof?
What access to the ultimate truth does he have? Is it the fact that he "spent a chunk of time around the Seahawks the past two years"? Is it the self-referential and boneheadedly obvious title of the piece: "Renck: Russell Wilson deserves franchise QB money for role with Seahawks"? Is it the link-less "multiple reports" he wields like a Hattori Hanzo sword? What is it that allows you to say with confidence:
"So again you can assume all you want but so far there is nothing in that article that supports it."
???
Again, it's an opinion column not an article. The writer's name is in the title, for crying out loud! The only thing the "article" supports is Troy Renck's boilerplate opinion. He provides nothing in that piece to indicate he has any more inside knowledge than you or anyone else here.
Given that Wilson's agent said, "I love to read and listen to all the conjecture and speculation about where these negotiations are, but frankly I think about 95 percent of those are off-point," I'm baffled why you put all your eggs in the basket of a Denver columnist. Do you think he has exclusive access to the 5% of on-point discussion out there? If so, why? He has provided no proof. Why do you demand proof from .Net message boarders, but not a newspaper columnist?
Seriously, how do you go from "I'm not sure if these are true" to "the realty still stands we know..." ??? Where is your burden of proof when making claims to "reality" and what "we know"? Are you trying to convince us that Troy Renck typing the words "multiple reports" equates to proof of Russell Wilson's and Mark Rodgers' demands?
It's impossible to tell if you're really trying to persuade people and doing a poor job or you just enjoy telling people their opinions and interpretations are wrong. All I am convinced of is that you found an opinion column on the internet that says what you want to say. That's all.
"'I am not sure if these are true as they are more speculation from 'multiple reports'" when posting a link to a columnist's opinion that cites zero sources...
Follow it with:
"all the reports say..." and "everyone has said..." and "like the media you are making stuff up..." in order to defend his belief in one opinion presented by one member of the media...
And then demand proof. Repeatedly:
"You have not proven..."
"you cannot prove any of this"
"you are really wasting your time and proving nothing as usual"
"you are assuming, and that proves nothing"
in order to denounce others' opinions...
??????????
Nobody can prove speculative opinion. By definition.
So how can you present one person's opinion as speculation then use that opinion to identify other people's ideas as assumptions, which suggests that the speculative column is factually correct? Why is Troy Renck in Denver the bedrock upon which you have built your stringent burden of proof?
What access to the ultimate truth does he have? Is it the fact that he "spent a chunk of time around the Seahawks the past two years"? Is it the self-referential and boneheadedly obvious title of the piece: "Renck: Russell Wilson deserves franchise QB money for role with Seahawks"? Is it the link-less "multiple reports" he wields like a Hattori Hanzo sword? What is it that allows you to say with confidence:
"So again you can assume all you want but so far there is nothing in that article that supports it."
???
Again, it's an opinion column not an article. The writer's name is in the title, for crying out loud! The only thing the "article" supports is Troy Renck's boilerplate opinion. He provides nothing in that piece to indicate he has any more inside knowledge than you or anyone else here.
Given that Wilson's agent said, "I love to read and listen to all the conjecture and speculation about where these negotiations are, but frankly I think about 95 percent of those are off-point," I'm baffled why you put all your eggs in the basket of a Denver columnist. Do you think he has exclusive access to the 5% of on-point discussion out there? If so, why? He has provided no proof. Why do you demand proof from .Net message boarders, but not a newspaper columnist?
Seriously, how do you go from "I'm not sure if these are true" to "the realty still stands we know..." ??? Where is your burden of proof when making claims to "reality" and what "we know"? Are you trying to convince us that Troy Renck typing the words "multiple reports" equates to proof of Russell Wilson's and Mark Rodgers' demands?
It's impossible to tell if you're really trying to persuade people and doing a poor job or you just enjoy telling people their opinions and interpretations are wrong. All I am convinced of is that you found an opinion column on the internet that says what you want to say. That's all.
