Off Topic · Lame Comments (page 1)
ChuckBuck wrote:Melo is fat?
Eh, that one's reasonable
Just kidding. I was referring though more to the comments people make about other posters here.
Bonn1997 wrote:jrodmc wrote:And don't forget the ever popular:"Your sample size is too dayum small!"
"Look at your join date. Look at mine. nuff said"
"You just blindly and stupidly accept whatever this trash bull---- [insert derogatory adjective of choice] organization dishes out"
"I'm glad you're idiotically loyal to this team, but these are the facts..."
"Have fun waiting another 40 years for a chip."
"Other teams [players] [coach] [management] [GM's] [draft scouts] [approach to the game] [corporate sponsors] [hot dog vendors] [game time soft porn ho's] [uniforms] [city] [neighborhood cultural millieu] is so much better than our teams's"
The bold parts are at least substantive. You may disagree with the substance but they're not silly personal attacks. They are based on statistical principles, the team's track record, and other teams' track records (in that order). I see nothing wrong with them.
I don't find anything wrong with my reaction to a guy whose very first post here was to tell other how to post and what not to say (the join date comment).
Lame: trying to justify lame comments on a lame comments thread. 
jrodmc wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:jrodmc wrote:And don't forget the ever popular:"Your sample size is too dayum small!"
"Look at your join date. Look at mine. nuff said"
"You just blindly and stupidly accept whatever this trash bull---- [insert derogatory adjective of choice] organization dishes out"
"I'm glad you're idiotically loyal to this team, but these are the facts..."
"Have fun waiting another 40 years for a chip."
"Other teams [players] [coach] [management] [GM's] [draft scouts] [approach to the game] [corporate sponsors] [hot dog vendors] [game time soft porn ho's] [uniforms] [city] [neighborhood cultural millieu] is so much better than our teams's"
The bold parts are at least substantive. You may disagree with the substance but they're not silly personal attacks. They are based on statistical principles, the team's track record, and other teams' track records (in that order). I see nothing wrong with them.
I don't find anything wrong with my reaction to a guy whose very first post here was to tell other how to post and what not to say (the join date comment).Lame: trying to justify lame comments on a lame comments thread.
Your reply is clever but lame!
Bonn1997 wrote:jrodmc wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:jrodmc wrote:And don't forget the ever popular:"Your sample size is too dayum small!"
"Look at your join date. Look at mine. nuff said"
"You just blindly and stupidly accept whatever this trash bull---- [insert derogatory adjective of choice] organization dishes out"
"I'm glad you're idiotically loyal to this team, but these are the facts..."
"Have fun waiting another 40 years for a chip."
"Other teams [players] [coach] [management] [GM's] [draft scouts] [approach to the game] [corporate sponsors] [hot dog vendors] [game time soft porn ho's] [uniforms] [city] [neighborhood cultural millieu] is so much better than our teams's"
The bold parts are at least substantive. You may disagree with the substance but they're not silly personal attacks. They are based on statistical principles, the team's track record, and other teams' track records (in that order). I see nothing wrong with them.
I don't find anything wrong with my reaction to a guy whose very first post here was to tell other how to post and what not to say (the join date comment).Lame: trying to justify lame comments on a lame comments thread.
Your reply is clever but lame!
Your reply [like most] is neither clever or lame, but only redundant. <------Just like this one.
