Hey, Bio97! - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Hey, Bio97! (/thread-4133.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Hey, Bio97! (/thread-4133.html)
Re: Hey, Bio97! - yvonne - 10-28-2012
I agree.
Re: Hey, Bio97! - yvonne - 10-28-2012
I agree.
Re: Hey, Bio97! - Leftcoast - 10-28-2012
Well put, Garvin.
Re: Hey, Bio97! - Leftcoast - 10-28-2012
Well put, Garvin.
Re: Hey, Bio97! - oman - 10-28-2012
So I guess this means we can say "asshole" on this board.
I was wondering how that whole "what should this board be rated" poll was going to pan out.
Re: Hey, Bio97! - oman - 10-28-2012
So I guess this means we can say "asshole" on this board.
I was wondering how that whole "what should this board be rated" poll was going to pan out.
Re: Hey, Bio97! - yvonne - 10-28-2012
The result was PG-13.
Re: Hey, Bio97! - yvonne - 10-28-2012
The result was PG-13.
Re: Hey, Bio97! - dabigv13 - 10-28-2012
I don't take back what I said. People who make multiple screennames and yet claim to be first time posters are trolls. Particularly when they mysteriously show up after dissapointing games and say ridiculous things like David Shaw embarrasses you as a fellow Stanford alumnus.
Re: Hey, Bio97! - dabigv13 - 10-28-2012
I don't take back what I said. People who make multiple screennames and yet claim to be first time posters are trolls. Particularly when they mysteriously show up after dissapointing games and say ridiculous things like David Shaw embarrasses you as a fellow Stanford alumnus.
Re: Hey, Bio97! - akCard - 10-28-2012
Bio97 may not have launched the original missive but he (she?) did agree with it. The only reason I didn't respond was that last night's win was the first time I've ever been so pissed off by a win.
[edit] And no, I didn't say that last bit to bludgeon home the point I'm more rational or less knee jerky. I just knew that any response I made to the "Shaw is an a**hole" comment would have just as angry. I don't think he's anything close to an a**hole but I'm beginning to think he's incredibly obstinate with his coaching and game plans.
GO STANFORD!!!
Re: Hey, Bio97! - akCard - 10-28-2012
Bio97 may not have launched the original missive but he (she?) did agree with it. The only reason I didn't respond was that last night's win was the first time I've ever been so pissed off by a win.
[edit] And no, I didn't say that last bit to bludgeon home the point I'm more rational or less knee jerky. I just knew that any response I made to the "Shaw is an a**hole" comment would have just as angry. I don't think he's anything close to an a**hole but I'm beginning to think he's incredibly obstinate with his coaching and game plans.
GO STANFORD!!!
Re: Hey, Bio97! - oman - 10-28-2012
test
Jesus Christ
/test
Re: Hey, Bio97! - oman - 10-28-2012
test
Jesus Christ
/test
Re: Hey, Bio97! - dabigv13 - 10-28-2012
Garvin, come on now. I've never said anything about Lloyd, and you're doing a lot of editorializing on my posts about Shaw and Nunes. I think Nunes is a poor quarterback, and I can't fathom why Shaw isn't trying something else. But I've never posted any personal attacks on either of them, such as:
Quote:Agreed. As an alum, what's more troubling than the fact he's not a qualified D1 coach is that he lacks the traits I expect of a Stanford alum -- introspection, self-analysis, humility...
Huh? Shaw lacks introspection? That's a pretty big leap there. And as much as I've questioned Shaw, I'd never call him an a$shole, which 49er/Bio97 seconded.
If Yvonne says it's not the same guy as 49er, a poster with an impressive -12 rep rating for 3 posts, then fine. Same IP, two different people, both of whom seem to be spouting the same vitriol? Seems fishy to me.
Re: Hey, Bio97! - dabigv13 - 10-28-2012
Garvin, come on now. I've never said anything about Lloyd, and you're doing a lot of editorializing on my posts about Shaw and Nunes. I think Nunes is a poor quarterback, and I can't fathom why Shaw isn't trying something else. But I've never posted any personal attacks on either of them, such as:
Quote:Agreed. As an alum, what's more troubling than the fact he's not a qualified D1 coach is that he lacks the traits I expect of a Stanford alum -- introspection, self-analysis, humility...
Huh? Shaw lacks introspection? That's a pretty big leap there. And as much as I've questioned Shaw, I'd never call him an a$shole, which 49er/Bio97 seconded.
If Yvonne says it's not the same guy as 49er, a poster with an impressive -12 rep rating for 3 posts, then fine. Same IP, two different people, both of whom seem to be spouting the same vitriol? Seems fishy to me.
Re: Hey, Bio97! - dabigv13 - 10-28-2012
To take what I said there as a shot at Lloyd is completely absurd, and frankly missing the point. Nunes was playing like ass, I think he would've told you that. And yes perhaps I was obliquely saying that for Shaw to continue playing Nunes and expecting good quarterbacking was insane.
But I think that's a far cry from calling them assholes, agreeing they're assholes, calling Shaw unqualified to be a D-1 coach (huh?), or somehow inferring that they lack introspection, self-analysis, or humility and thus are unfit to be a fellow Stanford alum...talk about humility!
Another pretty big distinguishing factor here is that myself and many of the other posters on this board who have expressed critical opinions recently have been here for years, through the good, the bad, the Walt Harris and the Buddy Teevens. We're not driving by to inflame opinion and watch the board burn. Creating multiple screennames, lying and claiming they are first time posters, and posting exclusively negative and inflammatory posts. Looks like a troll, quacks like a troll...
I don't think I need to defend myself further, so I'm done with this thread. I'm always glad to have new posters. But new posters who show up only after a disappointing game to throw in their hat with personal assaults? Personally I think this is a better board without 'em.
Re: Hey, Bio97! - dabigv13 - 10-28-2012
To take what I said there as a shot at Lloyd is completely absurd, and frankly missing the point. Nunes was playing like ass, I think he would've told you that. And yes perhaps I was obliquely saying that for Shaw to continue playing Nunes and expecting good quarterbacking was insane.
But I think that's a far cry from calling them assholes, agreeing they're assholes, calling Shaw unqualified to be a D-1 coach (huh?), or somehow inferring that they lack introspection, self-analysis, or humility and thus are unfit to be a fellow Stanford alum...talk about humility!
Another pretty big distinguishing factor here is that myself and many of the other posters on this board who have expressed critical opinions recently have been here for years, through the good, the bad, the Walt Harris and the Buddy Teevens. We're not driving by to inflame opinion and watch the board burn. Creating multiple screennames, lying and claiming they are first time posters, and posting exclusively negative and inflammatory posts. Looks like a troll, quacks like a troll...
I don't think I need to defend myself further, so I'm done with this thread. I'm always glad to have new posters. But new posters who show up only after a disappointing game to throw in their hat with personal assaults? Personally I think this is a better board without 'em.