NomarFachix

:glasses: Good times. Bad outcomes!

Yeah, been ugly. Sestito threw a Jody Shelley hit, been chaotic since then. Avery has been causing trouble. Rangers look ugly.

Nice suspension coming.

We are live! Go Rangers!

Pyrexx killed it on this one

http://i53.tinypic.com/34ijxa8.jpg

Word now is that the hand is bruised, not broken.

Final Score: 015737 Accuracy: 96.1% Made it to level 64 I think

I honestly can't objectively answer yes or no. I would never have a situation where I'm forced to pay child support. If I was making millions, I'd want my kid to have everything in the world.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/09/26/john-lackey-divorce-boston-red-sox-krista-lackey-breast-cancer-playoffs-wild-card/#.ToCqrtTaF8E

The Yankees fan served Erik Bedard with papers related to child support, and was talking about it on his facebook. He did his job and served a player making millions with child support papers on behalf of his client. On the subject of typical scum, how about the guy who isn't taking care of his kids?

That you were wrong? Nice. Seems like the thread has run its course. See ya!

Why are you dictating what his opinion is, when he was just here telling you what his opinion was? An opinion that hasn't changed? Actually, this conversation should have ended there. When Fish told you that you were wrong. Because, well, you're wrong. I thought maybe presenting solid fact in text form would sway you into admitting, for once, that you were wrong.. but alas, wasted keystrokes. lol

His opinion of the two running backs didn't change a lick. He was just in here telling you that his opinion on the two backs didn't change a lick. Why are you still at it?

Grand. I never said his final answer didn't change. Just that his opinion on the two backs didn't. And it didn't. You know it, I know it.

Good, so what the [expletive] are you arguing about? Dolt. I know, you have no social skills. You'd be fidgeting and anxious the entire time. Like how to predict a 12-4 record, a full 6 games off the correct mark? I'll pass.

Answer mine, first: 1. Did he say Adrian Peterson is better than Chris Johnson if he didn't fumble a lot? 2. Does he still maintain that Adrian Peterson is better than Chris Johnson if he doesn't fumble a lot? The answer to both is yes. You bumped up the thread, where there was no active conversation and no difference in opinions than were presented over a year ago, because you try, on a regular basis, to make yourself look good. Your efforts are futile. My initial comment in the thread was spot on, and your spin cycle washing machine can't change that.

Those two lines make me laugh. You are too funny.

Better than who? Simple English, sir. No, he didn't. He said he'd take Johnson, because Peterson fumbled too much. His opinion, as he stated then and reaffirmed not too long ago, is that he felt Peterson was the better runner if he managed his fumbles. Peterson was better then, if he managed his fumbles. Peterson is better now, if he manages his fumbles. Opinion changed? No, you're just trying to make it seem that way because you look foolish. I am not arguing over opinion. He gave his opinion. Peterson is better if he doesn't fumble. That opinion has not changed since the creation of this thread. He can say his opinion didn't change, I can say his opinion didn't change, Real Deal can say his opinion didn't change, PFT can say his opinion didn't change, and Jesus Christ can say his opinion didn't change. But EastCoastNiner is the ruler of Fish's opinion, and he says it has.

Wait, so your argument is that today, over a year after this thread was created, you posted some bullshit about qualifiers? He posted and reaffirmed his opinion before you even made that post. That post is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing. Good Lord. His opinion has not changed since this thread started. Peterson, minus fumbles, is better. That is his stance today, it was his stance over a year ago. His. Opinion. Has. Not. Changed. The very first thing that was said. No, what I wanted to do was make a poke at you for bumping a thread where you were "right", and bumping it multiple times on multiple days, because it is the only place lately where you don't look like a [expletive]ing clown. However, in the process, you continued to make yourself look like a clown. You decided that you'd like to argue semantics so that you could save some face. It hasn't been successful.

HE JUST [expletive]ING TOLD YOU HIMSELF THAT HIS OPINION HASN'T CHANGED! Are you serious right now? How the [expletive] did you get into a college? How did they give you a high school diploma? I cannot fathom that people let you get this far in life being so [expletive]ing stupid and bullheaded. Unbelievable. Go lick a window.

Quote it, because it sure as [expletive] isn't in this thread. Clown.

You're wrong, and are fighting tooth and nail for a wrong answer. Who's the idiot? Opinion =/= Answer, we've already gone over this. Who doesn't understand what? Twist words? My exact words were "no new opinions". Straight from Fish, he just said his opinion hasn't changed. You were wrong. Game over.

Agree