Official PSU - FIU game thread
- Thread starter Tom McAndrew
- Start date
We played 3 tough opponents in 2024, and our record in those games was 0-3.
bro is this actually true?
bro is this actually true?
You really want to be the only one who likes you?
So this is your new wrong thing that you’re going to keep posting….its always something.
The board would be better off if we could get you to 1 aa meeting.
Lay out the "false dilemma" for me.
"Experienced veterans" is a false appeal to authority fallacy. There are tons of NFL players that are experienced veterans. Does that mean all NFL players are equally capable at playing their positions? Look how easily that argument unraveled.
"The playcalling is much different..."
Cool. Cite specific examples from this year and contrast them against last year's playcalling. You're just making empty claims in a vacuum. Anyone can do that with anything.
"We beat good opponents!"
Ah, it's so weird how you went off on that diatribe where you insulted me, and then made this claim... but couldn't be bothered to substantiate it with any hard evidence. Huh. It's almost like you have no argument at all, and don't even really know how to construct one. I mean, if I made a claim like, "We beat good opponents," I'd immediately follow that up with evidence. But you decided that part -- the part that matters -- was unnecessary.
"And then you try to say we're not that good..."
Yeah, I don't consider Villanova, Nevada, UMASS, Delaware, Temple, Maryland, Northwestern, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana most years, UCLA, etc. to be on our level. I think this is the fundamental cognitive dissonance between people like me, and people like you. You seem content to be king of the B-tier programs. And what I'm saying is that I want to see us compete with, and sometimes beat teams in the A-tier. And your attitude is, "They're just better than us, and I'm fine with it." I envy the fact that you'll never be disappointed.
"There's a whole crew of whining babies..."
There are? Or are there, like, a couple of people who say stuff like that and then in your mind, you blow it up to be a wide-spread narrative?
"Oh, so you don't read the board, or this thread..."
And once again, you have failed to provide substantiation of your claim. Weird. Again, the part that matters is missing.
"Everyone is a cupcake when we beat them."
Nope. Strawman fallacy. No one made that argument.
"You mischaracterized my argument and made a false dilemma."
Nah, I didn't do either of these things, as evidenced by how you can't state what the "false dilemma" is. And further, you argued that the team is deliberately playing down to its competition. I didn't mischaracterize. I steelmanned your position. You said they are deliberately being vanilla and you think they're going to bust out the real playbook when it matters-- that would mean an entirely different on-field product from what we have seen thus far. And again... I didn't say this won't be the case. Maybe the O-line will suddenly become an immovable object.
"Yeah, we sucked. Fire Franklin."
You had no response to me pointing out that we lost the three tough games we played last year, so you concocted a sarcastic strawman? Really? /sigh
"If we have greater success, we'll be undefeated."
Not necessarily. And this is the true nuance of the cognitive dissonance. This is the true disconnect between the two schools of thought. It's not about being undefeated. It's not about winning every game. It's going into games and being able to be competitive, and not get bullied. To feel like the Nittany Lions have a chance, rather than being Ohio State's little brother. It's going in to face OSU, Oregon, and Notre Dame and winning at least ONE of those games.
It's pulling a 4-6 record (or even 3-7!) against Ohio State over a ten year span instead of... what are we at now...? 1-10?
I think you'll see it, though, Moog, if we pull out a win against Oregon at the White Out. That kind of victory will earn a ton of goodwill, and it'll make people believe that we can win those big games. That's all we want. We want to be competitive, and we want to win sometimes. We don't have to beat Michigan and Ohio State in the same year every year. But hey-- let's win one of those games, or at the very least, not get barbecued on the field, eh?
Yeah, exactly-- it has happened before. Right? We've been there before. We don't expect zero-heartbreak. The elation and the heartbreak are what makes it fun. It's Texas Hold 'Em. The wild swings are why we're here, and going nuts every Saturday. But just as in Hold 'Em... we have to OCCASIONALLY rake a big pot. Otherwise... what the hell are we doing? Just getting bled out by the blinds?
There's a difference between losing a squeaker against Ohio State and... what happened to us three years ago in the Big House where we just got absolutely bullied. #7 @ #3 should be a competitive game. But no. We got our asses handed to us.
That's where I think the frustration starts to manifest. We go into a game where we just get embarrassed, and we say, "Alright, that was awful," and then when our shot at retribution comes... we maybe don't get bullied this time, but we still walk away with the L (as we did yet again in 2023-- the last time we played Michigan).
"teams under Franklin struggle mightily against opponents who are of the same talent level or better."
Yup. And I agree, it's hard to pinpoint why this has been the case. The people that are calling for Franklin's head are mostly being ridiculous. He's a good coach. It's possible that he just overthinks when the heat gets turned up, he has a proclivity to become conservative when he should be mashing his foot on the gas pedal... I don't know what it is, either. All I know is what the record says, and I'm sitting here going, "Really? We NEVER get to beat Ohio State and Michigan? We're gonna fight hard against Notre Dame and Oregon... but still come away losers? Is this EVER gonna change?"
It's frustrating.
Last edited:
This is perfectly stated, right here. There's nothing unreasonable about this as far as expectations. Yet this somehow gets interpreted as "crying" or "hate" when it is clearly neither of those things.
Already done, in my first response. Good lord, this is tedious. I'm not here to train folks in the basics of logical analysis. Your initial statement was that "we're keeping all the good merch in the back of the store" appears every year. This is untrue. This year is differentiated from prior years because of what I already stated - the existence of a huge nucleus of experienced vets, and the existence of a innovative OC, who we knew was innovative before he got here, he then proceeded to be quite innovative when he was here, and so far, this year, he hasn't shown much.
LOL. No. That's not how logic works ... particularly that fallacy. An appeal to authority fallacy is when you attempt to use someone's status as an authority figure to support your argument, in lieu of a valid premise. So, if I had said, for instance, that Franklin said we're going to win, therefore, we're going to win ... that's an appeal to authority fallacy. Presenting the existence of experience vets as evidence to differentiate this year from prior years isn't appealing to anyone's authority. Falsely, or otherwise.
Huh? It's a general trend, not a specific play here or there. Kotelnicki loves to use huge shifts. Players "out of position" in many different ways. A ton of pre-snap motion to disguise "basic" plays. He has not done much of that so far this year. Bits. But not nearly as much as he had by this point last year.
This was addressed. Part of the issue is, this isn't the first rodeo. There have been MANY before you who we've had to deal with. It happens every time everything isn't perfect. The crutch folks like you use is to discount whoever we beat. We beat ranked teams. We beat tough conference opponents. Suddenly, they're not good when one of your folks attempt to swoop in. We win 2 playoff games last year. Oh, they weren't good, either, of course. Sure, they made the playoffs but, I mean ... they weren't good. You guys don't argue in good faith.
No one said "on our level" ... we were talking about beating good teams.
The cognitive dissonance is in your noggin. You try to bat it away by discounting every team we beat.
But here's the thing ... although you won't admit it, this particular fact is just something of convenience that you guys latched on to, to make you feel better about your irrational hatred for Franklin & Co. If we had, in fact, beaten OSU a few times and UM a time or two when they had their run of top notch performance ... but we had lost another game during those years, you'd just change your argument of discontent. Rather than "we can't beat top 5 teams ... and it's Franklin's fault" or a derivation thereof, it'd be "we can't win consistently enough to get to the Natty."
That's it. It's Natty or bust for you guys. And you deserve it.
Compare to normal non-trolling folks, who would like to win a Natty, and would like to win even more games, but we're also quite pleased to be a top program, part of entertaining and meaningful games.
I know, I know ... you deserve better, and those that don't think they do are just so easily assuaged.
There are.
Again, this has been discussed and combatted ad nauseum on these boards. No one's holding your hand to walk you through the history of the board, which is out there for all to see. This is like walking past a Ferris Wheel, and someone marvels that it spun all the way around, and has been doing so most of the day. Another person remarks "oh yeah, I don't believe you ... show me proof." Dude, ain't no one got time for that. And it's embarrassing that you're asking, as if you're not aware of the history, while trying to act like you're knowledgeable about it.
Your whole crew does. You did. We beat a ranked team here. And there. Win playoff games. "But we don't beat any good teams ... sorry, I'm not content with beating UMass level teams." You contradict yourself.
I didn't think you were this dense, with all due respect. You claimed folks are asserting an entirely new team will show up, so there's nothing to worry about. That is the false dilemma ... it's not "either an entirely new team will have to show up, or we're going to lose" ... this very same team can show up, play well and win. Pretty simple. Pretty obvious.
I never said this. You're confused.
I have to ask ... "deliberately being vanilla" ... as opposed to non-deliberately being vanilla? How would that work? You're struggling here.
You've constructed a false dilemma to attempt to disprove you made a false dilemma. That takes "talent." No, opening up the playbook doesn't mean there's an entirely new product on the field. That's such a silly mischaracterization. It's just nonsensical. So ... wait ... last year, when Warren first took a snap from center, did you exclaim "why, looky there! it's a whole new team on the field!"? LOL. Every time they ran a new formation, or changed a guy's position for a play ... were you equally excited for yet another new team?
We played more than 3 tough games last year. We won some of them, too. Nothing about my characterization of the typical never-Frankliner was a straw man. If we had beaten ND, the never-Frankliners would have disparaged them and said we were pretenders and still hadn't beaten a good team (I mean, ND lost to N Illinois!).
We weren't bullied in any game last year. We were competitive in every game last year. So, you should be ecstatic about last year, then.
I'm sorry you have such feelings of inadequacy. Maybe if you were able to overcome them, you'd have a more reasonable outlook on Franklin and the Nittany Lions.
Last edited:
You can’t gatekeep who or how one is a State fan cause who tf ard you yo?
"I'm not here to train people in the basics of logical analysis"
Yeah, you'd have to know how to do that first, and not just toss around terms like "false dilemma" and fail to identify any dilemma that was presented.
"This year is differentiated..."
Non sequitur. That has nothing to do with the persistent narrative that the coaching staff is holding back the *real* playbook for the big opponents. No false dilemma was presented.
"That's not how logic works, particularly that fallacy..."
Wrong. Not only did I point out your fallacious argument, I went out of my way to explain it, and you simply failed to understand it. You attempted to paint "experienced veterans" as having some form of unimpeachable credentials. This is not the case, as I easily demonstrated. Just because you're experienced does not mean you're good. This was a textbook false appeal to authority, and you simply aren't sufficiently well versed in logic. Next.
"It's a general trend!"
Exactly as I predicted: you can't demonstrate that your claim is true, you just KNOW that it is. You FEEL it. Next.
"This was addressed."
No, it wasn't. And after you were called out for failing to provide evidence of your claim, you STILL failed to provide evidence of your claim. Your desperate flail is to argue that SMU and Boise State count as "good" opponents. JFC, man, you're not a serious interlocutor.
"No one said 'on our level'. We're talking about beating good teams."
I'm well aware of what the topic at hand is. I don't have trouble staying on it.
"TeH cOgnItiVe diSsoNanCe iS iN yEr nOgGin!"
No ****. Where else do you think cognitive dissonance occurs? Is "cognitive" not enough of a clue? Maybe you shouldn't try to be clever. It doesn't seem to work out as well as you think it does.
"Your irrational hatred of Franklin"
Where did I say I hated Franklin? Quote me directly. Another pathetic strawman. Why is it so hard to engage with the arguments that I'm actually making? Because they're not convenient enough for your desired narrative? (yes)
"It's Natty or bust for you guys."
I specifically debunked this strawman, and you doubled down on it. You are incredibly dishonest. You have a desired narrative, and you NEED people to feed into it, and when they don't you don't know what to do, because you can't deviate from your script.
"No one's holding your hand to walk you through the history of the board, which is out there for all to see."
AKA: "I don't need to provide evidence!" Cool. Your claims can be summarily dismissed then. Why would anyone care about a bunch of hollow claims that you FEEL are true?
"Your whole crew does!"
What crew? I speak only for myself. And I've never made the argument that everyone we beat is a cupcake purely on the basis of whether we beat them. Again, this is just part of your script, and you can't move off of it.
"You claimed folks are insisting an entirely different team will show up..."
They are. This apologist crap gets trotted out every year. "Oh, they're holding back! They're not trying on purpose, so as not to tip their hand to Ohio State! They're gonna play for REAL later! D'oh! We lost again! But I still wasn't wrong because: reasons."
Nothing changes. The offense doesn't magically become more dynamic. The playbook doesn't change. A few more gimmick, cutesy plays, and that's about it. If you think the play calling changes, you have to DEMONSTRATE that that is true. Good luck.
"I never said this"
Dude, you literally said they're intentionally doing vanilla playcalling against these weaker opponents. Another way of saying that is that they're playing down to their opponents. If you're not bringing your A-game because you expect to win, then you're playing down to your competition.
"You're struggling here"
By quoting you directly? Hm. Way to slip on your own banana peel.
"You constructed a false dilemma, blah, blah, blah"
The term you're looking for is "strawman" not "false dilemma". You don't even know the proper terminology, let alone how to identify it. The rest of this babble is just you attempting to run away from your claims.
"We played more than 3 tough games last year."
Nope.
"You should be ecstatic about last year, then."
I was pretty happy, in general. But it was disappointing to go into Ohio State, Oregon, and Notre Dame and not only go 0-3 in those games, but to have the EXPECTATION that 0-3 would be the outcome. That's the problem. Like Kevin Horne said, "Why would anyone ever pick Penn State to beat a top-10 opponent until they prove they can actually do it?"
"...you'd have a more reasonable outlook..."
What is the "more reasonable outlook"? Share it with me. Is it something like, "Just accept that we're never going to win big games"? Hard pass.
Yeah, you'd have to know how to do that first, and not just toss around terms like "false dilemma" and fail to identify any dilemma that was presented.
"This year is differentiated..."
Non sequitur. That has nothing to do with the persistent narrative that the coaching staff is holding back the *real* playbook for the big opponents. No false dilemma was presented.
"That's not how logic works, particularly that fallacy..."
Wrong. Not only did I point out your fallacious argument, I went out of my way to explain it, and you simply failed to understand it. You attempted to paint "experienced veterans" as having some form of unimpeachable credentials. This is not the case, as I easily demonstrated. Just because you're experienced does not mean you're good. This was a textbook false appeal to authority, and you simply aren't sufficiently well versed in logic. Next.
"It's a general trend!"
Exactly as I predicted: you can't demonstrate that your claim is true, you just KNOW that it is. You FEEL it. Next.
"This was addressed."
No, it wasn't. And after you were called out for failing to provide evidence of your claim, you STILL failed to provide evidence of your claim. Your desperate flail is to argue that SMU and Boise State count as "good" opponents. JFC, man, you're not a serious interlocutor.
"No one said 'on our level'. We're talking about beating good teams."
I'm well aware of what the topic at hand is. I don't have trouble staying on it.
"TeH cOgnItiVe diSsoNanCe iS iN yEr nOgGin!"
No ****. Where else do you think cognitive dissonance occurs? Is "cognitive" not enough of a clue? Maybe you shouldn't try to be clever. It doesn't seem to work out as well as you think it does.
"Your irrational hatred of Franklin"
Where did I say I hated Franklin? Quote me directly. Another pathetic strawman. Why is it so hard to engage with the arguments that I'm actually making? Because they're not convenient enough for your desired narrative? (yes)
"It's Natty or bust for you guys."
I specifically debunked this strawman, and you doubled down on it. You are incredibly dishonest. You have a desired narrative, and you NEED people to feed into it, and when they don't you don't know what to do, because you can't deviate from your script.
"No one's holding your hand to walk you through the history of the board, which is out there for all to see."
AKA: "I don't need to provide evidence!" Cool. Your claims can be summarily dismissed then. Why would anyone care about a bunch of hollow claims that you FEEL are true?
"Your whole crew does!"
What crew? I speak only for myself. And I've never made the argument that everyone we beat is a cupcake purely on the basis of whether we beat them. Again, this is just part of your script, and you can't move off of it.
"You claimed folks are insisting an entirely different team will show up..."
They are. This apologist crap gets trotted out every year. "Oh, they're holding back! They're not trying on purpose, so as not to tip their hand to Ohio State! They're gonna play for REAL later! D'oh! We lost again! But I still wasn't wrong because: reasons."
Nothing changes. The offense doesn't magically become more dynamic. The playbook doesn't change. A few more gimmick, cutesy plays, and that's about it. If you think the play calling changes, you have to DEMONSTRATE that that is true. Good luck.
"I never said this"
Dude, you literally said they're intentionally doing vanilla playcalling against these weaker opponents. Another way of saying that is that they're playing down to their opponents. If you're not bringing your A-game because you expect to win, then you're playing down to your competition.
"You're struggling here"
By quoting you directly? Hm. Way to slip on your own banana peel.
"You constructed a false dilemma, blah, blah, blah"
The term you're looking for is "strawman" not "false dilemma". You don't even know the proper terminology, let alone how to identify it. The rest of this babble is just you attempting to run away from your claims.
"We played more than 3 tough games last year."
Nope.
"You should be ecstatic about last year, then."
I was pretty happy, in general. But it was disappointing to go into Ohio State, Oregon, and Notre Dame and not only go 0-3 in those games, but to have the EXPECTATION that 0-3 would be the outcome. That's the problem. Like Kevin Horne said, "Why would anyone ever pick Penn State to beat a top-10 opponent until they prove they can actually do it?"
"...you'd have a more reasonable outlook..."
What is the "more reasonable outlook"? Share it with me. Is it something like, "Just accept that we're never going to win big games"? Hard pass.
Last edited:
Yeah, I just watched that video as well. I am disappointed that the line, which was supposed to be the veteran core of the team, is this shockingly bad with technique against really poor competition. I think they spent more time reading their accolades in the off-season than actually practicing and taking this seriously, because it actually appears the OL took a step back from last season. I’m a bit disappointed in Singleton as well that he isn’t making moves to hit the few openings that are being created as demonstrated by Landon. Week one and week two are big L’s vs Oregon or OSU with the effort and technique we saw against these very low level teams.
Hey, kid, you've gone full Lando at this point. You can't come back from going full Lando. The false dilemma was laid out for you. You claimed this year was just like other years, and certain things went along with that - so that, if you argued one premise, you'd have to attach another premise and you'd have to find the one conclusion. I differentiated the situations, proving your false dilemma.
Your attempted phrasing of the syllogism is:
This year people are saying "the good merch is in the back" and we're saving it for later
Every year people say "the good merch is in the back" and we're saving it for later, but we don't see anything different later in the year
Therefore, we won't see anything different later this year
That's a false dilemma because folks DON'T say the good merch is in the back each year and, even compared to prior years, if they did occasionally say that, this year is easily distinguishable. Neither of your premises are sound, and they combine to create a false dilemma.
If by "non sequitur" you mean the entire substance of the argument ... sure. If you want to throw around terms proving you don't understand what they actually mean, sure. There was no persistent narrative.
Again, Lando ... no. There was never an assertion that "experienced veterans" had "some form of unimpeachable credentials." I simple explained that their presence was one of the reasons why the staff is comfortable doing what they're doing this year. That is not an "appeal to authority," as I explained. Appeal to authority ... again ... is replacing a sound premise with the naked authority of some person/group. "Experienced veterans" have no authority, generally, and no authority here, specifically. There was also no appeal to them, and their nonexistent authority. You could argue, if the coaches are relying on this, that THEY'RE relying on an appeal to authority ... but not me (you could argue that ... it'd be wrong and unsound, but it'd at least be closer to something than what you've tragically attempted to argue). And that assertion that the coaches are relying on an appeal to authority would necessitate showing that there was nothing substantive to experienced players not having to go through the same reps to understand things or do things well, as compared to an unexperienced player.
My argument:
The current expected starters are experienced and our OC has proven himself to be very innovative
We've seen a pretty vanilla offense compared to what the OC has done in the past and we've seen a lot more substitution this year than in year's past
Therefore, we're going to see more innovation and better performances (starters being better than newbies getting experience) going forward
There is no appeal to authority there. If it was sound, you could substitute in "tired" for "experienced" and my argument would stay the same. That alone destroys any appeal to authority claim (as does the fact that authority appears nowhere in the syllogism).
I shouldn't have to teach a grown adult these things. How do you not understand this? And why are you trying to utilize it when it's obvious you don't understand it? You're like a 12 year old who thinks he can drive daddy's car, so he grabs the keys and goes. Inevitably, he crashes. And, if he's 12 year old Lando, after he crashes, claims he's an excellent driver and did nothing wrong.
LOL. No. Show us where the non-starters have proven themselves to be better than the starters, and then you can start to claim that the argument that starters are better than their inexperienced non-starting counterparts is an appeal to authority.
LOL. No, again. I don't "feel" it ... I've witnessed it. And I'm not going to rewatch every single play, log the personnel package and the formation, along with pre-snap motion, in order to satisfy your irrational demand.
We beat good opponents. If you want to dispute that, show us how each opponent we've beaten through the Franklin years were not good. You can start (but not stop) with your claims regarding last year. You claimed we beat "10 cupcakes" and lost to all our tough opponents last year. Prove every opponent we beat last year is a "cupcake" or face the wrath of being called "not a serious interlocutor."
Again, you're being combative for the sake of it, and, to take the place of sound logic, tryin to demand folks prove something that is well settled and would take an unreasonable amount of time and effort to prove, so that you can claim "see? you didn't support your argument!"
You are actually not a serious debate opponent. You're just trolling.
Then why did you fail miserably here? We were better than a "good team." We were one of the elites. Final 4. Almost final 2. Teams that would qualify as just "good" are not on our level. And we beat good teams last year (and in prior years).
So while you may not have trouble staying on topic, you have immense trouble being correct about the topic.
You poor thing. This entire exchange is you, about to be lapped, turning and thinking you're ahead. The cognitive dissonance is not in my noggin. You claimed cognitive dissonance. That's just because you aren't smart enough to reconcile the situations. It's your psychological discomfort/mental unease. Again, those were your words.
Because we've seen the exact same arguments ... over and over and over again ... and over and over and over again ... from various parties who have called for Franklin to be replaced. Oh, but I know ... you're different. You're special. You're the unicorn.
Last edited:
But you didn't debunk it. I've asked you to debunk it, and you've ignored it ... almost assuredly because you know it would expose you.
Again, this is Groundhog Day, and you're wanting to be treated like you are presenting some novel idea/experience.
Dismiss them or accept them. I don't care. The "fire Franklin" crew is prominent in here. The arguments have been numerous and repetitive. Everyone with experience on this board has seen them and knows they're here. It would be an absolute time-wasting pain in the arse to sift through the muck to pull them up ... and especially so since it's so well known.
You're just trying to use this as a convenient excuse to argue based on this truth. "Oh, you don't want to waste a bunch of your time and effort proving what we already know to be true? Then I win!"
Here, you can also "win" the following the arguments: The game day threads are cesspools of overreactions and negativity (I'm not bothering to collect evidence to show this is true, so it must not be). BobPSU always posts about lattes, scones, being right back and hating ourselves (it must not be true because I'm providing no evidence). laKa likes music and cars (he must not ... where's the evidence? I presented none).
Prove that everyone we beat is a cupcake.
One of your many issues is, you're using nebulous terminology, not defining it, and then claiming you're right and others are wrong based on this. "Good", "cupcake" etc.
Here, you seem to be irrationally flipping out over the distinction between "a different team" and some different plays schemes, etc. You've created this definition of "different team" that isn't meaningful ... but is the entire crux of your argument.
And that's sad.
I'm saying they're keeping their play-calling vanilla so far this year, compared to what we saw last year. You're claiming this means I'm saying we're going to see an entirely different team soon. You're obsessed over whether logical fallacies exist or not (and, sadly, you're wrong every time there), but you've forgotten to put any logic/effort into building your premises.
The entirety of your argument largely hinges on what is a "good" team and what is a "cupcake" ... or if putting more intricacies of our playbook into play and playing the starters more often means we're going to have an "entirely different team" going forward, or if we should just see a better product that will better compete with better teams.
It's semantics, at best. Awful logic, at worst.
It's sad to see you put this much into a complete waste of time.
"Playing down to the level of your competition" is almost always a reference to how well the team performs on the field. Not the playcalling or such, but how well you execute on the field. It's also in reference to actually ... you know ... playing down to the level of the competition, and NOT destroying them 46-11 and 34-0.
False. It was a false dilemma.
P: They're going to pull out an entirely different playbook
P: An entirely different playbook means an entirely different team exists
C: Therefore, an entirely different team will exist
Except there are alternatives, like it's the exact same team, just with some different plays. False dilemma. There are more options than you presented.
Ah, so you're irrational, and won't support your arguments. We know.
So, you were pretty happy we only beat cupcakes (according to you) and lost every tough game (according to you)?
So you were pretty happy and entirely frustrated and disappointed? You seem to be struggling ... talk to your therapist, not to this board.
Again, you said all your crying was about: "It's going into games and being able to be competitive, and not get bullied."
Yet, we were competitive in every game last year. We didn't get bullied. So we fulfilled "what it was about" in your opinion. And, yet, you're still disappointed.
You might want to argue with yourself, and hash that out, before you attempt to argue with others, as you don't appear to know what you want or what you're saying.
But I thought it was about being competitive and not being bullied? Now it's about not winning "big games"? And what's a "big game"? Is it, according to you, any game we lose?
So, hey ... on this topic ... last year we played 10 cupcakes and 3 tough games, right? And in those 3 tough games, we lost to them by 7, 8 and 3 points, respectively (1 score, competitive games). We won 2 cupcake games by 3 (in OT) and 1 point, respectively. Does that mean we were "a different team" against some of the cupcakes? Or against the tough teams? After all we shouldn't expect different if we perform a certain way against a cupcake ... like, we're not going to suddenly be competitive against a tough team if we struggled against cupcakes, right? Because that would be a different team, no?
Last edited:
You are flailing. You do not know proper terminology, and you're just haphazardly guessing at meanings.
You repeatedly misused the term "false dilemma" when what you meant was "strawman".
You failed to understand your bogus appeal to authority, even when it was specifically laid out in front of you:. Your argument was: "experienced veterans" = good. I instantly blew up that narrative, and you keep doubling down because you're not smart enough to admit error and concede the point.
"My argument..."
I know what your argument is. Unlike you, I directly engaged with your argument as it was presented. You argued that the on-field product we have seen to-date isn't the *real* product, and we're going to see a different product later because "experienced veterans" and "good OC". You fail to understand that your desired labels do not translate to on-field success. You do not understand how to construct an argument.
Someone can be relatively inexperienced and still be incredibly talented, and perform better than an "experienced veteran". Therefore, "experience" is not not the magic bullet you need it to be.
"Show us where the non-starters have proven themselves to be better than the starters"
[yawn] A pathetic strawman. You're making up arguments in your head and attacking them because you can't engage with what I've actually said. You are TERRIBLE at this.
"I don't feel it, I've witnessed it..."
People claim to witness angels and demons and aliens and ghosts, too. I don't believe any of those claims, either. See how this works? Your claims, absent empirical evidence are utterly meaningless. They're boring. Show your evidence, or take the L and move along.
"We beat good opponents...!"
Yeah, you just can't name any, despite tripling down on your claim. Weird.
"You're being combative for the sake of it..."
No, I'm dismantling you and piss-poor ability to make good arguments.
"We beat good teams last year and in prior years..."
Quadrupling down on this same, tired claim and still have no supporting evidence. How embarrassing.
"You poor thing. This entire exchange is you, about to be lapped, turning and thinking you're ahead. The cognitive dissonance is not in my noggin. You claimed cognitive dissonance. That's just because you aren't smart enough to reconcile the situations. It's your psychological discomfort/mental unease. Again, those were your words."
Word salad in which you attempt to claim you are winning despite a) constantly misusing terminology and not understanding your fallacious arguments, and b) being unable to provide any supporting evidence for any of your claims. Yeah, I'm definitely being lapped. You're right. I'm not demolishing you at all. I'm not a million times better at this than you.
"Oh, but I know ... you're different. You're special. You're the unicorn."
I'm sorry-- you forgot to provide the evidence of me saying I hated Franklin, per your claim. I'll assume your failure is a tacit admission of defeat? I think that's probably best.
You repeatedly misused the term "false dilemma" when what you meant was "strawman".
You failed to understand your bogus appeal to authority, even when it was specifically laid out in front of you:. Your argument was: "experienced veterans" = good. I instantly blew up that narrative, and you keep doubling down because you're not smart enough to admit error and concede the point.
"My argument..."
I know what your argument is. Unlike you, I directly engaged with your argument as it was presented. You argued that the on-field product we have seen to-date isn't the *real* product, and we're going to see a different product later because "experienced veterans" and "good OC". You fail to understand that your desired labels do not translate to on-field success. You do not understand how to construct an argument.
Someone can be relatively inexperienced and still be incredibly talented, and perform better than an "experienced veteran". Therefore, "experience" is not not the magic bullet you need it to be.
"Show us where the non-starters have proven themselves to be better than the starters"
[yawn] A pathetic strawman. You're making up arguments in your head and attacking them because you can't engage with what I've actually said. You are TERRIBLE at this.
"I don't feel it, I've witnessed it..."
People claim to witness angels and demons and aliens and ghosts, too. I don't believe any of those claims, either. See how this works? Your claims, absent empirical evidence are utterly meaningless. They're boring. Show your evidence, or take the L and move along.
"We beat good opponents...!"
Yeah, you just can't name any, despite tripling down on your claim. Weird.
"You're being combative for the sake of it..."
No, I'm dismantling you and piss-poor ability to make good arguments.
"We beat good teams last year and in prior years..."
Quadrupling down on this same, tired claim and still have no supporting evidence. How embarrassing.
"You poor thing. This entire exchange is you, about to be lapped, turning and thinking you're ahead. The cognitive dissonance is not in my noggin. You claimed cognitive dissonance. That's just because you aren't smart enough to reconcile the situations. It's your psychological discomfort/mental unease. Again, those were your words."
Word salad in which you attempt to claim you are winning despite a) constantly misusing terminology and not understanding your fallacious arguments, and b) being unable to provide any supporting evidence for any of your claims. Yeah, I'm definitely being lapped. You're right. I'm not demolishing you at all. I'm not a million times better at this than you.
"Oh, but I know ... you're different. You're special. You're the unicorn."
I'm sorry-- you forgot to provide the evidence of me saying I hated Franklin, per your claim. I'll assume your failure is a tacit admission of defeat? I think that's probably best.
Don't you just love people who declare themselves to be "winning" an internet argument?
I know I'm deeply impressed.
I know I'm deeply impressed.
Yo, @Calabrin and @Moogy -- ENOUGH
At this point, nobody cares whether you think you won the argument, or whether you can point out the fallacy of the other's argument, etc.
I've repeated this general rule many times over the years: in a back-and-forth, in general you should limit yourself to 3 posts. The 1st is to express your point of view/argument/counter, the 2nd is to clarify. If you get to the 3rd, either 1) your point is invalid, 2) you're not making your point clearly, 3) even if your point is valid and made clearly, you'll never get agreement from the other person/the rest of the board. You have to be big enough, and smart enough, to walk away after 3 posts in an argument/discussion.
Please Do Not reply to this post, or continue your back-and-forth. I will delete any posts in this thread from either of you that either reply to me, or continue your arguments. Quite simply, this back-and-forth is over.
At this point, nobody cares whether you think you won the argument, or whether you can point out the fallacy of the other's argument, etc.
I've repeated this general rule many times over the years: in a back-and-forth, in general you should limit yourself to 3 posts. The 1st is to express your point of view/argument/counter, the 2nd is to clarify. If you get to the 3rd, either 1) your point is invalid, 2) you're not making your point clearly, 3) even if your point is valid and made clearly, you'll never get agreement from the other person/the rest of the board. You have to be big enough, and smart enough, to walk away after 3 posts in an argument/discussion.
Please Do Not reply to this post, or continue your back-and-forth. I will delete any posts in this thread from either of you that either reply to me, or continue your arguments. Quite simply, this back-and-forth is over.