In the interest of trying to shorten the post length as much as possible, I will shorten quotes and refer simply to the logical fallacy employed when one applies (which, lucky for us, is quite frequently with some posters here). That way, the offending party can simply read why they are wrong somewhere else and nobody else has to be burdened by the correction.
A lot of meaningless rhetoric from wheaton followed. The Oregon Troll apparently tried to complete a Wikipedia/Google based crash course on logic in one of the most desperate attempts to save face that I’ve seen on VN.
Judgmental language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Actually I did, but here is the difference: I will criticize outsiders before family any day. Remember, blood is thicker than water!
I understand that. But, isn't it also important to be just? We all look out for family first. But, if they engage someone else by their own initiative, can we reasonably expect the person they approached to not respond?
touching in on the whole Oregon-UT thing, i have to say that you can't reject wheaton's points out of hand. yes, tn has a much better tradition in football and a better history of putting players in the NFL, but most of these recruits are all about the right now.
...
i apologize for rambling on like this. i haven't slept in like 41 hours and i'm running on fumes here.
Excellent post. Even though there was little punctuation or paragraphs, it was by far easier to read than what some of the others have tried to argue. That is simply due to the existence of cohesive and valid arguments.
You make many great points and have put together the best case for UT that I've seen. My only contention is on USC being too big a problem for Oregon. Oregon just beat them in 2007 and Oregon State did last year (who UO beat). So, they are not so far ahead of things as to be an insurmountable obstacle. In fact, they make a pretty good spring board for any Pac-10 who can beat them to leap up in the rankings (since USC has been ranked so well).
Those facts only better illuminated what we all intrinsically knew, and that which you have too long successfully hidden from plain sight in your short time here - that Oregon is simply incomparable to Tennessee, either historically or in the "modern" era, when measured across almost any range of objective criteria.
It is laughable that you imply that you consider yourself to have dealt with relevant comparisons in "the modern era" when you're counting data as far back as 1975 as "modern."
I welcome you to refute any fact which I have previously supplied, or to supply whatever additional facts that you would like to have considered - preferably, other than the only two which you repeatedly presented, namely:
I have already refuted the logic you employed trying to argue that the facts you supplied demonstrate that UT is a better choice over Oregon for Brown.
You repeating those facts does not make your argument valid.
(outside of the two you previously used, and are mentioned above)
Why should I not refer to those points that you insist that I not bring up? You have yet to explain how the past accolades you have listed are more substantial factors for a recruit to consider than those two points. So, until you have some argument against them, those points stand.