Reality Check - Roster Construction

[Stout]

Sure man. Tell me how it's not factual?

Poor rhetorical attack: State something as factual and immediately demand the other person to prove the negative. Sounds like poor political tactics, to be honest.

I'm not stupid and not biting on your poor attempts to "outmaneuver" me rhetorically. You can make broad, sweeping assertions about facts all you want. Nobody that doesn't already agree with you will be swayed by this. Lack of engagement in your silliness is in no way a validation of said silliness. Go preach to the cows in the fields about your facts, for all I care, and for all the difference it will make. You don't want to engage in debate. You want to declare facts and have them validated. No thanks

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I'm lying about your opinions? So you don't blame the FO for not making any bigger moves in FA and no resigning Allen and Murphy? You do realise we can see every post you write and everything you like right?











And this is just in the last few days. If I went back further I could quote post after post of you slagging off the new GM, what we have done in FA, what we haven't done in FA etc

And there's a lot of nonsense about how we aren't really tearing it down because we didn;t dump Conner and Ertz and we used June 1st designations which you a basic misunderstanding of how cap rules work that make these points completely invalid.

But just for clarity why don't you tell us exactly what your thoughts are and how I misrepresented them so we can be sure it doesn't happen again in the future.

Gets called out on lies, moves the goalposts. You keep claiming that he and stout are “raging” about not signing “big free agents.” Called out on it and now you’re changing “big free agents” to “bigger free agents.” That’s not the same thing. You know it’s not the same thing. Everyone on this bo d knows it’s not the same thing. But you wont admit you played this disingenuous game. This is typical Brit. And it’s why your credibility is so poor on the board.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

He's done nothing but moan about every move made. Big, bigger, better. Whatever. It's just semantics. The general principle is exactly the same.

On one hand he's saying why would anyone sign here, we suck, the franchise sucks, it's always sucked and on the other he's moaning we haven't signed BETTER players.

No matter if it's bigger or better the principle is still the same and the two things don't go together.

But how about we let Cheese reply for himself? Because you have been arguing you're not one homogeneous blob with the same opinion and not to lump you all together yet you feel pretty comfortable arguing for what @cheesebeef thinks...

If only he stood by this post



I'm pretty sure much of his anger comes from his misunderstanding of this situation

Man this post is awful. As expected he plays the inappropriate “semantics” card. It’s not semantics. You know it’s not semantics. You purposefully mistate peoples opinions all the time. It’s really the lowest form of argumentation.

 

[Stout]

Yep.

 

[BritCard]

Poor rhetorical attack: State something as factual and immediately demand the other person to prove the negative. Sounds like poor political tactics, to be honest.

I'm not stupid and not biting on your poor attempts to "outmaneuver" me rhetorically. You can make broad, sweeping assertions about facts all you want. Nobody that doesn't already agree with you will be swayed by this. Lack of engagement in your silliness is in no way a validation of said silliness. Go preach to the cows in the fields about your facts, for all I care, and for all the difference it will make. You don't want to engage in debate. You want to declare facts and have them validated. No thanks

You're hilarious man.

You tell me that it's "just your opinion man" and when I point how and explain clearly how it isn't and how both narratives are provable as incorrect you just refuse to engage and say "I don't have to prove I'm right". It's laughable.

Here's how it works in real life. If you want to say I'm wrong you have to prove it. Like I did.

Just stomping your feet and writing 5 sentences of nonsense that equates to "I have nothing" isn't how it works.

So again, if your (or anyones) basis for saying the FO isn't "tearing it down right" is that Ertz and Conner are still here and we used June 1st designations you are wrong. I've explained how it's wrong. If you don't agree then you have to tell me how it's not wrong. That's how it works.

 

[Stout]

You're hilarious man.

You tell me that it's "just your opinion man" and when I point how and explain clearly how it isn't and how both narratives are provable as incorrect you just refuse to engage and say "I don't have to prove I'm right". It's laughable.

Here's how it works in real life. If you want to say I'm wrong you have to prove it. Like I did.

Just stomping your feet and writing 5 sentences of nonsense that equates to "I have nothing" isn't how it works.

So again, if your (or anyones) basis for saying the FO isn't "tearing it down right" is that Ertz and Conner are still here and we used June 1st designations you are wrong. I've explained how it's wrong. If you don't agree then you have to tell me how it's not wrong. That's how it works.

LOL I'm sorry, you're allowed to say whatever you want, and if I don't provide proof against, you're automatically right? That's how it works in "real life?" lol If we lived in fantasy land, sure! That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works!

 

[BritCard]

LOL I'm sorry, you're allowed to say whatever you want, and if I don't provide proof against, you're automatically right? That's how it works in "real life?" lol If we lived in fantasy land, sure! That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works!

Well yeah, that's generally how it works.

If you want to say I'm wrong you have to say how I'm wrong. Like I did.

If you can't show how or why I'm wrong then I'm not wrong.

But you can't, because I'm not.

 

[Stout]

Well yeah, that's generally how it works.

If you want to say I'm wrong you have to say how I'm wrong. Like I did.

If you can't show how or why I'm wrong then I'm not wrong.

But you can't, because I'm not.

You can claim the sky is the entryway into Elysium. If I say nothing to disprove your outrageous assertion, your assertion is still false. Just because you utter something doesn't make it fact until and unless disproven.

You really don't know how logic works. What you say and what you think are not independent facts that must be disproven. When you unequivocally state opinions as facts, people either want to ignore you or tear your assertions apart. My goodness, the arrogance you have to simply say your word is fact unless someone proves otherwise. It's downright *insert politician adjective here*.

For the last time: I don't agree with you on the direction of our rebuild, or tear it down, or whatever we want to call it. You disagree with me. Coolio. Neither of us are quantitatively right or wrong. These are our opinions we are arguing about. The end. Not that I expect you to let it lie, but that about sums it up.

 

[BritCard]

You can claim the sky is the entryway into Elysium. If I say nothing to disprove your outrageous assertion, your assertion is still false. Just because you utter something doesn't make it fact until and unless disproven.

This is boring mate.

I'm not claiming some freaking abstract theory that's unprovable. I've stated two very clear provable reasons why those two narratives are 100% wrong.

If I was wrong, it would be as easy to show me how as it was for me to show you.

All you have to do is show me how cutting Conner and Ertz now is a benefit and how we could have got through this offseason with the restructures and June 1st's. If you can't do that then let's just accept I'm right and move on.

I'm not asking you to disprove quantum entanglement theory.

 

[Stout]

This is boring mate.

I'm not claiming some freaking abstract theory that's unprovable. I've stated two very clear provable reasons why those two narratives are 100% wrong.

If I was wrong, it would be as easy to show me how as it was for me to show you.

All you have to do is show me how cutting Conner and Ertz now is a benefit and how we could have got through this offseason with the restructures and June 1st's. If you can't do that then let's just accept I'm right and move on.

I'm not asking you to disprove quantum entanglement theory.

By all means continue. I'm sure you'll convince me eventually. I've given up the logical route with you *shrug*

 

[BritCard]

By all means continue. I'm sure you'll convince me eventually. I've given up the logical route with you *shrug*

It's always funny when people say "continue" like I'm the one dragging this out.

I very clearly explained why both arguments are nonsense. You're the one that's keep it going with non stop ad hominems instead of just engaging on the point. Had you just done so, or said "Fair enough. I see the point" it would be done.

Does anyone hear have any trouble understanding them or see any flaws in them? If not can we just accept it and move on?

 

[cardncubfan]

You can claim the sky is the entryway into Elysium. If I say nothing to disprove your outrageous assertion, your assertion is still false. Just because you utter something doesn't make it fact until and unless disproven.

You really don't know how logic works. What you say and what you think are not independent facts that must be disproven. When you unequivocally state opinions as facts, people either want to ignore you or tear your assertions apart. My goodness, the arrogance you have to simply say your word is fact unless someone proves otherwise. It's downright *insert politician adjective here*.

For the last time: I don't agree with you on the direction of our rebuild, or tear it down, or whatever we want to call it. You disagree with me. Coolio. Neither of us are quantitatively right or wrong. These are our opinions we are arguing about. The end. Not that I expect you to let it lie, but that about sums it up.

Weird. I just re-watched this movie last weekend. I didn't expect it in a post on the Cards board.

 

[Stout]

It's always funny when people say "continue" like I'm the one dragging this out.

I very clearly explained why both arguments are nonsense. You're the one that's keep it going with non stop ad hominems instead of just engaging on the point. Had you just done so, or said "Fair enough. I see the point" it would be done.

Does anyone hear have any trouble understanding them or see any flaws in them? If not can we just accept it and move on?

lol Just accept your opinion as fact and move on? Sure buddy, if that's what it takes. Non-stop ad hominems? This from the guy who lied about mine and others' stance claiming we wanted "big time FA signings" and thinks his opinion is fact until proven otherwise? Classic stuff.

I have tried on this thread, numerous times, to politely disengage from this conversation. Instead it's "MOAR insistence I'm factually right until proven otherwise!" and you unable to admit we both have differing viewpoints and let it drop there.

Can you do that? Admit we simply have differing opinions and move on?

 

[Stout]

Weird. I just re-watched this movie last weekend. I didn't expect it in a post on the Cards board.

We actually had a lot of discussion on it in the Movies forum. As I recall, I loved it and got into a huge argument about the symbolism in the movie. I mean, religious symbolism was everywhere in it

 

[Dayman]

This is boring mate.

I'm not claiming some freaking abstract theory that's unprovable. I've stated two very clear provable reasons why those two narratives are 100% wrong.

If I was wrong, it would be as easy to show me how as it was for me to show you.

All you have to do is show me how cutting Conner and Ertz now is a benefit and how we could have got through this offseason with the restructures and June 1st's. If you can't do that then let's just accept I'm right and move on.

I'm not asking you to disprove quantum entanglement theory.

If the FO really wanted to tear this thing down and tank this year, they could have

Restructured Budda's contract if they plan on keeping him or trade him if they don't
Cut Gardeck
Cut Fotu
Not re-signed Zeke Turner
Signed a rookie kicker instead of Prater
Signed an UDFA WR instead of signing Paschal
Not given Will Hernandez a 4x raise and play Smith or Hayes at RG
Not re-signed Beachum and play Jones at RT
Lowered their asking price for Hopkins like the Rams did with Ramsey
Not signed Kyzir White

That would give them enough space to cut Conner and absorb the cap hits of Hudson and Watt this year while allowing them to sign minimum priced replacements. Ertz could then be dealt with when he returns from injury. It's not what I would want to happen, but it could have been done.

Now will you please stop making the same post about Conner and Ertz dozens of times? It is derailing a bunch of threads. Thank you.

 

[cardncubfan]

If the FO really wanted to tear this thing down and tank this year, they could have

Restructured Budda's contract if they plan on keeping him or trade him if they don't
Cut Gardeck
Cut Fotu
Not re-signed Zeke Elliott
Signed a rookie kicker instead of Prater
Signed an UDFA WR instead of signing Paschal
Not given Will Hernandez a 4x raise and play Smith or Hayes at RG
Not re-signed Beachum and play Jones at RT
Lowered their asking price for Hopkins like the Rams did with Ramsey
Not signed Kyzir White

That would give them enough space to cut Conner and absorb the cap hits of Hudson and Watt this year while allowing them to sign minimum priced replacements. Ertz could then be dealt with when he returns from injury. It's not what I would want to happen, but it could have been done.

Now will you please stop making the same post about Conner and Ertz dozens of times? It is derailing a bunch of threads. Thank you.

Zeke Elliott?

 

[Dayman]

Zeke Elliott?

Good catch. I meant Zeke Turner.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

If the FO really wanted to tear this thing down and tank this year, they could have

Restructured Budda's contract if they plan on keeping him or trade him if they don't
Cut Gardeck
Cut Fotu
Not re-signed Zeke Turner
Signed a rookie kicker instead of Prater
Signed an UDFA WR instead of signing Paschal
Not given Will Hernandez a 4x raise and play Smith or Hayes at RG
Not re-signed Beachum and play Jones at RT
Lowered their asking price for Hopkins like the Rams did with Ramsey
Not signed Kyzir White

That would give them enough space to cut Conner and absorb the cap hits of Hudson and Watt this year while allowing them to sign minimum priced replacements. Ertz could then be dealt with when he returns from injury. It's not what I would want to happen, but it could have been done.

Now will you please stop making the same post about Conner and Ertz dozens of times? It is derailing a bunch of threads. Thank you.

You're never going to get a response here, because it's the truth.

 

[AZCB34]

Connor and Ertz are not part of the long term plan here and the Cardinals are clearly aiming for 2024-2025 so there is absolutely no reason to keep either. Go find other guys either through draft or next waves of FA and not water time with Connor and Ertz.

I don’t pretend to understand all the cap stuff but honestly don’t care. The Cardinals cap people can figure it out. I want players getting ramped up this year for the following years since I believe this upcoming season is gonna be a washout.

 

[THESMEL]

Connor and Ertz are not part of the long term plan here and the Cardinals are clearly aiming for 2024-2025 so there is absolutely no reason to keep either. Go find other guys either through draft or next waves of FA and not water time with Connor and Ertz.

I don’t pretend to understand all the cap stuff but honestly don’t care. The Cardinals cap people can figure it out. I want players getting ramped up this year for the following years since I believe this upcoming season is gonna be a washout.

Don’t know it’s a washout, don’t know diddly, look at the linebackers - a decent defense can win the NFCW

 

[QuebecCard]

There are hundreds of synonyms and antonyms that exist for 'lying' and 'liar.'

Maybe using a few of these could prove less confrontational.

 

[Stout]

There are hundreds of synonyms and antonyms that exist for 'lying' and 'liar.'

Maybe using a few of these could prove less confrontational.

When things escalate, the accompanying verbiage reflects that.

 

[BirdGangThing]

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Well yeah, that's generally how it works.

If you want to say I'm wrong you have to say how I'm wrong. Like I did.

If you can't show how or why I'm wrong then I'm not wrong.

But you can't, because I'm not.

That’s not true. Just because someone doesn’t want to take the time to research why you’re wrong doesn’t mean you’re right. It just means they haven’t proven you wrong. There’s a world of difference between those two things.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

There are hundreds of synonyms and antonyms that exist for 'lying' and 'liar.'

Maybe using a few of these could prove less confrontational.

But i think that’s the point. If you repeatedly politely point out the fact that someone is purposefully putting words in your mouth and they continue to do so you’ve eventually got to escalate if you want it to stop. “Liar” is absolutely an inflammatory word. It is also accurate. Know what avoids that label? Owning your contrivance and apologizing.