I love the mental and literal visuals on x4.
From a Noobs point of view:
1 - Some people here simply are not capable of disagreeing with tact. The amount of those people is far less than I have seen at other sites. Its just a product of the beast you have to live with it if you chose to participate in online communication w/ strangers.and
2 - Negativity will always be blasted on fan message boards by the majority, but as long as the moderators allow for the minority point of view to be expressed, you will eventually get some good discussion. I think they do a good job here of filtering out the BS, save for a few lapdogs who just go looking for drama and get a pass.
/End Soap Box Speech.
1 - Some people here simply are not capable of disagreeing with tact. The amount of those people is far less than I have seen at other sites. Its just a product of the beast you have to live with it if you chose to participate in online communication w/ strangers.and
2 - Negativity will always be blasted on fan message boards by the majority, but as long as the moderators allow for the minority point of view to be expressed, you will eventually get some good discussion. I think they do a good job here of filtering out the BS, save for a few lapdogs who just go looking for drama and get a pass.
/End Soap Box Speech.
quote:Originally posted by BrainDed:quote:Originally posted by BrainDed:
From a Noobs point of view:
1 - Some people here simply are not capable of disagreeing with tact. The amount of those people is far less than I have seen at other sites. Its just a product of the beast you have to live with it if you chose to participate in online communication w/ strangers.
2 - Negativity will always be blasted on fan message boards by the majority, but as long as the moderators allow for the minority point of view to be expressed, you will eventually get some good discussion. I think they do a good job here of filtering out the BS, save for a few lapdogs who just go looking for drama and get a pass.
/End Soap Box Speech.
Double silent killer?
Man. You should start ordering it by the case.
I thought that was a non-profit.
quote:Originally posted by :
I'm going to sell it at butthurt.tv.
quote:Originally posted by Satori:
YA was 100% wrong, not only factually, but in his intent as well . Couple that with his other recent post calling the Packers "frauds" and he deserves every lump of coal he gets around here and more.
When did I EVER call the Packers frauds? All I did was congratulate the Bears for winning the division. AND I still think Jackson's injury was a big factor in the win but had not been mentioned in the various threads about the game.
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
Personally, I can take it, but obviously it's far less enjoyable to post among a slew of personal attacks just because someone criticized the holy Packers.
I think that as a result people are afraid to say anything negative about the team these days and that's not good either. There should be room to discuss the successes AND failings of the Packers, because yes, we all are fans and we all root in our own way. Stay classy x4.
First off CJS I never attacked anyone personally in this thread so you stick it. And Pistol was rong. It certainly looked to me as well as I imagine others that he implied the Beagles failed, not that the Packer D caused that failure. He even admitted he was rong. And as I stated there are far to many of these posts like MM is dum, TT sucks and B-Junk.
Stay classy yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
Double silent killer?
is that like "two negatives make a positive?"
Should I now like what BrainDed has to say?
quote:Originally posted by justanotherpackerfan:
I also don't think that posters should be attacked for being negative...but it is a two way street.
We can do a "positive/negative" thread after every game that seems to go OK. I think you have to understand on a Packer message board that if you are going to persistantly post negative things that Packer fans might not appreciate that POV.
quote:Originally posted by YATittle:
When did I EVER call the Packers frauds? All I did was congratulate the Bears for winning the division. AND I still think Jackson's injury was a big factor in the win but had not been mentioned in the various threads about the game.
Perhaps I misunderstood the label you put on the link below and if I did then I apologize for my mistake. Given 396,588 descriptive English words at your disposal, I found your choice to be less than ideal
DJackson did no more or less than the first time we played them in Philly, so I do not see the impact you were alluding to. He was out for 1/4 of the game, you called it a large part of the reason we won.
quote:
I ran across the article and posted it without agreeing with it. I put "Discuss" on it because I wanted to hear what people thought. Had I agreed, I would've posted my opinion on it.
I guess CHTV didn't pickup on this story.
Yeah, uh, put me down for an order of Let's Move On.
Like getting beaten with a bag of oranges on the third Thursday in November.quote:Originally posted by Satori:
4 catches for 30 yards and 2 punt returns for 7 yards in a full game vs the Packers defense in September.
He had better production this time around WITH the injury !
The opinion was wrong, the facts do not support his premise and posting that junk on a Packer message board the day after a great victory says a lot more about the poster than the board
IMO. The key to this game were the Football Gods. You postpone a home game 48 hours becasue of a little snow, there will be consequences.
"Frauds." -vs- "Frauds?" seems kinda clear to me.