TheLeviathan

Joe....dankind would blush at some of the things you said in the Peterson thread. Hell, I was trying to give you an out with the drunk question. I'd have taken it.

Thank you sir.

Yeah, that zinger hurts. And is spot on.

That was an impressive performance. Ponder looked capable and the defense continues to dominate in surprising ways. Next week is very interesting now.

How well does he throw fake field goal pass attempts? Or kick when it is snowing and between 10 and 17.5 degrees? You have plenty of snark coming for some of the incredibly dumb things you said on Peterson.

I genuinely think your comments on this subject Joe are some of the most idiotic things I've read on a forum in a long time. You're really reaching. You are putting an enormous amount of your evaluation on passing related items and when you couple that with throwing fumbles in there as a criticism it appears you just are bent on being negative about him. Hard to take you seriously.

yeah,I'm all for you guys advertising the hell out of the place, but anytime my mouse rolls over certain ads (ads positioned between the comments and the scroll bar) I get this obnoxious, debilitating ad. Not all of the ads are doing that, but with where you guys have them positioned it makes it difficult.

He used to fumble? And Arian Foster used to be a backup. You don't think you're being a bit silly? He's not perfect, but he is right there with the best "running backs" I've ever seen.

Seriously Joe, he's outrushing anyone else by 30% this year. "Can't hold a torch to current RBs"? That's just dumb.

Yeah, I don't like using career numbers to evaluate. In part because I never thought Emmitt Smith was all that impressive of a back. He was a good back, but he ran behind the most ridiculous line I've ever seen. What I evaluate Sanders on is his ability to dominate a game even when everyone knew he was the most dangerous man on the field. I never remember Barry being as good as AP has been this season and he certainly never had the power AP has.

Drunk or temporary insanity?

The bulk of this good is in that last part. Which has nothing to do with the current rotation.

I'm sorry...what exactly is your aim here? You have yet to accurately take the content of anything I've said into account in your replies. Your tone is that of someone who just had their dog kicked. I'll try one more time, but if your little routine here is going to stick it's not worth it. One....I never said the only thing discussed out of Columbine was bullying. I said it was "central" and "much of". Talk about straw-man arguments. The problem, which I've clearly outlined for everyone not trying to have a problem, is that rash initial judgements paint the wrong picture of the situation and make real solutions difficult. You can't hit the target if you don't know what you're aiming at. Public discourse, driven by the media, creates these irrational moving targets. After Columbine, as the link I posted suggested accurately in a reputable source, is that we started looking at every mass murderer as a victim themselves rather than actually considering the situation for what it was. And, out of Columbine and that ridiculous emotional response that made the figures more sympathetic, we had the largest rash of these kinds of killings. Out of the well-intentioned care to end bullying we, in fact, caused more of them to happen by our ham-handed response. Here we present with the same risks. We don't know the picture here and a rush to make changes to the mental health system DOES present serious risks to those with mental health issues and those without them. Gun-control has sensitivity with it as well (not as much, but certainly some) Best intentions or not it is a worthy endeavor to arriving at solutions that don't cause more harm out of a tragic situation. The discourse at the top levels of the government is appropriate - it is focused on police responses and the difficulties of law enforcement - not on rash diagnoses and assumptions about what the quiet and shy are capable of doing. We should be more prudent as civilians that we don't take tragedies and make them worse. Simple as the point is. I look forward to your next twist to it though, I'm sure it will be entertaining.

You move Percy for draft picks, preferably after he's had a few good weeks next year. I love Percy, I think he's a ridiculous talent, but he can't stay on the field and he's clearly done with this organization. I say move on.

= Homicidal urges. Good god that ad is annoying, it all but shuts my browser down and takes over the whole screen. Not sure if I'm the only one pestered by it.

Columbine, Bullying, and the Mind of Eric Harris | Psychology Today Since you have clearly forgotten what happened in the aftermath there.

Spin baby spin.

Much of the dialogue post-Columbine is that these were bully victims seeking revenge. While that was a small part of the issue, it was not even close to the central motivator, but it put them in a victim light themseleves was more sympathetic. I'm not suggesting we let our emotions die, but we don't let them drive the boat completely. It's not like gun control or changes to the mental health system are going to be easy. We could just as easily cause even more harm out of this if we aren't careful. (Especially since the shift is going towards mental health now)

Are you done? In the wake of that shooting we actually started to make the killers sympathetic for being bully victims and blamed violent video games. As it turned out, those reasons were far less central to their actions than the immediate narrative indicated. Any time you take minimal evidence and try to make sweeping changes it isn't likely you're going to make effective change. It's not about policing it - public hyperbole is simply not going to impress on policy makers more than 20 dead first graders. If that isn't enough to shock action, public outcry (regardless of it's direction) isn't going to make a dent. I'm all about the conversation....once we've cooled off, thought about it, and committed ourselves to not making an rash observations. To me the goal is to make sure this never happens again and the best way to do that is to talk about facts and what we can do and try (as hard as it is) to keep our emotions as the fuel for the process, but not the end-all, be-all.

Or you can just read this crappy article that pretty much uses a wrecking ball for tact and includes all kinds of quotes or opinions that just make you shake your head: New details emerge a week after school massacre - Yahoo! News

Could you have twisted what I said any worse? Seriously? The gun control reforms against assault rifles and those pertinent to mental health are going to take some serious nuance to achieve what we want not only responsibly but effectively. A national dialogue that is too heavy-handed in it's tact towards either angle of that is not going to get us anywhere. See: Columbine and bullying. A tragedy like this should lead to a better solution than we have seen in the past. So far I like how the President is handling things and their approach to trying to find a solution. I also think the national dialogue about guns has been pretty fair from what I've seen in editorials and talk shows. I'm more worried about Autism now at this point.

You seem to have missed the part where that obvious information was necessary because you said something incredibly ignorant.

Best signing of the offseason. What does that say?

Better than Correira. So there is that.

Fair point. I would just caution that sometimes the issue we choose to hang our hats on isn't always the right one (see: Columbine and bullying) and in our emotional reaction to the tragedy we don't have think clearly in our responses. Good gun control reform is going to take some nuance or it simply isn't going to work either.