Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GoWVU" data-source="post: 129445090" data-attributes="member: 1457561">One of the interesting quirks of the new board format is that every so often when I click on a thread, people on my ignore list momentarily reappear until I click to return to the top of the board.I can see wbgvwbgv hasn't changed a bit since I put him on ignore 2 years ago.&nbsp; He's losing the battle to defend DH on the merits, so he has to resort to fudging the numbers to bolster an increasingly difficult position.Instead of saying &quot;3 or 4 top 15&quot; wins, which would've been true and not drawn a raised eyebrow, he bumped it up a little to &quot;3 or 4 top 10&quot; wins to artificially make his case look better--figuring that nobody would know the difference.He indulges in these lies and manipulations all the time, like with his silly attempt to throw out 2013 from Uncle Dana's record for no valid data-based reason other than that he again wanted to make Holgorsen's ledger look artificially better than it is.Yet, oddly, when someone presents the actual 100% incontrovertible facts he gets indignant and outraged.He may even develop an obsession, like he did with me 2 years ago when he started following me around threads claiming that I was using &quot;selective statistics calculated in a biased manner...blah blah blah.&quot;Funny that he now seems strangely unconcerned with the hypocrisy of him actually doing exactly that.He's right about one thing, though:&nbsp; The thread did degenerate into nothing but trolls and low-information fans...as soon as he started posting in it.Back to the ignore list, clown.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GoWVU, post: 129445090, member: 1457561"] One of the interesting quirks of the new board format is that every so often when I click on a thread, people on my ignore list momentarily reappear until I click to return to the top of the board. I can see wbgvwbgv hasn't changed a bit since I put him on ignore 2 years ago. He's losing the battle to defend DH on the merits, so he has to resort to fudging the numbers to bolster an increasingly difficult position. Instead of saying "3 or 4 top 15" wins, which would've been true and not drawn a raised eyebrow, he bumped it up a little to "3 or 4 top 10" wins to artificially make his case look better--figuring that nobody would know the difference. He indulges in these lies and manipulations all the time, like with his silly attempt to throw out 2013 from Uncle Dana's record for no valid data-based reason other than that he again wanted to make Holgorsen's ledger look artificially better than it is. Yet, oddly, when someone presents the actual 100% incontrovertible facts he gets indignant and outraged. He may even develop an obsession, like he did with me 2 years ago when he started following me around threads claiming that I was using "selective statistics calculated in a biased manner...blah blah blah." Funny that he now seems strangely unconcerned with the hypocrisy of him actually doing exactly that. He's right about one thing, though: The thread did degenerate into nothing but trolls and low-information fans...as soon as he started posting in it. Back to the ignore list, clown. [/QUOTE]

Name