- Messages
- 10,636
- Reaction score
- 0
Sweet programming
He's the ****** this city deserves
A straw man is a misrepresentation of another person's argument in an attempt to make your argument seem right. The stat sheik cited wasn't a misrepresentation of an argument, it was another fact supporting his argument.... that the stigma attached to Romo that his interceptions cause losses is without merit, as evidenced by the fact that he only had two of them in losses last season.It means what it means, and is correctly used. What do you think it means?:hui0jc.jpg
It is also arguing a point that was never made or even addressed.A straw man is a misrepresentation of another person's argument in an attempt to make your argument seem right.
Which, in this case it's not.It doesn't matter if that point is still relevant to the argument
Not really. If you're bringing up a point that was never made or addressed, that may just be another point to your argument as things are moving along... which is what happened in this thread.It is also arguing a point that was never made or even addressed.
No one specifically blamed Romo interceptions for 2013 losses, that I saw. Making the stat a non sequitur, at the very least. Note: "turnovers" does not automatically mean Romo interceptions or fumbles, or even Romo specifically.Not really. If you're bringing up a point that was never made or addressed, that may just be another point to your argument as things are moving along... which is what happened in this thread.
And he didn't respond to anyone in particular, nor did he attribute that to anyone. You just don't like the stat because you've railed on Romo for turnovers in other threads, and brought up his interceptions in regards to his first game action against the Giants as a "harbinger of things to come."No one specifically blamed Romo interceptions for 2013 losses, that I saw. Making the stat a non sequitur, at the very least. Note: "turnovers" does not automatically mean Romo interceptions or fumbles, or even Romo specifically.
Are you really surprised that people assume you're blaming things on Romo when you say things like that, considering you actually blamed him for not getting this team to better than 8-8, when the team had a defense the shittiness of which we haven't seen in this franchise's history? You've blamed poor 3rd down conversion percentages on him, the Denver loss on him, the Green Bay loss on him, etc. Why would anyone think you're blaming someone else for turnovers and too many punts?I was razzing Sheik anyway - he brought the "stat of the week" over here from another thread where he'd used it to counter a point I never made, since I never mentioned Romo at all. What I'd said was "one or two less turnovers here, a few less punts there, and this team is 11-5 instead of 8-8" and he comes back with, "But Romo never threw a interception in a loss in 2013!"
I never mentioned Romo, but was amused that as soon as someone utters the word "turnover" Romo is the first person they think of.
Incorrect. See, here it is again. I merely BROUGHT UP these issues, never attributing them to anyone, and you assume it's Romobama. What I have said is, I hope we get to see a FULL SEASON without Romo. I hope he goes down early in camp with a career ending injury. The dude is a fucking JINX.Are you really surprised that people assume you're blaming things on Romo when you say things like that, considering you actually blamed him for not getting this team to better than 8-8, You've blamed poor 3rd down conversion percentages on him, the Denver loss on him, the Green Bay loss on him, etc.
Because I believe nine years of Romobama is enough?Yikes. Have you sought out professional help?
Right, you just want to hang out in Romo man love fest echo chambers doing the full body hugs with other Romosexuals and everything kum by ya.someone shut glen beck's dick up.