Started By
Message
re: SEC Preview - Missouri "A Muted Roar"
Posted on 7/24/15 at 5:16 pm to Porker Face
Posted on 7/24/15 at 5:16 pm to Porker Face
Mizzou be like ruh...oh forget it. 
Zou fans that is a joke. Sad I have to explain that but after being misunderstood more than once recently and knowing y'all have those who do pick on you a lot, clarification is sadly in order.
Zou fans that is a joke. Sad I have to explain that but after being misunderstood more than once recently and knowing y'all have those who do pick on you a lot, clarification is sadly in order.
0
Posted on 7/24/15 at 5:42 pm to kilo
quote:
Well thats even worse. The East was clearly the better division for a good chunk of your time in the SEC. Do you all even think before you post stuff?
Before you post something like that, go ahead and ask yourself, "am I a dumbass?"
SEC Championships since 1992:
Florida-7 '93, '94, '95, '96, '00, '06, '08
Georgia-2 '02, '05
Tennessee-2 '97, '98
Alabama-5 '92, '99, '09, '12, '14
Auburn-3 '04, '10, '13
LSU-4 '01, '03, '07, '11
Now if you can count, that is 11 for the East, 12 for the West. East is clearly better.
Maybe you were meaning National Championships. Nope, I count 7 for the West since 1992, 4 for the East.
I guess the real question is, do YOU think before you post stuff?
Posted on 7/24/15 at 5:48 pm to troyt37
It's kilo. His dumbass doesn't check facts. Just spews bullshite then evaporates so he doesn't back his shite up
Posted on 7/24/15 at 5:58 pm to Porker Face
21-14
This post was edited on 7/24/15 at 5:58 pm
Posted on 7/24/15 at 6:03 pm to Porker Face
Remember when Gary Pinkel dragged his nuts across Bert's chin?
I do.
I do.
Posted on 7/24/15 at 6:04 pm to troyt37
quote:
Before you post something like that, go ahead and ask yourself, "am I a dumbass?"
SEC Championships since 1992:
Florida-7 '93, '94, '95, '96, '00, '06, '08
Georgia-2 '02, '05
Tennessee-2 '97, '98
Alabama-5 '92, '99, '09, '12, '14
Auburn-3 '04, '10, '13
LSU-4 '01, '03, '07, '11
Now if you can count, that is 11 for the East, 12 for the West. East is clearly better.
Maybe you were meaning National Championships. Nope, I count 7 for the West since 1992, 4 for the East.
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. He said "for a good chunk," not over the entirety of the aforementioned time period. He meant that, during several of the years during that time period, winning the west would have been much easier than winning the east, which is accurate.
Posted on 7/24/15 at 6:06 pm to TigerCruise
Russ needs to put a rear-view mirror on that hat so he can get an occasional glance at those "hawgs"..
Posted on 7/24/15 at 6:24 pm to MizzouAntler
quote:
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. He said "for a good chunk," not over the entirety of the aforementioned time period. He meant that, during several of the years during that time period, winning the west would have been much easier than winning the east, which is accurate.
I think you need to ask yourself the same question, genius.
quote:
He meant that, during several of the years during that time period, winning the west would have been much easier than winning the east, which is accurate.
Since the West won more SEC championships during that time, doesn't it stand to reason that during at least one more than your "several years", it was in fact easier to win the east than the west? Trying to determine if you both are complete dumbasses now. Not sure if you know what accurate means. If the exact opposite of your statement is just as, if not more "accurate", can we deem it accurate bullshite, and move on?
Posted on 7/24/15 at 7:11 pm to MizzouAntler
quote:
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. He said "for a good chunk," not over the entirety of the aforementioned time period. He meant that, during several of the years during that time period, winning the west would have been much easier than winning the east, which is accurate.
They know exactly what we are talking about. You have to consider the source many times around here. I mean, his numbers completely agree with my statement.
Porker starts the name calling when I dont come to the trough to feed him.
Posted on 7/24/15 at 7:16 pm to troyt37
Again, that Arky education is really paying off. But oh well, I will spell it out for you even further.
Several does not mean the same thing as most. He wasn't claiming that the east was better than the west a majority of the time. He claimed the east was better than the west for "a good chunk" of the time. He made this statement in support of his argument that Arkansas has had ample time to win a division title and can't use the west's superiority as an excuse, because they have had more years in the west when it wasnt as good as the east than Missouri has had in the conference.
Is that dumbed down enough for you?
Several does not mean the same thing as most. He wasn't claiming that the east was better than the west a majority of the time. He claimed the east was better than the west for "a good chunk" of the time. He made this statement in support of his argument that Arkansas has had ample time to win a division title and can't use the west's superiority as an excuse, because they have had more years in the west when it wasnt as good as the east than Missouri has had in the conference.
Is that dumbed down enough for you?
Posted on 7/24/15 at 7:24 pm to MizzouAntler
quote:
Is that dumbed down enough for you?
Is this rhetorical?
Posted on 7/24/15 at 7:56 pm to MizzouAntler
quote:
He claimed the east was better than the west for "a good chunk" of the time.
And I claim that the west was better than the east for "a good chunk" plus at least one year, as evidenced by the fact that the west won more championships than the east in that time frame.
The subject at hand was the fact that Missouri has won the East in a couple of obviously, and historically down years for the East division. Oddly enough, I was one of the few who said Missouri deserved respect for what they had done, and then truthfully stated that the East had been down, and that if Missouri could do it when the East returned to form, they would deserve even more.
Then someone comes in with "fans with the least room to talk", to which I replied that Arkansas is in the division with Alabama, LSU, and Auburn, the implication being that we do in fact have room to talk, as those 3 have been the dominant force in SEC football since Arkansas has been here.
Then kilo comes in with "that's even worse" giving the official "a good chunk" citation, sounding for all the world like he wasn't a dumbass. Problem being, if "a good chunk" in fact means "the lesser part" then his statement is complete and utter bullshite. The fact is, "a better chunk" of our time in the SEC has been dominated by the west, and only the colossally ignorant would argue otherwise. This brings us to you.
Somehow you feel the need to question my comprehension, and education. After this magnificent display of your comprehension and logic, I'll just shake my head, laugh, and let you have the thread. I now have to ask myself what kind of dumbass I am, for trying to engage some of you in an intelligent conversation.
Posted on 7/24/15 at 7:58 pm to troyt37
And what they are saying is Alabama, Auburn, and LSU had a down period as well.
How hard is this to understand?
How hard is this to understand?
Posted on 7/24/15 at 8:09 pm to TigerCruise
quote:
And what they are saying is Alabama, Auburn, and LSU had a down period as well.
How hard is this to understand?
Apparently pretty hard for the Hog variety. The dissertation trying to spin this shite is hilarious.
This post was edited on 7/24/15 at 8:13 pm
Posted on 7/24/15 at 8:10 pm to TigerCruise
quote:
And what they are saying is Alabama, Auburn, and LSU had a down period as well. How hard is this to understand?
Not hard at all. I made no claim otherwise. Now can the other geniuses understand that whatever down period they are claiming those 3 had, is in fact not as far down as the entire East has been since Arkansas came in? It makes "a good chunk", "the lesser part", and therefore shits all over his point.
Posted on 7/24/15 at 8:17 pm to troyt37
quote:
Not hard at all. I made no claim otherwise. Now can the other geniuses understand that whatever down period they are claiming those 3 had, is in fact not as far down as the entire East has been since Arkansas came in? It makes "a good chunk", "the lesser part", and therefore shits all over his point.
You're an idiot. When you have to jump through this many hoops to try and counter an obvious point that nobody really disagrees with outside you... you probably dont have much of a point.
By the way, the 2013 East had two top 5 teams in the final AP for only the third time ever and the 1st time in a decade....but yeah, the East was terrible.
I await your next blog in response.
Posted on 7/24/15 at 9:23 pm to kilo
I should have listened to you Kilo, there's no arguing with him. I just don't believe that he truly doesn't understand. I'm convinced that he just acts like he doesn't understand because it is devastating to his point.
Posted on 7/24/15 at 9:47 pm to MizzouAntler
He's mad in 98 when the Hogs won the West it was one of it's worst yeears ever
Posted on 7/26/15 at 7:43 am to kilo
Not name calling, just honestly providing an evaluation of your posting habits and abilities
Posted on 7/26/15 at 6:02 pm to troyt37
quote:
Not hard at all. I made no claim otherwise. Now can the other geniuses understand that whatever down period they are claiming those 3 had, is in fact not as far down as the entire East has been since Arkansas came in? It makes "a good chunk", "the lesser part", and therefore shits all over his point.
Please keep posting. This is gonna work out spectacularly.
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News