ChiliIrishHammock24

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 10:24 PM) Nah, GameCube says hi I don't think Gamecube was bad, outside of those mini-discs. And I think in relative terms, Gamecube will do better than WiiU.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 09:47 PM) The Wii U is actually sorta cool. You can use the controller as a handheld gaming device. So you don't need to hog the TV. It's its best feature IMO. Which honestly is kind of sad, but cool at the same time. Right, I understand that, but at least what I've seen from the games so far, it doesn't look interesting. Also, that pad is huge. I would assume they cost a lot to replace as well. What if you want multiple people to play on one console, does this mean you need to buy multiple "pad" things? How much would that cost. I can see uses for that screen as a second menu, but I just don't like how big it is. What I wish Sony would do, and I am surprised they haven't yet, it create a little 2x3 inch rectangle screen that connects to the top of your PS3 controller (to the USB port on top) that acts as a second screen. Like for instance if they had it for Assassin's Creed 3 and that little screen was your weapon or item list where you could set it up like that instead of hitting START to change your weapon wheel or shortcuts. Or in The Show if that screen showed the opposing pitchers pitch repoitoire with pitch speeds and wind speed/direction. And then when you are pitching, it shows the batter's hot/cold zones and wind speed/direction. THAT is what I want Sony to do, and maybe WiiU will finally push them to this sort of integration.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 09:42 PM) Quit hatin, you have your ps3. No need to hate on Nintendo I don't hate on Nintendo, I just think the WiiU looks real dumb, and I think it will be Nintendo's biggest, and really only, flop.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 09:11 PM) I wonder how the system sales do once holiday season is over, it definitely didn't get the hype the original wii, ps3 and 360 did when they were launching IMO. That's because it looks stupid.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 08:49 PM) Far Cry 2: African jungle driving simulator. Ha, seriously. I do remember a TON of driving around in that game. Hope I can push through this thing in the next 2-3 weeks.

Far Cry 3 looks really awesome. I've owned Far Cry 2 for many years now, but never really played it much (it's actually quite hard). But I'm giving it a second chance now, as a prep for FC3. IGN gave it a 9.0, and the video review made it look sweet.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 08:02 PM) Michael Silverman ‏@MikeSilvermanBB This is interesting @Royals_Report: KC & #RedSox have discussed Jon Lester-Wil Myers deal. Nothing's close, but still: http://bit.ly/Spxgwg My god, Wil Myers had some gaudy numbers at age 21. I have no idea how I've never heard of this guy.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 08:04 PM) I don't say stuff often, but I'll say this. Take a break from this topic/thread. You're burying yourself. Trying to. It's over. I know how to proceed in this thread from now on. So, it's done.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 07:40 PM) That's merely an accurate recitation of the facts as they occurred instead of the version of events you would have us believe. Yep, completely accurate about how I apparently "felt" after each of those. You nailed it. Where'd you get your PhD? You're good.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 07:18 PM) Joe, this is simply not what happened. You complained or "thought out loud" about a play that happened in the Cowboys game a few weeks ago. Several people mocked you, my guess is partially because you are a Cowboys' fan, partially because the play involved Dez Bryant, and partially because posts of yours in the past have rubbed folks the wrong way. This made you angry. Yesterday, a close play occurred in the end zone involving the Bears' Matt Spaeth. You found this play to be somehow analogous to the Bryant play, and felt like you could get a point across to those who mocked you the previous week. You made a snarky reference to the play in question, before any Bears fan or any poster whatsoever had commented on it. There was no one to disagree with yet. Who were you disagreeing with? The referees who called it a touchdown? Some Bears fans saw your attempt to compare the Bryant play and the Spaeth play and further mocked you. This made you more angry. Last night and this morning some Bears fans were having a discussion on the worth of Cutler and some measures of value articulated by well-known ESPN analysts. You enter the discussion not with any kind of observation or substantive point, but instead with another snarky rhetorical question designed to inflame the participants of the discussion. I accused you of trolling. This made you even more angry, and you began arguing with myself and Kyyle, among others. Yep. You nailed it, Doctor. And I didn't even have to pay for this session, what a deal! Move on.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 07:14 PM) You clearly haven't learned anything, hell I like Dez Bryant and even Cowboy fans know he was clear out of bounds you seemingly are just blind to the issue. Yup.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 06:24 PM) This reminds me of Neftali Feliz and the Rangers. Basically a bad idea. Or Sale and the Sox.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 04:16 PM) You want to argue that. Do it in private messages. you've been sent a warning. You can either appreciate the forwardness in the fact that we touched base with you, told you what you need to do, etc, or you can not head the advice and eventually get suspended and banned. You decide. Who sent me a warning about this? I have no private messages. Anyway, I've learned my lesson. Don't disagree with Bears fans over a close play, or suffer the wrath of being labeled "unanimously" as a troll, because no one in their right mind would have a differing opinion, so it must be trolling. Loud and clear. I'll stick to just talking about my Cowboys and Rams, if that's not considered trolling, of course.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 03:58 PM) we did that too. You brought it up out of nowhere to elicit a response from Bears fans that clearly displeased you during the first round of this ridiculous Bryant was out of bounds discussion. And low and behold, you got the response you wanted and at the same time set yourself as the woe-is-me poster of a Non bears team that is being witchhunted because you dont agree with them. You have quite the imagination. I didn't realize this was a whole intricate operation I was setting up. Thanks for the credit for engineering this whole scheme though, I must be pretty good at this "trolling" thing you speak of.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 05:16 PM) I took it no other way than Capone and his guys are there to get Nucky back in control. Harrow somehow has to get into the mix and be an enforcer for Nucky or knocks off Gillian to get the kid. I don't know that Harrow will actually kill Gillian, but I think the kid will end up with Harrow.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 03:52 PM) I already told you, just like many others have. trolling. Apparently your definition of it is different than ours, but that doesnt surprise me given the current conversation of the out of bounds rule. Then tell me, what about my comment about Spaeth was trolling.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 03:46 PM) The runner is considered down when either a: His forward progress stops or b: any part of his body other than his foot or hand touches the ground AND he is touched by a player of an opposing team. Bryants hand touched down out of bounds before any other part of his body, thus he was out of bounds...Simple as that. Not the same rule, as others have already mentioned.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 03:41 PM) You came into the thread and referred to a call without even mentioning the name of the player or the team. It is clear you knew who your target was and what your intention was. The play was not being discussed yet by Bears fans, and yet you commented on it in the way that you did (which implies that you did it almost immediately after it happened) merely for the sake of starting some sort of argument about it. You certainly did not say "Ok fellas, how is that different then the Bryant play?" Or "Guys, don't you think that is the same sort of thing that happened with Bryant?" No, you clearly went after some folks you were angry at because they razzed you about your silly comments from the Cowboys game. I didn't mention a player or team because 1) I didn't know who the player was and 2) I assumed most people here were watching the Bears game, so I didn't feel the need to mention the play it was, considering it just happened. I don't see how that is an proof of trolling whatsoever. We all talk freely about a game that is going on, and no one else is accused of trolling. The play was not being discussed yet because it just happened. It hadn't even been ruled upon yet when I commented. I am supposed to wait until Bears fans talk about it to mention it, otherwise it is trolling? WHAT? I said.... QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Nov 25, 2012 -> 02:19 PM) His knee hit out-of-bounds about 1/50th of a second after his foot hit in bounds, and according to the ruling on the Dez Bryant finger roll, it shouldn't be a TD. And yet somehow saying "how is that different then the Bryant play?" somehow makes that statement completely legitimate and not considered trolling? WHAT? This makes no sense. I didn't identify anyone who didn't agree with me about the Bryant play from weeks back, mainly because I don't pay attention to who thinks what and when. I rarely remember who I get in disagreements with. You are reaching way too much with this. Trying to make this a witch hunt simply because I disagreed with a call that went the Bears way. This is insane. You are essentially trying to prohibit anyone from having an opinion that jives with the opinion of Bears fans here. That's all I can gather.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 03:37 PM) We all know pretty well what it is Joe. And what is it, Kyle?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 03:34 PM) I could be wrong here, but I don't think "one hand" counts as being in-bounds. So it doesn't matter that his hand landed in-bounds first and then his pinky hit. When his pinky hit, he hadn't yet completed the catch in-bounds so it was incomplete. Iamshack says an entire appendage counts in whether someone is in bounds or not, so in that case, it makes sense that he was ruled out of bounds because although 90% of his hand was in bounds FIRST, the last 10% eventually landed out of bounds, nullifying the catch. But I believe a hand down does count as being "in bounds", so long as all of the hand is in.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 03:33 PM) The way the current rules are interpreted is that if any part of your hand or foot hits down on the ground immediately after you make the catch, your entire hand or foot (that hits the ground) needs to be in bounds. This is not up for debate. Every week you see a player get part of his second foot in bounds but the rest of it comes down out of bounds and that does not count as the second foot being in bounds. Basically, the entire appendage that touches the ground must be in bounds. This is not at all a controversial rule or interpretation of the rule. Not sure why you seem to be so upset about it. Then that's all that had to be said. Not some bulls*** about trolling. I did not know it was interpreted that your ENTIRE appendage must come down in bounds, regardless of whether parts of it landed at different times. I have seen a play in which a receiver caught a ball on the tips of his toes, and then his heel landed on the line out of bounds when he completely came to rest and it was ruled a catch because he toes were in bounds first. It must have been the wrong call and I was referencing that call when thinking about the Bryant catch because it was a similar instance in which part of his hand was down before all of it. If what you say is how it's interpreted, then fine, that makes sense considering w/ Spaeth it occurred on different parts of his body, meaning the same rule doesn't apply. Iamshack said that needed to be said. Now it's done.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 03:28 PM) Do i do that all the time? Or do i do it when someone is starting to display a pattern of trolling threads? I'M NOT f***ING TROLLING. Jesus, that is the thing. I get threatened to stop trolling when I am not even trolling, but then can't argue that I am not trolling? Again, disagreeing with a call that went for the Bears is NOT TROLLING. You are an Admin and you can't even decipher between a disagreeing opinion and trolling?

QUOTE (chw42 @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 03:23 PM) The Spaeth TD was clearly a touchdown. His foot was clearly in bounds before his knee was out. You can't say that about the Bryant play. I know what you're getting at. That being in bounds by so little or being out of bounds by so little and having two different results is somewhat unfair. But those are the rules and if we're gonna bend the rules for things that are borderline, then why the hell do we even have rules? No, it's the fact that Dez's hand actually hit IN BOUNDS first, then his pinky landed out of bounds a millisecond later. In both instances, the player came down in bounds, then another body part landed out of bounds almost simultaneously. Dez's was closer than Spaeths, but what the correct time frame to say "he was in bounds long enough before he was out of bounds"? That's the gray area there. His pinky was not the first thing that landed. And the issue or not about the agreement of that play right now, it's that I am somehow just trolling by saying Speath was out of bounds, instead of simply starting a conversation. As if my comment about Spaeth somehow had malicious intent just to piss people off, because that's what trolling is, and that's what I am being "unanimously" accused of, regardless of our beliefs on the Dez vs. Spaeth plays.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 03:22 PM) It's not even worth trying. It's fairly obvious the NFL was just out to get the Cowboys during that game. Nope, never said that at all. Not even once. Terrible reach.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) GMAB, if I actually threatened and acted like that, you would have been suspended a long time ago for the pet thread. Take your big brother bulls*** elsewhere Ummm, YOU are the one who just threatened for me to end the conversation or else I would "take a break". How is that not threatening me?