Thurman's Helmet Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Myopic Pats fan? Our Myopia has been substantiated with hardware. Whats your excuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 If you say so. Sounds like he was refering to week 1 of LAST year. But clearly its not specified. Irregardless, maybe you should consider that and stand down your nuclear missles the next time someone makes a post. JMHO. 52441[/snapback] Irregardless? While being condescending to others, I've found it best to use words that actually exist, like "regardless." English is fundamental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 If you say so. Sounds like he was refering to week 1 of LAST year. But clearly its not specified. Irregardless, maybe you should consider that and stand down your nuclear missles the next time someone makes a post. JMHO. 52441[/snapback] Actually it was you who began the petty attempt at reading comprehension violations patrol Also, I know that if Simon wanted to point out week one of LAST season, he would have stated "week 1 of last season". That was also not a game where we "physically punished" the Pats via the running game, so that was another clue for ya B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doza Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Myopic Pats fan? Our Myopia has been substantiated with hardware. Whats your excuse? 52443[/snapback] <--- No myopia with this sig. Some Bills fans wonder why some Pats fan's troll. Try not being an ass. Keep rude comments to oneself and maybe there wont be problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doza Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Irregardless? While being condescending to others, I've found it best to use words that actually exist, like "regardless." English is fundamental. 52460[/snapback] The word was included in the last edition of Websters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doza Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Actually it was you who began the petty attempt at reading comprehension violations patrol Also, I know that if Simon wanted to point out week one of LAST season, he would have stated "week 1 of last season". That was also not a game where we "physically punished" the Pats via the running game, so that was another clue for ya B) 52462[/snapback] So your first comment doesn't count huh? Ya know, the one that STARTED it all? Should be a great great game as I think both teams really dislike each other and both feel they have a lot to play for. I see the Bills doing the same things they did in Week 1 and having a good day physically working over the Patriots. I see nothing here about a running game do you? I guess you just made that up. If you want the Bills to do the "same thing they did in week 1" - which is lose. Ok then, you are right. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 <--- No myopia with this sig. Some Bills fans wonder why some Pats fan's troll. Try not being an ass. Keep rude comments to oneself and maybe there wont be problems. 52468[/snapback] :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Pure and simple.....SDS....why are these Pats fans allowed to roll over this board with no problems..... On a patriots board if this was attempted....we would be bounced Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doza Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Pure and simple.....SDS....why are these Pats fans allowed to roll over this board with no problems..... On a patriots board if this was attempted....we would be bounced 52480[/snapback] I came here for a good discussion about the game. Some Bills fans are here for good discussion, others can't stand Pats fans being here and go out of their way to try to get us banned. Give me a break. There is another word for that - TROLLING. You want to discuss the game. fine. lets do it. Otherwise keep your "lets bash the pats fan we dont want him here" isolationist comments to yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 The word was included in the last edition of Websters. 52472[/snapback] From Websters http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=irregardless Main Entry: ir·re·gard·lessPronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s Function: adverb Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless nonstandard : REGARDLESS usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead. So you're right, it is a word recognized by Merriam-Webster - Although they advise against using it. From dictionary.com: Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, [irregardless] has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 So your first comment doesn't count huh? Ya know, the one that STARTED it all? I see nothing here about a running game do you? I guess you just made that up. If you want the Bills to do the "same thing they did in week 1" - which is lose. Ok then, you are right. =) 52478[/snapback] In week one, buffalo dominated from a physical standpoint on O, even though they lost. This is what I , and ultimately Simon, was refering to. I'm sorry you couldn't grasp that mr. reading is fundamental. re: my response to Helmet... I see nothing negative about what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I came here for a good discussion about the game. Some Bills fans are here for good discussion, others can't stand Pats fans being here and go out of their way to try to get us banned. Give me a break. There is another word for that - TROLLING. You want to discuss the game. fine. lets do it. Otherwise keep your "lets bash the pats fan we dont want him here" isolationist comments to yourself. 52484[/snapback] I'll say anything I want.....Im on a bills board as a bills fan.... and there is not a THING you can do about it so..... :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doza Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 In week one, buffalo dominated from a physical standpoint on O, even though they lost. This is what I , and ultimately Simon, was refering to. I'm sorry you couldn't grasp that mr. reading is fundamental.re: my response to Helmet... I see nothing negative about what I said. 52499[/snapback] They dominated? In what sense? The D played well, the offense was pathetic. A team who dominates the game should give some indication of doing so. Henry didn't get near 100 yards (team only had 95 total rushing yards, 242 total *choke*), and you scored 10 points! The only think I saw that was dominating, was the Jax defense. Maybe you meant the Bills defense, but they folded like a lawn chair after Oct 1st on that last drive. So you see why I think he meant game 1 of last year - ya know a game in which the Bills actually DID dominate someone! As far as your comment: yeah you are right Nice contribution Helmet blink.gif Your statement has no relevance to what was posted. Why bother? doh.gif thats not negative at all. its being very friendly, along with some nice helpful suggestions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doza Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I'll say anything I want.....Im on a bills board as a bills fan.... and there is not a THING you can do about it so..... :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: 52507[/snapback] good, then you better expect more bills bashers here with that attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Myopic Pats fan? Our Myopia has been substantiated with hardware. Whats your excuse? 52443[/snapback] You know...you may want to look up the word myopic before you try using it in a sentence like that. When you get back with the dictionary, I'll ask you: where have I shown signs of being myopic??? Let me know if you find the dictionary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 From Websters http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=irregardlessSo you're right, it is a word recognized by Merriam-Webster - Although they advise against using it. From dictionary.com: 52494[/snapback] Campy, while I appreciate what you're doing, the truth of the matter is Webster's has just accepted the fact that so many people are butching the English language that they may as well just add words like "irregardless" to their book. It's sad, really, because the lazy actually win in this situation and say "See...it IS a word!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doza Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Campy, while I appreciate what you're doing, the truth of the matter is Webster's has just accepted the fact that so many people are butching the English language that they may as well just add words like "irregardless" to their book. It's sad, really, because the lazy actually win in this situation and say "See...it IS a word!!!" 52527[/snapback] Actually its called language evolution. It happens. Call it butchering, laziness, whatever - we all do it. Many people have no clue they are though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 good, then you better expect more bills bashers here with that attitude. 52521[/snapback] Ohhhhh.....a threat... Look moron....the only reason why you are here is because the powers that be ALLOW you to be here......it is a private board... But hey...bring em on over....maybe that will finally be the last straw that forces administration to kick pats fans out that bring their high and mighty smug attitude.....and yes that is exactly what it is regardless of how you cloak it and you dont even do it that well..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doza Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Ohhhhh.....a threat... Look moron....the only reason why you are here is because the powers that be ALLOW you to be here......it is a private board... But hey...bring em on over....maybe that will finally be the last straw that forces administration to kick pats fans out that bring their high and mighty smug attitude.....and yes that is exactly what it is regardless of how you cloak it and you dont even do it that well..... 52544[/snapback] Hey sparky. You gonna talk football, or just blab on to anyone who will listen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 They dominated? In what sense? The D played well, the offense was pathetic. A team who dominates the game should give some indication of doing so. Henry didn't get near 100 yards (team only had 95 total rushing yards, 242 total *choke*), and you scored 10 points! The only think I saw that was dominating, was the Jax defense. Maybe you meant the Bills defense, but they folded like a lawn chair after Oct 1st on that last drive. So you see why I think he meant game 1 of last year - ya know a game in which the Bills actually DID dominate someone! As far as your comment: yeah you are right thats not negative at all. its being very friendly, along with some nice helpful suggestions. 52517[/snapback] Maybe you should ask him yourself.... We dominated Physically on offense meaning we ran the ball right at them and continued to do it wether they knew it was coming or not. We had a huge T.O.P. edge in the game, and the only thing that stopped our drives were mental miscues. I realize you are not a Bills fan so you wouldn't have seen this in depth into the game in week 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Simon , let me be the first to appologize for all the clutter on what began as a very cool thread.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts