BP Sox projection.

[kittle42]

Originally Posted by SoxNation05

Could you provide the link that says this? Or are you simply making this up?

This is what munch must be referring to.

A stretch to be calling you a liar, methinks. A speculator, perhaps.

[Nellie_Fox]

Originally Posted by blandman

Probably missing the first month when it's possible he could miss a lot longer is not a reason to attack someone and call them a liar. I don't appreciate it and it is very personal.

I've seen people get frustrated because you won't respond to what they post refuting your statements, but change the wording somehow to try make yourself look correct. I've not seen anything that would qualify as personal attacks.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by spawn

Show us these articles please. I'd love to read them.

Seriously? I'm supposed to keep tabs of all the articles from the offseason for you? There were articles in the damn Tribune all winter from Mark Gonzalez speculating Danks could miss all of 2013. And you want me to quote this stuff? Why? This is sounding way to much like a personal vendetta. Knock it the **** off.

Originally Posted by dickallen15

Just link one.

YOU LINKED IT. I'M QUOTED YOUR OWN DAMN ARTICLE.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by dickallen15

I accused him of making up the story of likely to miss a month, and if that's how he translated the piece he quoted, that is exactly what he did.

And that you're doing that, despite my explanation, is TROLLING the **** out of me.

I said a month because I was being optimistic. If you can't accept that YOUR OWN LINKS show why I might come to that conclusion, you're only do this to annoy me.

[dickallen15]

Originally Posted by blandman

Seriously? I'm supposed to keep tabs of all the articles from the offseason for you? There were articles in the damn Tribune all winter from Mark Gonzalez speculating Danks could miss all of 2013. And you want me to quote this stuff? Why? This is sounding way to much like a personal vendetta. Knock it the **** off.



YOU LINKED IT. I'M QUOTED YOUR OWN DAMN ARTICLE.

No, the article that says he's likely to miss the first month.

This is actually funny.

[Nellie_Fox]

Originally Posted by blandman

Seriously? I'm supposed to keep tabs of all the articles from the offseason for you? There were articles in the damn Tribune all winter from Mark Gonzalez speculating Danks could miss all of 2013. And you want me to quote this stuff? Why? This is sounding way to much like a personal vendetta. Knock it the **** off.



YOU LINKED IT. I'M QUOTED YOUR OWN DAMN ARTICLE.

You will not acknowledge that you are off base by taking "could be" and changing it to "probably," not break camp with the team, and then extending that "probably" to missing the first month, and then defending your double construction by claiming that is what they originally said.

Stop digging a hole and then crying "personal attacks" when people point to the hole you're in.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by dickallen15

No, the article that says he's likely to miss the first month.

This is actually funny.

It was my own estimation. Based on what I've read. I could have read your article alone and come up with that estimation.

This isn't funny. You are purposefully antagonizing me.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox

You will not acknowledge that you are off base by taking "could be" and changing it to "probably," not break camp with the team, and then extending that "probably" to missing the first month, and then defending your double construction by claiming that is what they originally said.

Stop digging a hole and then crying "personal attacks" when people point to the hole you're in.

"COULD BE" isn't a reference in that piece to injury. It's a reference to 100% healthy. In the situation where Danks is 100% healthy, he still may not break camp. That doesn't even account for the chances of him not being 100%. So how likely now?

I swear, it's like people don't know how to read.

[dickallen15]

Originally Posted by blandman

It was my own estimation. Based on what I've read. I could have read your article alone and come up with that estimation.

This isn't funny. You are purposefully antagonizing me.

So you admit you are basing the likely to miss the first month stuff on your personal feeling, not any article that actually states that claim. That is a different stance than you previously were taking, but at least we all know it's just your personal opinion.

[spawn]

Originally Posted by SoxNation05

Could you provide the link that says this? Or are you simply making this up?

Originally Posted by blandman

Seriously? I'm supposed to keep tabs of all the articles from the offseason for you? There were articles in the damn Tribune all winter from Mark Gonzalez speculating Danks could miss all of 2013. And you want me to quote this stuff? Why? This is sounding way to much like a personal vendetta. Knock it the ****

Now it's a personal vendetta? Sorry, but, uh...no. I hate to break it to you like this, but when you take extreme positions without backing up said positions, you invite the critique of said positions. It's not personal. Strictly business. You now say you're quoting articles that have been around all winter, but you can't post them because you can't keep tabs on them? For someone that has the statistical analysis of everything Prince Fielder eats on a daily basis (yes, that is hyperbole), I find it hard to believe that you can't do a search and link an article that backs your position. And the longer you hem and haw, the more you change the terminology, the less credible your position becomes.

As Nellie said, and he IMO is without reproach when it comes to determining personal attacks, nothing posted here qualifies.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by spawn

Now it's a personal vendetta? Sorry, but, uh...no. I hate to break it to you like this, but when you take extreme positions without backing up said positions, you invite the critique of said positions. It's not personal. Strictly business. You now say you're quoting articles that have been around all winter, but you can't post them because you can't keep tabs on them? For someone that has the statistical analysis of everything Prince Fielder eats on a daily basis (yes, that is hyperbole), I find it hard to believe that you can't do a search and link an article that backs your position. And the longer you hem and haw, the more you change the terminology, the less credible your position becomes.

As Nellie said, and he IMO is without reproach when it comes to determining personal attacks, nothing posted here qualifies.

It's not a ****ing extreme position. Quit trolling me.

[dickallen15]

Originally Posted by blandman

I swear, it's like people don't know how to read.

This is gold.

[Nellie_Fox]

Originally Posted by blandman

"COULD BE" isn't a reference in that piece to injury. It's a reference to 100% healthy. In the situation where Danks is 100% healthy, he still may not break camp. That doesn't even account for the chances of him not being 100%. So how likely now?

I swear, it's like people don't know how to read.

Keep digging. They said it "could be" that he won't break camp with the team, acknowledging a possibility. You said that means he probably won't, and then extended that to probably will miss the first month, and defend that position by claiming that's what the Sox said. That is NOT what they said, and no amount of semantic dancing on your part is going to change that.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by dickallen15

So you admit you are basing the likely to miss the first month stuff on your personal feeling, not any article that actually states that claim. That is a different stance than you previously were taking, but at least we all know it's just your personal opinion.

I don't admit that at all. I admit making an educated guess based on articles, as I have expressed to you several times now. It is no different from my previous stance. Which is why you are trolling me.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox

Keep digging. They said it "could be" that he won't break camp with the team, acknowledging a possibility. You said that means he probably won't, and then extended that to probably will miss the first month, and defend that position by claiming that's what the Sox said. That is NOT what they said, and no amount of semantic dancing on your part is going to change that.

100% = chance he won't break camp
not 100% healthy = breaking camp with team

Got it, Nellie.

Look, this isn't about likelihood of any scenario. This is about arguing with me on it for no reason other than to give me a hard time for making an educated assumption.