BP Sox projection.

[spawn]

Originally Posted by blandman

It's not a ****ing extreme position. Quit trolling me.

Originally Posted by blandman

I don't admit that at all. I admit making an educated guess based on articles, as I have expressed to you several times now. It is no different from my previous stance. Which is why you are trolling me.

So, now we're going from you being "personally attacked" to people trolling you. Wow.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by spawn

So, now we're going from you being "personally attacked" to people trolling you. Wow.

I don't distinguish between the two. You're arguing with me for no reason. There's a really good chance I'm right, and it's based on things published in legitimate media outlets.

[Nellie_Fox]

Originally Posted by blandman

100% = chance he won't break camp
not 100% healthy = breaking camp with team

Got it, Nellie.

I don't even understand what the hell you just said.

[Nellie_Fox]

Originally Posted by blandman

I don't distinguish between the two. You're arguing with me for no reason. There's a really good chance I'm right, and it's based on things published in legitimate media outlets.

He's arguing with you based on you making statements that are NOT supported by things published in media outlets, and then moving your statements around on every post. Instead of addressing where your statements have been refuted, you bring up a different argument.

Here's a suggestion: just stop trying to defend it. But if you do, unless someone starts calling you names, don't cry about the opposition you're getting.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox

I don't even understand what the hell you just said.

The article mentions that even if Danks is 100%, which is not a given by any stretch, he could be held back. So in that scenario, 15 days is probable. And that's not even the most likely scenario.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox

He's arguing with you based on you making statements that are NOT supported by things published in media outlets, and then moving your statements around on every post. Instead of addressing where your statements have been refuted, you bring up a different argument.

Here's a suggestion: just stop trying to defend it. But if you do, unless someone starts calling you names, don't cry about the opposition you're getting.

You know what. Forget it. I can't make people read for context clues if they've never been taught.

I give up. Believe whatever the **** you want.

[Nellie_Fox]

Originally Posted by blandman

The article mentions that even if Danks is 100%, which is not a given by any stretch, he could be held back. So in that scenario, 15 days is probable. And that's not even the most likely scenario.

Dammit, COULD BE is not the same as PROBABLE. Until you grasp this, you're way overstating the case.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox

Dammit, COULD BE is not the same as PROBABLE. Until you grasp this, you're way overstating the case.

Nellie the only reason this is EVEN MENTIONED as a possibility is because Danks is trying to defy the odds and be ready by opening day. Not because being ready is probable. What I said shouldn't have caused any uproar at all.

[Nellie_Fox]

Originally Posted by blandman

Nellie the only reason this is EVEN MENTIONED as a possibility is because Danks is trying to defy the odds and be ready by opening day. Not because being ready is probable. What I said shouldn't have caused any uproar at all.

Again, you don't address what I said. COULD BE does not equal PROBABLE, and you again shuffle words. No one, I repeat NO ONE, has said it's probable that he WILL be ready. You, however, DID say that it's PROBABLE that he'll miss the first month.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox

Again, you don't address what I said. COULD BE does not equal PROBABLE, and you again shuffle words. No one, I repeat NO ONE, has said it's probable that he WILL be ready. You, however, DID say that it's PROBABLE that he'll miss the first month.

I said likely. And I don't think that's a stretch based on even the articles brought up to attack me. Hell, I could said the whole year. That's actually been published this offseason. Saying a month based on all things isn't lying or making stuff up. And I shouldn't have to vehemently defend the position against trolls for three wasted pages.

[TheOldRoman]

Originally Posted by blandman

You're right in that there is no timetable. Plenty have said it could be longer. When the official team page mentions it, it gives it a pretty significanct amount of credence.

I'm taking exception to someone calling me a liar because I raised the possibility. Because it is pretty likely. And it's not coming from no where. And calling me a liar for it is a personal attack.

Look, Munch, there is a gigantic difference between "might miss some time" and "likely to miss a month". You went from might to will, from some time to an entire month. You made two huge leaps in one statement. Also, you didn't present it as your opinion, you presented it as FACT.

So, either you:
1) Misread something, misspoke, and now when confronted with it, are digging in your heels and refusing to admit you goofed;
2) Have inside knowledge that either the Sox are lying about Danks' condition or the doctors have lied to them;
3) Have an extreme distrust for the organization and have a hunch that something is fishy with Danks;
4) Know that the franchise has a history of misfortune and baselessly feel that something will go wrong and he will miss significant time.

I'm going to guess #1, although 3 and 4 are both likely.

[spawn]

Originally Posted by blandman

I said likely. And I don't think that's a stretch based on even the articles brought up to attack me. Hell, I could said the whole year. That's actually been published this offseason. Saying a month based on all things isn't lying or making stuff up. And I shouldn't have to vehemently defend the position against trolls for three wasted pages.

People asking you for proof to back up your assertion that Danks is "likely to miss the first month of the season" is not trolling, and it isn't a personal attack. You make an argument around here and people will ask for proof. And when you fail to provide it by wagging the dog and calling people "trolls" and cry wolf over "personal attacks", the critique gets stronger. With the positions you take, maybe you should grow thicker skin.

Now, I'm sure you'll post now how you're being made the bad guy, trolled, misunderstood, what have you. But something you need to consider is this...there has been NO ONE that has defended you or your position. You are the only one on that ledge. Maybe the people critiquing you aren't the ones with reading comprehension issues.

[sullythered]

Munch, you used to be better at this back in the day.

Also, if:
Danks does miss a month,
Viciedo doesn't improve, at all,
Detroit does beat the Sox by 25 games,
Derrick Rose doesn't return by year's end,
and The Miami Heat do annihilate the Bulls without a fight...


you might actually be the subject of personal attacks around here, not just imaginary ones.

[voodoochile]

Originally Posted by sullythered

Munch, you used to be better at this back in the day.

Also, if:
Danks does miss a month,
Viciedo doesn't improve, at all,
Detroit does beat the Sox by 25 games,
Derrick Rose doesn't return by year's end,
and The Miami Heat do annihilate the Bulls without a fight...


you might actually be the subject of personal attacks around here, not just imaginary ones.

er... I mean... personal attacks are not allowed. Please refrain from them...

[spawn]

Originally Posted by sullythered

Munch, you used to be better at this back in the day.

Also, if:
Danks does miss a month,
Viciedo doesn't improve, at all,
Detroit does beat the Sox by 25 games,
Derrick Rose doesn't return by year's end,
and The Miami Heat do annihilate the Bulls without a fight...


you might actually be the subject of personal attacks around here, not just imaginary ones.

POTW material right here.