Uconn looks good this week

[hungry]

My mentioning of opinion is only put out there when you say I'm wrong. No, I'm right. My opinion agrees with the one that counted. There was, also, a missed blatant pi call that should've went against msu. Brian Kelley complained about it and got a call or 3 later.

See, Alonzo takes it even further than me and says there was only 1 bad call. Are you going to tell him how wrong he is?

My position never changed. I believe there were 3 bad PI calls. 2 of them were on the last drive. Msu lost for a lot of other reasons than just this, though.

You're a troll, because of the baiting you use with the personal attacks. You're also a coward with a keyboard, because I doubt you act like that when your face-to-face with people that don't share your opinions.

 

[Spartanmack]

My mentioning of opinion is only put out there when you say I'm wrong. No, I'm right. My opinion agrees with the one that counted. There was, also, a missed blatant pi call that should've went against msu. Brian Kelley complained about it and got a call or 3 later.

See, Alonzo takes it even further than me and says there was only 1 bad call. Are you going to tell him how wrong he is?

My position never changed. I believe there were 3 bad PI calls. 2 of them were on the last drive. Msu lost for a lot of other reasons than just this, though.

You're a troll, because of the baiting you use with the personal attacks. You're also a coward with a keyboard, because I doubt you act like that when your face-to-face with people that don't share your opinions.

Are you really saying you're right because you agree w/ the refs? So the refs are infallible and all you have to do to be right is agree with them? Your powers of reasoning never cease to amaze. But there's still a problem here - you are wrong. The two TD drives both had bad PI calls. If you're saying there was a third, fine - there was a third. There was also a bad holding and a missed call on the FG drive. That's all 3 scoring drives, but even if you say I'm wrong and it's only 2 of 3, they still cost us the game. There were other factors - recall the first I listed was Dantonio's stupid mistakes.

I already told Alonso I think he's wrong and most observers also disagree with him.

you can say you haven't changed your story but that doesn't make it true. we have a record of it and it's pretty clear.

Finally, to paraphrase Deion Sanders - it aint trolling if it's true. So I'm a coward for telling you what I think? That sounds like a personal attack from behind a keyboard - you are such a coward!

 

[Michchamp]

I clicked on this thread wondering why it has 61 replies, but it made sense once I saw it involved one of Hungry's classic circular, name-calling arguments with multiple spartans.

 

[hungry]

Are you really saying you're right because you agree w/ the refs? So the refs are infallible and all you have to do to be right is agree with them? Your powers of reasoning never cease to amaze. But there's still a problem here - you are wrong. The two TD drives both had bad PI calls. If you're saying there was a third, fine - there was a third. There was also a bad holding and a missed call on the FG drive. That's all 3 scoring drives, but even if you say I'm wrong and it's only 2 of 3, they still cost us the game. There were other factors - recall the first I listed was Dantonio's stupid mistakes.

I already told Alonso I think he's wrong and most observers also disagree with him.

you can say you haven't changed your story but that doesn't make it true. we have a record of it and it's pretty clear.

Finally, to paraphrase Deion Sanders - it aint trolling if it's true. So I'm a coward for telling you what I think? That sounds like a personal attack from behind a keyboard - you are such a coward!

You talk a lot, but all I hear is, "wahhhh! The refs made us lose"

 

[byco42]

I am pleased to report that this spirited exchange has escalated to new heights with the introduction of Deion Sanders's opinion of trolling. I think I'll go on the MSU boards and simply type "68-32-5" ad infinitum on every thread and claim it's not trolling because it is true.

 

[TheVictors]

Don't forget Vince Papale! You're missing almost 2 decades of his career after philly. For about a decade and a half he worked in TV, then went to the Rams for a bit then KC. I don't really follow the nfl so I have no opinion of him as a coach but he was the best color commentator, in my opinion. And that wasn't a rant, just a better analogy and a list of announcers that suck - Spielman least of all but he's not polished enough to get beyond Espn2.

I don't care if you like Vermeil or not ...you rant aimed at me, asserting who I like doing color is what warrants no reply.

carry on with your merry-go-round fun!

 

[Sbee]

I clicked on this thread wondering why it has 61 replies, but it made sense once I saw it involved one of Hungry's classic circular, name-calling arguments with multiple spartans.

let he, who is without sin, cast the first stone

 

[Spartanmack]

You talk a lot, but all I hear is, "wahhhh! The refs made us lose"

then you definitely don't know what you're talking about. The calls weren't even the first thing on my list of why we lost that game. Why don't you go not make sense somewhere else and leave the football talk to the grown ups.

 

[Spartanmack]

I am pleased to report that this spirited exchange has escalated to new heights with the introduction of Deion Sanders's opinion of trolling. I think I'll go on the MSU boards and simply type "68-32-5" ad infinitum on every thread and claim it's not trolling because it is true.

Please - it's Deion Sanders' explanation for why it's NOT trolling. Really, it's an adaptation of his quote regarding what is or is not trash talking - hence the "paraphrase".

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't care if you like Vermeil or not ...you rant aimed at me, asserting who I like doing color is what warrants no reply.

carry on with your merry-go-round fun!

do you often reply multiple times to things you don't care about? and those were questions about who you might think was better not a rant of assertions.

 

[hungry]

I clicked on this thread wondering why it has 61 replies, but it made sense once I saw it involved one of Hungry's classic circular, name-calling arguments with multiple spartans.

Yeah, I know. Did you see how I made him say, "i know you are, but what am I?"