Mega Thread Delist/Trade/Draft Supermegaultrathread - Trade Period Edition

[Underdog]

It's got nothing to do with a disagreement of opinions or being a fanboy and everything to do with credibility. I've never claimed to know the right or wrong with regards to drafting. Many here are happy to lay in the boot without any real idea of the drafting/trading scenarios or targets. If you want to abuse people and staff based on uninformed and ignorant assumptions, go ahead. I'm not stopping you, but I will call you on it.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Love the way the draft comes out with posters praising our drafting and trading when in reality they have **** all idea or knowledge about all the players - "oh, but I've watched a 3 minute highlight package and read a mock draft" - **** off... There's the flip side.

Feel free to quote the post where Underdog praises our drafting.

 

[ep2018]

By deliberately finishing below us?

Seems like something north would do actually

Everyone will finish below us next year.

 

[tesseract]

Please cut out the "r*ped" references. It's not needed.

I find it partly amusing and partly sad that some men have allowed themselves to become educated in feminized unthinking and thus automatically censoring themselves as to expression. Actual rape is bad, using the word as a form of expression is not. Censoring the use of a such a word is PC nonsense.

 

[tesseract]

Feel free to quote the post where Underdog praises our drafting.

I never stated or implied he did. If that's what you garnered from my post, you've missed its point.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I never stated or implied he did. If that's what you garnered from my post, you've missed its point.

No, I got your point loud and clear. Helps that it's the same point you make about once a week.

 

[tesseract]

It's got nothing to do with a disagreement of opinions or being a fanboy and everything to do with credibility. I've never claimed to know the right or wrong with regards to drafting. Many here are happy to lay in the boot without any real idea of the drafting/trading scenarios or targets. If you want to abuse people and staff based on uninformed and ignorant assumptions, go ahead. I'm not stopping you, but I will call you on it.

I call BS on your call of it having to do with "credibility". For you don't go telling folks to "**** off" when a positive spin is put on WC's drafting, even when these folks likely know as much about the draft as the next bloke.

I'm calling you out on your double standard.

 

[tesseract]

No, I got your point loud and clear. Helps that it's the same point you make about once a week.

If you actually had got my point loud and clear initially, then you wouldn't have posted: "Feel free to quote the post where Underdog praises our drafting"

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I call BS on your call of it having to do with "credibility". For you don't go telling folks to "**** off" when a positive spin is put on WC's drafting, even when these folks likely know as much about the draft as the next bloke.

I'm calling you out on your double standard.

You're talking about double standards? Seriously?

Everyone who criticises anyone for expressing negativity is infringing on their freedom of speech, but calling someone a fanboi for expressing positivity isn't an infringement of freedom of speech. And you say others have double standards?

Knock me over with a feather.

 

[Underdog]

I call BS on your call of it having to do with "credibility". For you don't go telling folks to "**** off" when a positive spin is put on WC's drafting, even when these folks likely know as much about the draft as the next bloke.

I'm calling you out on your double standard.

Yes, I find uninformed criticism worse than uninformed praise.

However, I've been quote vocal about people putting a positive spin on players based on little more than an article, mock draft and highlight package. I support informed opinion whether it be positive or negative.

 

[QS]

May as well take next year off, we're gonna win the flag.

 

[tesseract]

You're talking about double standards? Seriously?

Everyone who criticises anyone for expressing negativity is infringing on their freedom of speech, but calling someone a fanboi for expressing positivity isn't an infringement of freedom of speech. And you say others have double standards?

Knock me over with a feather.

Your logic is fail. Calling someone out as to their double standard isn't calling for that person's post to be censored, hence it not infringing on their free speech. Hence no double standard.

 

[Keys]

I find it partly amusing and partly sad that some men have allowed themselves to become educated in feminized unthinking and thus automatically censoring themselves as to expression. Actual rape is bad, using the word as a form of expression is not. Censoring the use of a such a word is PC nonsense.

Don't change tess. The world needs the likes of you to keep highlighting the injustices of this world. If I want to use the word rape I should damn well be allowed to and bugger anybody who disagrees

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Your logic is fail. Calling someone out as to their double standard isn't calling for that person's post to be censored, hence it not infringing on their free speech. Hence no double standard.

Referring to previous arguments of ours, champ.

 

[tesseract]

Yes, I find uninformed criticism worse than uninformed praise.

However, I've been quote vocal about people putting a positive spin on players based on little more than an article, mock draft and highlight package. I support informed opinion whether it be positive or negative.

At least you've somewhat admitted to your double standard.

You seem to be quite vocal about abusing folks who don't share a similar stance to your own. How do you know for sure what's informed opinion and what's not? What can be inferred from your angry comments is that it's based on whether such opinions are agreeable to your sense of right or wrong and/or are positive or negative.

 

[tesseract]

Referring to previous arguments of ours, champ.

Make your case.

 

[Small Moves]

Your logic is fail. Calling someone out as to their double standard isn't calling for that person's post to be censored, hence it not infringing on their free speech. Hence no double standard.

Who cares.

 

[tesseract]

Who cares.

Obviously not you, but do I care that you don't care? No!

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Make your case.

Thought I made it at the time, and then again 10 minutes ago.

 

[tesseract]

Thought I made it at the time, and then again 10 minutes ago.

Our clashes a year or so ago pointed out how you, as a mod, arbitrarily use censorship. Your point 10 minutes ago failed logic.

 

[jatz14]

This comment of yours is a deliberate twist on what some folk expected, for I haven't read of anyone deciding the players selected will win the 2014 flag off their own boot. Many expected WC to pick big-bodied midfielders, hence some WTF comments ensuing. (For purpose of clarity, big-bodied isn't simply a matter of height).

People have been saying that the draft does not cover what we lose or are perceived to be in need of next year. However the draft decisions are not made on that basis. Saying they were expected to win the flag in 2014 is hyperbole, but it is not hyperbole to say that people were looking at our list as it is now, and judging the draftees against that perceived immediate need.

 

[swannies]

I find it partly amusing and partly sad that some men have allowed themselves to become educated in feminized unthinking and thus automatically censoring themselves as to expression. Actual rape is bad, using the word as a form of expression is not. Censoring the use of a such a word is PC nonsense.

I'm sorry tesser, I don't like the expression and don't think it's required. As I pointed out, there are many other, probably more suitable and relevant, expressions to use.
The term rape means a sexual assault against another person without their consent. Not a particularly nice act and the term certainly doesn't engender positive responses.
In this particular context how does one 'rape' the draft?
I'd prefer the term not to be used, to be honest.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Our clashes a year or so ago pointed out how you, as a mod, arbitrarily use censorship. Your point 10 minutes ago failed logic.

Was thinking of a more recent instance than when you accused me of censoring someone who I actually agreed with.

 

[tesseract]

People have been saying that the draft does not cover what we lose or are perceived to be in need of next year. However the draft decisions are not made on that basis. Saying they were expected to win the flag in 2014 is hyperbole, but it is not hyperbole to say that people were looking at our list as it is now, and judging the draftees against that perceived immediate need.

I agree that draft decisions aren't made on the basis of needs for next year. I don't believe that the consensus on this forum is that the need for big-bodied midfielders stems from the need to pursue a flag next year.

 

[tesseract]

I'm sorry tesser, I don't like the expression and don't think it's required. As I pointed out, there are many other, probably more suitable and relevant, expressions to use.
The term rape means a sexual assault against another person without their consent. Not a particularly nice act and the term certainly doesn't engender positive responses.
In this particular context how does one 'rape' the draft?
I'd prefer the term not to be used, to be honest.

It's a matter of context. We all know what rape means in a literal sense, but we're not talking about a literal sense, but rather, a figure of speech. Folks have resorted to use of "bent over", but Larri seems to take issue with that as well. I find it nonsense that grown men have to censor themselves to pander to the soft sensibilities of a seeming minority.