Uncle Si
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2007
- Messages
- 20,596
- Reaction score
- 3
Popeyejones":3ecn4tww said:This is remarkably uncomplicated and your post is the type of garden variety equivocation that I suggested you not lean on to get out of answering a "yes" or "no" question.
The statement contained precisely three clauses, which are as follows, as now numbered and embedded in the full statement.
"there is a reason why nobody took a flier":
1) "on him earlier" (read: he did not go at the top of the FA market)
"and he settles for a"
2) "one year" (read: a single year contract)
3) "bargain deal." (read: below his initially assumed value).
Recall that this is the precise statement I responded to.
if there is one of these clauses that Michael Bennett's move from the Bucs to the Seahawks does not satisfy, you would have already said so rather than just equivocating about nonsense.
In turn, that you think I'd even remotely care about you flailing around with empty, rhetorical personal insults as a further way to obfuscate your lack of argument just reflects poorly on you. I'm complete unmoved by it bro-bro. :th2thumbs:
Again, if you want to argue with a straight face that Bennett doesn't satsfy one of those clauses just say so, but waving your arms around a lot and hoping nobody notices is a waste of time.
Well done there. Good offseason form. I smiled.
Detailing your simplification of Hawk's post to push Bennet and Boykin into the same plot is remarkably uncomplicated. That is true. So there is your yes. It also misses the point Hawk Nation was implying... that the two deals are implicitly different due to the value of the player. A point he made in the post earlier. You ignored it and generalized the other criteria to satisfy a point that is a reach at best. You can celebrate that how you wish bro-bro, but given the nature of the post it's becoming rather transparent. Arm flailingly so. It's also a bit hypocritical given that many (edit: some) of your posts are simply chasing Hawks fans around to reveal how their emotional side impairs their posting.
So, whether you want to continue to maintain, with a straight face, that you're using three simple criteria to plot two players and suggest it somehow strengthens your point while ignoring what seemed clear was being implied when he made the post then enjoy yourself. Not sure how that sort of banality is helpful. It also misses his point. Maybe purposefully.
Keep turning that mirror and hope it satisfies your purposes here.
Quick edit... I have no negative opinion of the player or deal. Actually looks a solid deal for a good player. I just didn't think the Bennett comparison was strong.