|
|
Post by jackal on Jul 10, 2015 15:16:24 GMT -5
I'm going to go with FUbEAR on this one. Starting your sentence off with , "You would think..." is a clear reference to an implication. You were doing more than stating a fact. Yes you stated a fact, but you also clearly implied that you had an opinion of what that fact meant. Thus you also had an implied conclusion to that opinion. Thus FUbEAR is clearly right on these two points. Now the only thing left to decided is the "red herring" A Red Herring is a something (especially a clue or a fact) that is intended to be misleading or distracting. To able to say your comment is a "red herring", we have to know what your intention was. On this item, I'm not sure we can with 100% certainty know. Maybe FUbEAR has other previous information to make this determination. I say this is more 50-50 and that is giving the benefit of the doubt. So, in conclusion, FUbEAR gets 2.5 out of 3 points and wins with a TKO. What the heck is a "clear reference to an implication?" I am either implying something or I am not. If I am, what is it? By starting a sentence with "you would think" does not mean I am implying anything. Furman had a transfer quarterback from UCLA a few years ago. You would think that that players from UCLA wouldn't transfer to Furman (seems reasonable, right?). That's not an implication. It doesn't become an implication because of how I start the sentence. FUBear, in his crusade to protect all things Mercer, thinks I am implying that Bobby Lamb cannot recruit the state he spent 30 years in. That is not what I am implying. I don't have a foggy clue whether Lamb steps foot in the state, nor does it matter. He may not spend 5 minutes there. Maybe the kid from SC is his wife's second cousin twice removed. I don't have any idea. You would think that he would go back to SC and find players, but he hasn't. That's not implying anything. The red herring would exist if I were to to make a follow up argument that misleads from the first. It cannot be a red herring simply because you think I intended something misleading. In fact, the very nature of the red herring typically requires an argument that is unintentionally misleading. No mention, of course, of Bear's logically fallacious response. I state Mercer has one player from South Carolina, and his response is to tell me how many players from Georgia Furman has. I ask you, what does that have to do with anything? |
|
|
|
Post by jackal on Jul 10, 2015 15:19:50 GMT -5
I'm going to go with FUbEAR on this one. Starting your sentence off with , "You would think..." is a clear reference to an implication. You were doing more than stating a fact. Yes you stated a fact, but you also clearly implied that you had an opinion of what that fact meant. Thus you also had an implied conclusion to that opinion. Thus FUbEAR is clearly right on these two points. Now the only thing left to decided is the "red herring" A Red Herring is a something (especially a clue or a fact) that is intended to be misleading or distracting. To able to say your comment is a "red herring", we have to know what your intention was. On this item, I'm not sure we can with 100% certainty know. Maybe FUbEAR has other previous information to make this determination. I say this is more 50-50 and that is giving the benefit of the doubt. So, in conclusion, FUbEAR gets 2.5 out of 3 points and wins with a TKO. I would like to introduce this post made by Jackal, under another alias, on a different message board, just a few days earlier, as evidence of his state of mind or "intention" when he made his 'red herring' post here: July 6th, 2015, 08:27 AM - "2006 CCU won [over a Furman team coached by Coach Lamb] on a botched extra point attempt (a Bobby Lamb special)" [emphasis added by FUBeAR] I want the FULL 3 points! I can name you probably 4 or 5 games without even trying where Furman teams under Lamb lost football games on botched special teams plays. Special teams play was not his strong suit, IMO. 2002 Furman loses to App State on an untimed play on interception in the endzone (not special teams, but a 2 point conversion) 2003 Furman loses to Wofford after botching a field goal try on a fumbled snap (lose by 1) 2003 Furman loses to the Citadel after botching an extra point attempt (lose by 1) 2004 Furman loses to James Madison blocks both a punt and an extra point attempt (lose by 1) 2006 Furman loses to Coastal after the Chants returned a blocked extra point for a score (lose by 2) I liked Lamb as a coach. Think he's a fine guy. Furman had some excruciating losses during his tenure where the difference was poor execution on special teams. That's just off the top of my head. When I say special teams miscues were fairly common, I am not exaggerating. |
|
|
|
Post by bear38 on Jul 10, 2015 17:26:40 GMT -5
I'm going to go with FUbEAR on this one. Starting your sentence off with , "You would think..." is a clear reference to an implication. You were doing more than stating a fact. Yes you stated a fact, but you also clearly implied that you had an opinion of what that fact meant. Thus you also had an implied conclusion to that opinion. Thus FUbEAR is clearly right on these two points. Now the only thing left to decided is the "red herring" A Red Herring is a something (especially a clue or a fact) that is intended to be misleading or distracting. To able to say your comment is a "red herring", we have to know what your intention was. On this item, I'm not sure we can with 100% certainty know. Maybe FUbEAR has other previous information to make this determination. I say this is more 50-50 and that is giving the benefit of the doubt. So, in conclusion, FUbEAR gets 2.5 out of 3 points and wins with a TKO. What the heck is a "clear reference to an implication?" I am either implying something or I am not. If I am, what is it? By starting a sentence with "you would think" does not mean I am implying anything. Furman had a transfer quarterback from UCLA a few years ago. You would think that that players from UCLA wouldn't transfer to Furman (seems reasonable, right?). That's not an implication. It doesn't become an implication because of how I start the sentence. FUBear, in his crusade to protect all things Mercer, thinks I am implying that Bobby Lamb cannot recruit the state he spent 30 years in. That is not what I am implying. I don't have a foggy clue whether Lamb steps foot in the state, nor does it matter. He may not spend 5 minutes there. Maybe the kid from SC is his wife's second cousin twice removed. I don't have any idea. You would think that he would go back to SC and find players, but he hasn't. That's not implying anything. The red herring would exist if I were to to make a follow up argument that misleads from the first. It cannot be a red herring simply because you think I intended something misleading. In fact, the very nature of the red herring typically requires an argument that is unintentionally misleading. No mention, of course, of Bear's logically fallacious response. I state Mercer has one player from South Carolina, and his response is to tell me how many players from Georgia Furman has. I ask you, what does that have to do with anything? I've never heard of an Unintentional Red Herring. Maybe they are just different colors from where I come from....  If Jackal insists he was just throwing out random facts about Bobby Lamb's recruiting in SC where Jackal's favorite team resides just to make interesting conversation with no opinions about what the random facts mean, then I guess we should believe him........or not. |
|
|
|
Post by bear38 on Jul 10, 2015 17:30:06 GMT -5
I'm going to go with FUbEAR on this one. Starting your sentence off with , "You would think..." is a clear reference to an implication. You were doing more than stating a fact. Yes you stated a fact, but you also clearly implied that you had an opinion of what that fact meant. Thus you also had an implied conclusion to that opinion. Thus FUbEAR is clearly right on these two points. Now the only thing left to decided is the "red herring" A Red Herring is a something (especially a clue or a fact) that is intended to be misleading or distracting. To able to say your comment is a "red herring", we have to know what your intention was. On this item, I'm not sure we can with 100% certainty know. Maybe FUbEAR has other previous information to make this determination. I say this is more 50-50 and that is giving the benefit of the doubt. So, in conclusion, FUbEAR gets 2.5 out of 3 points and wins with a TKO. I would like to introduce this post made by Jackal, under another alias, on a different message board, just a few days earlier, as evidence of his state of mind or "intention" when he made his 'red herring' post here: July 6th, 2015, 08:27 AM - "2006 CCU won [over a Furman team coached by Coach Lamb] on a botched extra point attempt (a Bobby Lamb special)" [emphasis added by FUBeAR] I want the FULL 3 points! I don't know FUbEAR. You have some fairly convincing evidence, but do we really know what resides deep in a man's heart? I say be happy with your TKO. |
|
|
|
Post by bear38 on Jul 10, 2015 17:31:46 GMT -5
FUbEAR - What does it take to get 4 stars on this board? I've a Spired long enough......
|
|
|
|
Post by bear38 on Jul 10, 2015 17:40:41 GMT -5
FUbEAR - What does it take to get 4 stars on this board? I've a Spired long enough...... Maybe I have to learn how to spell and punctuate FUBeAR. |
|
|
|
Post by FUBeAR on Jul 10, 2015 17:55:24 GMT -5
I'm going to go with FUbEAR on this one. Starting your sentence off with , "You would think..." is a clear reference to an implication. You were doing more than stating a fact. Yes you stated a fact, but you also clearly implied that you had an opinion of what that fact meant. Thus you also had an implied conclusion to that opinion. Thus FUbEAR is clearly right on these two points. Now the only thing left to decided is the "red herring" A Red Herring is a something (especially a clue or a fact) that is intended to be misleading or distracting. To able to say your comment is a "red herring", we have to know what your intention was. On this item, I'm not sure we can with 100% certainty know. Maybe FUbEAR has other previous information to make this determination. I say this is more 50-50 and that is giving the benefit of the doubt. So, in conclusion, FUbEAR gets 2.5 out of 3 points and wins with a TKO. What the heck is a "clear reference to an implication?" I am either implying something or I am not. If I am, what is it? By starting a sentence with "you would think" does not mean I am implying anything. Furman had a transfer quarterback from UCLA a few years ago. You would think that that players from UCLA wouldn't transfer to Furman (seems reasonable, right?). That's not an implication. It doesn't become an implication because of how I start the sentence. FUBear, in his crusade to protect all things Mercer, thinks I am implying that Bobby Lamb cannot recruit the state he spent 30 years in. That is not what I am implying. I don't have a foggy clue whether Lamb steps foot in the state, nor does it matter. He may not spend 5 minutes there. Maybe the kid from SC is his wife's second cousin twice removed. I don't have any idea. You would think that he would go back to SC and find players, but he hasn't. That's not implying anything. The red herring would exist if I were to to make a follow up argument that misleads from the first. It cannot be a red herring simply because you think I intended something misleading. In fact, the very nature of the red herring typically requires an argument that is unintentionally misleading. No mention, of course, of Bear's logically fallacious response. I state Mercer has one player from South Carolina, and his response is to tell me how many players from Georgia Furman has. I ask you, what does that have to do with anything? Come on now, you're sounding quite flustered. You are a professional arguer and I am a mere amateur...although I have been married for 26 years. So, there's that. "You would think that that (sic) players from UCLA wouldn't transfer to Furman (seems reasonable, right?). That's not an implication." - I fail to see what you are failing to see here. In that statement, the one you used as an example of no implication, there could be several implications. 1) Furman is 'beneath' a UCLA's transfer's 'station.' OR 2) Progressive Californians would not dream of transplanting to backwards-a**, Confederate-flag-flying SC OR 3) Purple is such an awful color, how could someone as fashion-forward as people from LA tend to be even consider trading in the powder blue and gold for such an abomination? As 38 rightly noted and ruled, it all depends on the speaker's/writer's state of mind and/or position on the matter upon which he or she is opining. And, I...and now you, obviously eschewing your message board 5th amendment rights, have presented sufficient evidence as to your position/state of mind with regard to Coach Lamb. Thus, the implication in your comment becomes quite clear to the reasonable reader. If evidence exists (beyond the "AM NOT" defense you have so far presented) that you were, instead, for example, implying that the state of HS Football in SC is so sorry, you're surprised that anyone would ever try to recruit there, then, perhaps, you can present that evidence here in Judge 38's Court for his consideration. "The red herring would exist if I were to to make a follow up argument that misleads from the first. It cannot be a red herring simply because you think I intended something misleading. In fact, the very nature of the red herring typically requires an argument that is unintentionally misleading." - I will withdraw my prior reference to a Red Herring if 38 will allow it. Continued conversation of it is obfuscating the real issue at hand here and is only making me crave a tin of sardines and a pack of saltines for dinner. "No mention, of course, of Bear's logically fallacious response. I state Mercer has one player from South Carolina, and his response is to tell me how many players from Georgia Furman has. I ask you, what does that have to do with anything?" - By omission of my full argument here, you are insulting Judge 38's ability to retain facts previously submitted. He may be an old bull, but he's not ready for the stockyard just yet, sir. I responded to your clear implication (already proven, ruled upon, and reinforced above) by noting FIRST how few Sandlappers FU has in their program to demonstrate the inaccuracy of the causal relationship you implied for the few number of players Mercer has recruited from the state of SC. I did not, at that time, buttress my assertion by adding that the other SoCon schools in SC (Woffy & El Cid) also have a dearth of SC-bred Players on their rosters with respect to what is typically found in most other college football programs. SC-bred Players are in the minority on all 3 rosters of SoCon schools in SC. As noted, Mercer's roster includes a healthy majority of players from its home state of GA (70.4%), as does the University of Georgia's (69%), Georgia Tech's (64%), and Georgia Southern's (69%). As you can see, Mercer is right in line with other schools in GA. I did add that FU has 2x as many players from GA as they do from SC because it further supports the evidence that there is really no valid reason why Coach Lamb should have signed more than 1 player from SC. So, unless you have some rare form of Tourtette's Syndrome which manifests itself by outputting to your keyboard explaining your comment, there is absolutely no basis for it....other than what you were CLEARLY trying to imply. I will acknowledge that your effort, under other circumstances, most likely would have been successful. An audience unaware of the paucity of PSA's/Football Talent in the Palmetto State, especially in relation to the Peach State, would have wondered to themselves exactly as you wanted them to, perhaps questioning Coach Lamb's ability to recruit, just as others are wondering if Coach Hatcher's (Samford's new HC) teams can actually play a lick of defense, but not here Jackal, not today. I stand ever-vigilant on alert for your subtle asperion and innuendo. I do so proudly and humbly. As my signature states: I am a Bear. In my solitude I resemble the wind. I blow the clouds together. So they form images of my friends. |
|
|
|
Post by FUBeAR on Jul 10, 2015 18:14:25 GMT -5
FUbEAR - What does it take to get 4 stars on this board? I've a Spired long enough...... Maybe I have to learn how to spell and punctuate FUBeAR. You gotta talk to the Admin - BearDownMU. I'm just a Registered Poster here, not an Admin. |
|
|
|
Post by BearDownMU on Jul 10, 2015 20:42:47 GMT -5
FUbEAR - What does it take to get 4 stars on this board? I've a Spired long enough...... 250 posts, my man. You're on the home stretch! |
|
|
|
Post by bear38 on Jul 10, 2015 21:29:36 GMT -5
Maybe I have to learn how to spell and punctuate FUBeAR. You gotta talk to the Admin - BearDownMU. I'm just a Registered Poster here, not an Admin. I just thought is was a big day in the household with fireworks, balloons, streamers and cake. Maybe you already forgot when you got your star..... |
|
|
|
Post by jackal on Jul 11, 2015 5:57:33 GMT -5
What the heck is a "clear reference to an implication?" I am either implying something or I am not. If I am, what is it? By starting a sentence with "you would think" does not mean I am implying anything. Furman had a transfer quarterback from UCLA a few years ago. You would think that that players from UCLA wouldn't transfer to Furman (seems reasonable, right?). That's not an implication. It doesn't become an implication because of how I start the sentence. FUBear, in his crusade to protect all things Mercer, thinks I am implying that Bobby Lamb cannot recruit the state he spent 30 years in. That is not what I am implying. I don't have a foggy clue whether Lamb steps foot in the state, nor does it matter. He may not spend 5 minutes there. Maybe the kid from SC is his wife's second cousin twice removed. I don't have any idea. You would think that he would go back to SC and find players, but he hasn't. That's not implying anything. The red herring would exist if I were to to make a follow up argument that misleads from the first. It cannot be a red herring simply because you think I intended something misleading. In fact, the very nature of the red herring typically requires an argument that is unintentionally misleading. No mention, of course, of Bear's logically fallacious response. I state Mercer has one player from South Carolina, and his response is to tell me how many players from Georgia Furman has. I ask you, what does that have to do with anything? Come on now, you're sounding quite flustered. You are a professional arguer and I am a mere amateur...although I have been married for 26 years. So, there's that. "You would think that that (sic) players from UCLA wouldn't transfer to Furman (seems reasonable, right?). That's not an implication." - I fail to see what you are failing to see here. In that statement, the one you used as an example of no implication, there could be several implications. 1) Furman is 'beneath' a UCLA's transfer's 'station.' OR 2) Progressive Californians would not dream of transplanting to backwards-a**, Confederate-flag-flying SC OR 3) Purple is such an awful color, how could someone as fashion-forward as people from LA tend to be even consider trading in the powder blue and gold for such an abomination? As 38 rightly noted and ruled, it all depends on the speaker's/writer's state of mind and/or position on the matter upon which he or she is opining. And, I...and now you, obviously eschewing your message board 5th amendment rights, have presented sufficient evidence as to your position/state of mind with regard to Coach Lamb. Thus, the implication in your comment becomes quite clear to the reasonable reader. If evidence exists (beyond the "AM NOT" defense you have so far presented) that you were, instead, for example, implying that the state of HS Football in SC is so sorry, you're surprised that anyone would ever try to recruit there, then, perhaps, you can present that evidence here in Judge 38's Court for his consideration. "The red herring would exist if I were to to make a follow up argument that misleads from the first. It cannot be a red herring simply because you think I intended something misleading. In fact, the very nature of the red herring typically requires an argument that is unintentionally misleading." - I will withdraw my prior reference to a Red Herring if 38 will allow it. Continued conversation of it is obfuscating the real issue at hand here and is only making me crave a tin of sardines and a pack of saltines for dinner. "No mention, of course, of Bear's logically fallacious response. I state Mercer has one player from South Carolina, and his response is to tell me how many players from Georgia Furman has. I ask you, what does that have to do with anything?" - By omission of my full argument here, you are insulting Judge 38's ability to retain facts previously submitted. He may be an old bull, but he's not ready for the stockyard just yet, sir. I responded to your clear implication (already proven, ruled upon, and reinforced above) by noting FIRST how few Sandlappers FU has in their program to demonstrate the inaccuracy of the causal relationship you implied for the few number of players Mercer has recruited from the state of SC. I did not, at that time, buttress my assertion by adding that the other SoCon schools in SC (Woffy & El Cid) also have a dearth of SC-bred Players on their rosters with respect to what is typically found in most other college football programs. SC-bred Players are in the minority on all 3 rosters of SoCon schools in SC. As noted, Mercer's roster includes a healthy majority of players from its home state of GA (70.4%), as does the University of Georgia's (69%), Georgia Tech's (64%), and Georgia Southern's (69%). As you can see, Mercer is right in line with other schools in GA. I did add that FU has 2x as many players from GA as they do from SC because it further supports the evidence that there is really no valid reason why Coach Lamb should have signed more than 1 player from SC. So, unless you have some rare form of Tourtette's Syndrome which manifests itself by outputting to your keyboard explaining your comment, there is absolutely no basis for it....other than what you were CLEARLY trying to imply. I will acknowledge that your effort, under other circumstances, most likely would have been successful. An audience unaware of the paucity of PSA's/Football Talent in the Palmetto State, especially in relation to the Peach State, would have wondered to themselves exactly as you wanted them to, perhaps questioning Coach Lamb's ability to recruit, just as others are wondering if Coach Hatcher's (Samford's new HC) teams can actually play a lick of defense, but not here Jackal, not today. I stand ever-vigilant on alert for your subtle asperion and innuendo. I do so proudly and humbly. As my signature states: I am a Bear. In my solitude I resemble the wind. I blow the clouds together. So they form images of my friends. Certainly no aspersions or innuendo intended. I cannot imagine that any potential recruit would consider my unchecked ramblings before first going to beardowneverydown.com. There is no question that Coach Lamb is a capable recruiter. Furman put numerous players in NFL camps during his tenure. Besides, as a Mercer grad, former Macon resident, and SoCon football fan, my opinion is more valid. I have bona fides. |
|
If Jackal insists he was just throwing out random facts about Bobby Lamb's recruiting in SC where Jackal's favorite team resides just to make interesting conversation with no opinions about what the random facts mean, then I guess we should believe him........or not.
