- Thread starter
- #1
These are 5 instances of you using the word "fact" improperly out of the last 200 times the word "fact" has been used in any post you made.
My personal favorite is post 273. You have to read the back over the context to see some.
How can a fact be true at that time but not now? If its not true now, it was never a fact. Get it?those are past posts and were true at the time. You are psycho. lol
How can a fact be true at that time but not now? If its not true now, it was never a fact. Get it?
You mean you jumped to a conclusion without really investigating. Almost like you had a preconceived belief and were looking for anything to justify it? So are you saying you were wrong?I just commented on information that I thought it was a fact back then. Recently there was no way of me knowing that the KC crew did counter. Im not behind close doors of the meeetings. I just respond to information that is posted. Just like vt and stym did
NeverYou mean you jumped to a conclusion without really investigating. Almost like you had a preconceived belief and were looking for anything to justify it? So are you saying you were wrong?
You mean you jumped to a conclusion without really investigating. Almost like you had a preconceived belief and were looking for anything to justify it? So are you saying you were wrong?
I just commented on information that I thought it was a fact back then. Recently there was no way of me knowing that the KC crew did counter. Im not behind close doors of the meeetings. I just respond to information that is posted. Just like vt and stym did
SUDFELD ON BROdean , you were told numerous times by me , that , that had to happen as far as proposals go . you didnt want to hear it because you had blinders on . common sense could only dictate that and an ounce of critical thinking would have led you to that conclusion . VT and sty were told the same thing and both didnt want to hear it neither did mitz .
you know dean , just admit you want someone , anyone else . in your case i dont believe you are RG3 butt hurt but rather you are a draft head and you like the idea of getting a new rookie to be the next "in qb "
coach , he is a sudfeld zealot , country is just impatient , mitz and VT i havent figured yet but i have suspicions
my solution to this if you dont want KC , is to sign drew brees (overpay most likely ) but he is a guy for a couple of years can move the ball forward rather then tread water (and can justify an overpay ) then simply draft a qb that falls at our spot in the draft . he learns behind an all time great and when he is put out to pasture new guy takes over and we keep moving forward
we get the best of both worlds , we dont blow draft capitol on a wunderkind and we get a respected qb to place hold . you can suck the dick right off either AJ or grap but neither has proven a thing and are far less proven then what we have
i cant see selling the house for stafford or drafting a rookie to start year one
From an outsiders opinion, I think both are FACTS.Fact.. Dan Snyder owns the Redskins
Opinion.. .Dan Snyder suffers from Napoleonic complex.
See the difference.
hey stop clouding the issue with factsFrom an outsiders opinion, I think both are FACTS.
Sorry about that. But is just my opinion.hey stop clouding the issue with facts