McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)

[Audi]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Or you know, that Jason Taylor wouldn't work out, the Bears overpaid preposterously for Cutler, neither Stafford or Sanchez was worth a top five pick, Orakpo would be a stud, Devin Thomas would stink, etc, Jamarcus Russell had no chance of success, etc.

Should I keep going? Or are you ready to drop this foolish charade.

You can keep going, but it doesn't change the fact that you are often wrong despite the high horse you sit on.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Audi

You can keep going, but it doesn't change the fact that you are often wrong despite the high horse you sit on.

Well, no, you just made an ad-hoc attack to misrepresent what I predicted at the time to try to build a case that I don't know what I'm talking about here, EVEN THOUGH, my record gives me great credibility, no matter how good I thought Brady Quinn could be coming out of Notre Dame (update: quite good, not Manning good, he was not No. 1 on my board that year).

And once the argument leaves the point where you're debating the facts, it's clear you'd rather I be wrong than you be right.

[Audi]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, no, you just made an ad-hoc attack to misrepresent what I predicted at the time to try to build a case that I don't know what I'm talking about here, EVEN THOUGH, my record gives me great credibility.

And once the argument leaves the point where you're debating the facts, it's clear you'd rather I be wrong than you be right.

No, that's not what I was doing at all.

I brought up your previous predictions to contrast to this following declaration you made:

"Again, you're not getting a prediction from me whether or not he will crash in 2010 or not."

I do see that you have a problem with following the conversation and sticking to the point, though.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Audi

No, that's not what I was doing at all.

I brought up your previous predictions to contrast to this following declaration you made:

"Again, you're not getting a prediction from me whether or not he will crash in 2010 or not."

I do see that you have a problem with following the conversation and sticking to the point, though.

Considering that I'm having 5 different conversations in the same thread, you'll have to forgive me for such fallibility.

You're still not getting a single-year prediction from me, just an obvious observation regarding the evidence that disproves that there are no signs of decline for McNabb. No idea why this reluctance to predict something I don't have a great read on caused you to bring up some wide range of things I predicted.

[Audi]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Considering that I'm having 5 different conversations in the same thread, you'll have to forgive me for such fallibility.

You're still not getting a single-year prediction from me, just an obvious observation regarding the evidence that disproves that there are no signs of decline for McNabb. No idea why this reluctance to predict something I don't have a great read on caused you to bring up some wide range of things I predicted.

That's the point. You were reluctant to make a prediction, when that's all you seem to do.

By the way, please stop claiming things are so "obvious" or trying to assert opinions as fact. It doesn't work, unless you have a credible record, which you don't.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Audi

That's the point. You were reluctant to make a prediction, when that's all you seem to do.

By the way, please stop claiming things are so "obvious" or trying to assert opinions as fact. It doesn't work, unless you have a credible record, which you don't.

I mean, I really don't think you are the person who should be judging my credibility. No offense.

I do think there is some value in your statement. When I'm writing fast, I tend to claim things to be obvious, when I actually mean to point out that the information is freely available. Those things are not synonymous, and it's a fallacy on my part to use them as such.

[Audi]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I mean, I really don't think you are the person who should be judging my credibility. No offense.

I do think there is some value in your statement. When I'm writing fast, I tend to claim things to be obvious, when I actually mean to point out that the information is freely available. Those things are not synonymous, and it's a fallacy on my part to use them as such.

Either way, you still have a lot of explaining to do.

I'll give you one to start with, and maybe you can type slower to make sure you don't commit anymore fallacies.

What "winning organizations" were interested in Kurt Warner, Drew Brees, and Brett Favre that makes you believe the lack of perceived interest from "winning organizations" in Donovan McNabb is indicative of anything?