Minnesota rules the world of football

[HawkFan]

Well, Minnesota can't claim any Natl Titles since 1960 like Iowa can but still. Oh wait? lol That's right!!! Iowa can't claim any, EVER!!!! ROTFFLMAO

Or is there one season where Iowa got at least one computer ranking to call them #1?

Computers weren't a thing the last time either school claimed a title

I just know that of my 47 years on this planet the U of M has been dogshit, with no end insight of not being dogshit

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Sad

Hey Iowa bumpkin, we know there is nothing in Iowa but Corn Silos and, and, and, well, corn. And so that could be why you made Minnesota your home, or couldn't you get into Minnesota but Iowa would take you so you went down there just for school?

But we're talking Skyscapers here, not corn silos.

Hey, I'll give you credit for Norm bringing us wrestling, or for making it more popular here, but it was the superiority of UMn that drew him up here and away from Iowa in the first place.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Computers weren't a thing the last time either school claimed a title

I just know that of my 47 years on this planet the U of M has been dogshit, with no end insight of not being dogshit

The CDC 1604 came out in 1960, a lower cost version of the earlier ERA 1103 that came out in the early 50s.

So computers were a thing, just not a big thing, just not something bought by the average consumer, but there were enough around that a computer ranking could have existed earlier than you apparently are aware of, and many of those rankings just input the data from the past and figure out retroactively who the champs of the past would have been under their system.

 

[Boglodyte]

Again, I was not too lazy to look up my claim. I much more enjoy when people like you come along and do some of the research for me, in an effort to refute or stump me or prove me wrong. I sometimes learn things in the process and it's more fun for me at least.

This issue for example, allowed me to read enough of what you posted, combined it with what I gleaned from another article showing that some modern scholars are not calling the home insurance building claim into question.

It's claim only came about because of SHADY Chicago folk not wanting to honor the Patent of the Minnesota boy, Buffington, who was given a patent on the idea of the "cloud-scraper" as he called it in his original proposal for a 28 story building. Reading that article refreshed in my memory where I had heard that skyscrapers were born or invented here in Minnesota.

I mean, if you want to claim that the 7 story Tower of Babel was the first tall building, and argue THAT was the first skyscraper, you can, lol. Doesn't change the fact that what constitutes a "skyscraper" today isn't even agreed upon.

Some claim it has to be 100 meters high, and the home insurance building was only what? 42 meters in height? While others claim it has to be 150 meters high.


Did you know any of this or did you just google "first skyscraper" in hopes that you'd find something to give you a chance to call me a liar? lol

As a student in Architecture we studied it. Never was minny mentioned in that class.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

As a student in Architecture we studied it. Never was minny mentioned in that class.

"In 1888, a Minneapolis architect named Leroy S. Buffington was granted a patent on the idea of building skeletal-frame tall buildings. He even proposed the construction of a 28 story 'cloud scraper'-- a notion mocked by architectural press at the time as impractical and ludicrous."

archive.ph

 

[Boglodyte]

"In 1888, a Minneapolis architect named Leroy S. Buffington was granted a patent on the idea of building skeletal-frame tall buildings. He even proposed the construction of a 28 story 'cloud scraper'-- a notion mocked by architectural press at the time as impractical and ludicrous."

archive.ph

A patent on an IDEA 3 years later…

Are you saying that somehow makes him the father of the skyscraper?

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

A patent on an IDEA 3 years later…

Are you saying that somehow makes him the father of the skyscraper?

You didn't read the article, did you? lol It's obvious you didn't.



In the article it's explained how evidence has shown that Chicago building you are claiming as the first skyscraper, wasn't even the tallest building in Chicago and that it was in fact, NOT unique and arguably NOT the first skyscraper.

And the building was picked by corrupt rich Chicago folk who didn't want to have to pay Buffington royalties. They picked the building and conspired to lie about how it was built and what it was in an effort to discredit Buffington. And unfortunately for Buffington and history/the truth, their scheme worked.

Chicago has been a dirty and horribly corrupt city for a long time. And it still is.

 

[Boglodyte]

You didn't read the article, did you? lol It's obvious you didn't.



In the article it's explained how evidence has shown that Chicago building you are claiming as the first skyscraper, wasn't even the tallest building in Chicago and that it was in fact, NOT unique and arguably NOT the first skyscraper.

And the building was picked by corrupt rich Chicago folk who didn't want to have to pay Buffington royalties. They picked the building and conspired to lie about how it was built and what it was in an effort to discredit Buffington. And unfortunately for Buffington and history/the truth, their scheme worked.

Chicago has been a dirty and horribly corrupt city for a long time. And it still is.

You’re full of shit, but I got to say, it’s entertaining to read your posts

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

You’re full of shit, but I got to say, it’s entertaining to read your posts

I'm full of shit? lol Again, you obviously didn't read the article, did you?

 

[MTVike]

Joseph misses 37-yard game winner.

Yup, same old Vikings.

 

[Boglodyte]

I'm full of shit? lol Again, you obviously didn't read the article, did you?

still do not see how you think that the father of the skyscraper is Buffington

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Well, if they have been so bad, why hasn't any Pac team shut them out in Boulder the last 15 years? Seems NO team has shut them out in Boulder since 1979?

Dumbass.

Stanford 48-0 Colorado (Nov 3, 2012) Final Score - ESPN

Game summary of the Stanford Cardinal vs. Colorado Buffaloes NCAAF game, final score 48-0, from November 3, 2012 on ESPN.

www.espn.com

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Another FDF lie gets exposed.

 

[HawkFan]

The CDC 1604 came out in 1960, a lower cost version of the earlier ERA 1103 that came out in the early 50s.

So computers were a thing, just not a big thing, just not something bought by the average consumer, but there were enough around that a computer ranking could have existed earlier than you apparently are aware of, and many of those rankings just input the data from the past and figure out retroactively who the champs of the past would have been under their system.

Neat...it"s still been over 50 years since MN has been relevant

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Neat...it"s still been over 50 years since MN has been relevant

60*

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Another FDF lie gets exposed.

It wasn't a lie. What part of "seems no team has" didn't you understand? When I read the early version of the press release, it said that it SEEMED like the game vs LSU in 1979 was the last time anyone had shut them out in Boulder. I believe the release mentioned people were looking into it. I just went back to check so I could post the evidence of how it was my sources fault, but either they edited it to add the Stanford game, or I missed that line and only noticed the next line, which says the last time a ooc opponent shut them out in Boulder was 1979. So either whoever write the original version of the press release and/or I am human and prone to make the occasional mistake.

 

[HawkFan]

60*

My bad

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Neat...it"s still been over 50 years since MN has been relevant

So what exactly is "relevant"??? Because the last time Iowa finished a season with a ranking better than #7 is 1960. lol

Is there THAT big of a difference between a #7 finish and a #10 finish? You remember UMn finished #10 just 2 seasons ago, right?

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

It wasn't a lie. What part of "seems no team has" didn't you understand? When I read the early version of the press release, it said that it SEEMED like the game vs LSU in 1979 was the last time anyone had shut them out in Boulder. I believe the release mentioned people were looking into it. I just went back to check so I could post the evidence of how it was my sources fault, but either they edited it to add the Stanford game, or I missed that line and only noticed the next line, which says the last time a ooc opponent shut them out in Boulder was 1979. So either whoever write the original version of the press release and/or I am human and prone to make the occasional mistake.

So not only are you caught in your lie, but now you are lying about your source editing out their story.

Next time, try improving your reading comprehension and/or try to invent lies that are not so easily disproven.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

The last 21 ooc opponents we've played felt we were relevant. Even #2 ranked TCU, 22 ooc opponents ago considered UMn relevant and a threat and only beat UMn by less than a TD.