The Surprise of NSD!!! I'm Telling you!!!

#76
#76
Rock33 said:
So now post padding makes one smarter and lesser posters must "get their game up" to be taken seriously ? All the negativity on this board I for one am glad to see/read comments that provide a positive outlook, whether those are in the end correct or not. I love the positive thinking !!!! Right or wrong we need MORE !!!
:clapping:
Click to expand...
Thanks man:good!:
 
#83
#83
"I'm gonna scissor-kick you in the back of the head!... Chip I'm gonna come at you like a spider monkey cuz I'm all jacked up on Mountain Dew!!!" :rock:
 
#85
#85
Rock33 said:
So now post padding makes one smarter and lesser posters must "get their game up" to be taken seriously ? All the negativity on this board I for one am glad to see/read comments that provide a positive outlook, whether those are in the end correct or not. I love the positive thinking !!!! Right or wrong we need MORE !!!
:clapping:
Click to expand...

please allow me to again explain my comment about his only having 17 posts. If you are not a "regular" on this board, which is usually evidenced by # of posts, then you can make outlandish guarantees/predictions with no accountability. Does anyone really not understand that? Its like the guy who's 5th post say "The ink is dry!"
 
#86
#86
rexvol said:
please allow me to again explain my comment about his only having 17 posts. If you are not a "regular" on this board, which is usually evidenced by # of posts, then you can make outlandish guarantees/predictions with no accountability. Does anyone really not understand that? Its like the guy who's 5th post say "The ink is dry!"
Click to expand...
Apparantley some of us don't understand your logic. Just quit talking about it. Go Vols!
 
#87
#87
I have to say that I read these threads everyday, and rexvol has been the most accurate with his predictions over the last two months.
 
#88
#88
TennGentry said:
Apparantley some of us don't understand your logic. Just quit talking about it. Go Vols!
Click to expand...

you really dont get it? it wasnt a shot at you so much as a reaction to the many, many posters that come here for minimal posts and make crazy statements. that's all. There was no offense meant.
 
#90
#90
TennGentry said:
Apparantley some of us don't understand your logic. Just quit talking about it. Go Vols!
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that you don't understand what he's talking about. It's harder to believe someone with fewer posts because they have less credibility. Someone with a high post count has a history to work from - people can look back and see whether their previous predictions came true. It's nothing against you as a person; it's just an assessment of credibility (or lack thereof) of the poster. :salute:
 
#91
#91
I look at it this way. Rex is the teacher, we are the students. If I listen to what he says, I will be smarter in the end. If I don't, I will end up being another fool wearing the dunce hat on NSD.
 
#92
#92
:popcorn: Like posvol , ihateorange, 5150, good trend total:banghead2:
Oldblood said:
I'm surprised that you don't understand what he's talking about. It's harder to believe someone with fewer posts because they have less credibility. Someone with a high post count has a history to work from - people can look back and see whether their previous predictions came true. It's nothing against you as a person; it's just an assessment of credibility (or lack thereof) of the poster. :salute:
Click to expand...
 
#93
#93
CountVolcula said:
I look at it this way. Rex is the teacher, we are the students. If I listen to what he says, I will be smarter in the end. If I don't, I will end up being another fool wearing the dunce hat on NSD.
Click to expand...



Well, I would say that Brent and Austin are the teachers....

Rex is more less a TA.
 
#94
#94
Good post, TennGentry.

While some posters on here can definitely play rough, largely, most of it is in good-natured jest. Just be sure to differentiate those statements which you believe to be "fact" from those which merely represent your "opinion", and you'll be fine.

If it's your opinion, well, there's nothing anyone can do to change it, unless you let them.

If you purport something as fact, and it is, let them argue with that. Attacking the person instead of the "fact" is unfortunately common, however, it tends to strengthen your arguments and further weaken theirs.

If you purport it to be "fact" and it is not, in fact, a "fact" - heaven help you. They'll call you on it in a second, and will mercilessly hound you until you admit your error. Think of it as a form of outlaw justice - it's mob rule, but required to keep everyone honest. Some are quicker or more apt to form a posse than others. You'll get to know who they are.

Keep posting, and by all means, learn to enjoy the back and forth, while not taking it too personally.
 
#95
#95
rexvol said:
says the guy with 17 posts. Im calling you crazy, top 5, no freaking way.
Click to expand...



A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
  1. Person A makes claim X.
  2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
  3. Therefore claim X is false.
  1. Person A makes claim X.
  2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
  3. Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false." There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not. However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make it false. For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this obviously does not make her claim false.

Lynch mob meltdown in 3.....2......
 
#96
#96
Tenacious D said:
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
  1. Person A makes claim X.
  2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
  3. Therefore claim X is false.
  1. Person A makes claim X.
  2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
  3. Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false." There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not. However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make it false. For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this obviously does not make her claim false.

Lynch mob meltdown in 3.....2......
Click to expand...
Hilarious! Right on brother.:dance2:
 
#97
#97
Tenacious D said:
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
  1. Person A makes claim X.
  2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
  3. Therefore claim X is false.
  1. Person A makes claim X.
  2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
  3. Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false." There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not. However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make it false. For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this obviously does not make her claim false.

Lynch mob meltdown in 3.....2......
Click to expand...

I think rex was attacking his credibility and not motivation . . .
 
#99
#99
VolDC said:
I have to say that I read these threads everyday, and rexvol has been the most accurate with his predictions over the last two months.
Click to expand...

I will have to admit that it took em about a year to actually begin postin on this site because i didn't want to hear that I didn't know anything or wasn't a true fan. I will agree with what VolDC said above about Rex. So far, he has been a good person to rely on for information about recruiting.
 
#100
#100
RiskManagementVol said:
I will have to admit that it took em about a year to actually begin postin on this site because i didn't want to hear that I didn't know anything or wasn't a true fan. I will agree with what VolDC said above about Rex. So far, he has been a good person to rely on for information about recruiting.
Click to expand...

:good!:

Rex knows his stuff.

When he posts rumors, he lets you know that is all it is at the time.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top