Warrior General Games

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
I only turn that on when competing for a title has been ruled out as a possibility.

So every year since S7

Originally posted by kadafitcd
no thinking about it. Knowing is the key to success. TJ > IC
KNOWING also means that if you are wrong it is much more embarrassing than if you only THINK you are right but are actually wrong.

pretty much jf. BTW go read your pms you lazy bastard!

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert

KNOWING also means that if you are wrong it is much more embarrassing than if you only THINK you are right but are actually wrong.

KNOWING also means that you aren't wrong...

Originally posted by jfbueno
So every year since S7

But not in the beginning of those years out of giving the benefit of the doubt to let the outcomes determine the if/when we are out of the running. A couple of these past years I didn't turn it on until very, very late in the year. One of those years I actually meant to turn it on earlier but forgot about it for a while as it slipped my mind until I double-checked my tactics late and realized I still had it off. So I've not only had a ton of games OFF on purpose, but a ton of games OFF by accident.

Originally posted by kadafitcd
KNOWING also means that you aren't wrong...

People claim to KNOW things all the time that aren't true. Some people KNOW there is a God and some people KNOW there is not a God.

So we are playing semantics indeed, by default yes knowing would imply that you do know, but I thought we were talking in practical discussion purposes.

In kadafitcd's book everything he KNOW's are facts -- god speaking..

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
Your logic is terribly flawed and hardly beyond minimum standards of even deserving a reply. Stats that reflect poorly on a player are compromised by other negative team conditions that aren't the fault of the player. If you truly think differently, then I classify you as an extremely dumb or ignorant person. You would have to be one of those two if you truly think that. And I could give 2 shits about the opinion of anybody who is dumb or ignorant on a subject.

Your 7th grade comprehension of logic is both flawed and embarrassing.

Please provide empirical evidence to support your above (quoted) claim.

Because, as I read it, your claim is that some statistics, but obviously not all (as you referenced only those that reflect poorly on a player) are compromised by negative team conditions that aren't the fault of the player. You of course left out those statistics that don't reflect poorly on a player, as you seem to think the one being discussed in your initial post does.

So please feel free to elaborate, with supporting evidence of course.

What? You can't? Because there is no supporting evidence to tie individual WR reception% to either Chemistry or team performance? Statistically, your claim is false? Oh, got it.

However, my claim that your use of a quantitative statistic to define a player's relative value is invalid does actually hold up, as:
a) that particular quantitative statistic is not an accurate measure of player worth to a team and in logic quantitative statistics are secondary to qualitative
and
b) the quantitative statistic IS directly influenced by an outside condition, that being the use of the Favorite Target settings.

Now, if you had more than a rudimentary understanding of logic, none of this would be news to you. But since, despite your claims to the contrary, your actual comprehension of logic and its application is something akin to that of my 14-year old niece, you are definitely better off playing the "you don't get it" card as above than you would be trying do discuss the application of logic with someone with degrees in Physics and Mathemathics.

So again congrats to ICECOLD!... he is a solid WR. Probably a top 10 WR in USAPL though likely not top 5. Still, the accomplishment is nice for him and he is a nice player...

I just wanted to post. Even though I seem to be ragging on ICECOLD! It is mostly jealousy + TSE that brings this out of me. I don't think ICECOLD! Is a bad WR I just think/know Tim Jackson is better. ICECOLD!'s owner I am sorry that you take abuse because of TSE's posts. Back to TSE. Read CTap's post and realize you're not in his league. Neither am I for that matter. Jesus I thought I was in school again just reading his post! Hey CT, Tim Jackson > Flash Lightning too!

Originally posted by CTap
Your 7th grade comprehension of logic is both flawed and embarrassing.

Please provide empirical evidence to support your above (quoted) claim.

Because, as I read it, your claim is that some statistics, but obviously not all (as you referenced only those that reflect poorly on a player) are compromised by negative team conditions that aren't the fault of the player. You of course left out those statistics that don't reflect poorly on a player, as you seem to think the one being discussed in your initial post does.

So please feel free to elaborate, with supporting evidence of course.

What? You can't? Because there is no supporting evidence to tie individual WR reception% to either Chemistry or team performance? Statistically, your claim is false? Oh, got it.

However, my claim that your use of a quantitative statistic to define a player's relative value is invalid does actually hold up, as:
a) that particular quantitative statistic is not an accurate measure of player worth to a team and in logic quantitative statistics are secondary to qualitative
and
b) the quantitative statistic IS directly influenced by an outside condition, that being the use of the Favorite Target settings.

Now, if you had more than a rudimentary understanding of logic, none of this would be news to you. But since, despite your claims to the contrary, your actual comprehension of logic and its application is something akin to that of my 14-year old niece, you are definitely better off playing the "you don't get it" card as above than you would be trying do discuss the application of logic with someone with degrees in Physics and Mathemathics.

So again congrats to ICECOLD!... he is a solid WR. Probably a top 10 WR in USAPL though likely not top 5. Still, the accomplishment is nice for him and he is a nice player...

You are clearly incapable of processing logic to a qualified level to be worth trying to sell you on my point. I'll pass and just agree to disagree.

EDIT: LOL, I said "I'll PASS"

Serious question for TSE:

I was admittedly tempted to sign River Rivers with DDL. But would my opportunities have been limited because of ICE COLD!?

Just curious because I was extremely skeptical he'd ever get the ball thrown to him.

Originally posted by Mercaptopropyl
Serious question for TSE:

I was admittedly tempted to sign River Rivers with DDL. But would my opportunities have been limited because of ICE COLD!?

Just curious because I was extremely skeptical he'd ever get the ball thrown to him.

Your opportunities would only have been limited after the point it was determined that we can't compete for a trophy. So as of today if you were on the team, then yes you wouldn't see the ball much. The WRs on our team will have fair chance to catch balls next year up until the time that the game is over on the trophy hunt. It's actually possible for us to compete next year because if our roster were to stay close to the max, we would enter next year with full chemistry instead of 70, so whether or not we can win next year is speculation of course, but we would definitely have to have higher odds just on account of higher chemistry being the only different factor.

But also, ICECOLD! has always been getting the lion's share of receptions, I can't stop it really. Even w/o the targeting set he gets a TON more catches, it's just the way he's built, but he also has ZERO pts in the VA for targeting. So anybody in GLB is going to lose catches to him, he's just a great target naturally with his build the way he's built, so it's pretty hard to compete with him on catches no matter what.

BTW just for your knowledge TSE. According to my Pro Bowl Script ICECOLD! is the number 2 WR in the East behind Balls Deep on Washington so you can shove this thread where it belongs..

Originally posted by Mercaptopropyl
Serious question for TSE:

I was admittedly tempted to sign River Rivers with DDL. But would my opportunities have been limited because of ICE COLD!?

Just curious because I was extremely skeptical he'd ever get the ball thrown to him.

OMG I remember River Rivers from back in the old USA A days (or whatever league it was) when Gambler to Flash and Dravz to Rivers were the dominant tandems in the league... didn't know he was still around, as I had no idea who his agent was and never bothered to check...

<3 River Rivers

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
You are clearly incapable of processing logic to a qualified level to be worth trying to sell you on my point. I'll pass and just agree to disagree.

EDIT: LOL, I said "I'll PASS"

My degrees in both Physics and Mathematics will agree to disagree with you, on account of you being laughably incorrect.

And I'm still waiting for empirical evidence to support your claim... no wait, actually, I'm not. Since I am well aware that no such evidence exists.

Stick to discussing logic with kids who have lesser comprehension of the subject than you do, should you actually find some. (I'm sure they do exist somewhere among the interwebz.)