RickyTicky
| Favorite team: | |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 69 |
| Registered on: | 1/17/2012 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Gumps, who do you consider your second biggest rival?
Posted by RickyTicky on 3/20/12 at 3:02 pm
Auburn is considered trash by many Alabama fans and they were not, for most of our history together, a national brand and still aren't really.
Tennessee is just about, almost, some would even say that they are, in the upper echelon of football teams. Auburn is nowhere near that.
To play Auburn was to simply play the retarded little brother but, to play TN. was to play a powerhouse that deserved respect.
That is how the Alabama-Vol rivalry began, as equals, as the two premier teams in the SEC that represented the South and the SEC to the world when teams like Auburn and LSU and Mississippi State and Florida were unknown and not discussed or cared about.
We have history together that an LSU fan could not understand due to their main rival being Tulane. It's just not quite the same as the Alabama-Tennessee rivalry.
Sure, some of the luster has fell off recently, but, Alabama-TN. will be back when Tennessee starts winning again.
Tennessee is just about, almost, some would even say that they are, in the upper echelon of football teams. Auburn is nowhere near that.
To play Auburn was to simply play the retarded little brother but, to play TN. was to play a powerhouse that deserved respect.
That is how the Alabama-Vol rivalry began, as equals, as the two premier teams in the SEC that represented the South and the SEC to the world when teams like Auburn and LSU and Mississippi State and Florida were unknown and not discussed or cared about.
We have history together that an LSU fan could not understand due to their main rival being Tulane. It's just not quite the same as the Alabama-Tennessee rivalry.
Sure, some of the luster has fell off recently, but, Alabama-TN. will be back when Tennessee starts winning again.
1
re: Gumps, who do you consider your second biggest rival?
Posted by RickyTicky on 3/20/12 at 2:56 pm
Frankly, anyone that can't determine that those designations such as DoucheCanoe, SkunkButt, etc... aren't usernames isn't welcome at WoollyAl.
We like people who have been online more than a week to participate.
We like people who have been online more than a week to participate.
re: national championships using bama logic
Posted by RickyTicky on 2/5/12 at 3:59 pm
Alabama claims 4 titles from before the AP poll was created in 1936. Prior to the establishment of the AP and UPI/Coaches Polls, there was no "gold standard" in regard to football polls.
Since the inception of the AP and UPI polls, each of Alabama's national titles but one were awarded by either the AP or UPI/Coaches poll. 1941 is completely bogus.
You can argue the merits or procedures used by the AP and UPI polls, but the bottom line is that many other teams claim titles from these polls in their official records (Notre Dame, OU, etc.)
People argue that Alabama claims titles that were awarded before bowl losses. Many people fail to realize two things.
1) Prior to the late 60s/early 70s, bowls were not widely used as evaluating tools for final rankings. They were exhibition games to reward teams and fans for a successful season, but there wasn't a whole lot of value placed in the outcome of the games. It wasn't like today when anyone with a pulse at the end of the season can go play in the Chuck E. Cheese Bowl. Some time ago, bowls were a legitimate reward for the best teams, but most voters placed more value on the body of work during the regular season.
2) Some teams elected to not participate in bowl games. Notre Dame is a prime example. The Irish, as an independent school, declined bowl invitations for almost 40 years! MANY of their national titles were won during seasons when they did not participate in a postseason bowl. From the 30s or 40s until the early 70s they did this. Notre Dame claims about 15 national titles now, but had the luxury of not playing in a game they'd have likely lost on the postseason during many of those "championship runs."
Now tell me...how is it fair on one hand to say that a team like Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. that stepped up and played real competition in a bowl game should not have won a title because they lost said bowl game, but on the other hand, saying it's okay for ND to claim umpteen national titles while they played a weak schedule and declined the challenge of a bowl game?
How many of their elite teams in the 40s-60s would have had their records tarnished because of a bowl loss, as you're claiming Alabama did?
Finally, Alabama went undefeated and untied in 1945 and 1966. To honor Army during the 1945 season, they were awarded the national title in '45. I won't argue the legitimacy of that title because they deserved it and it was a gesture of patriotism and solidarity to do that. But still, Alabama had a very good team and could lay claim to that title. We do not.
In 1966, Alabama had claimed a share of the title in 64 and 65, but the national media wanted to send a message to Southern football teams because many Southern schools had not integrated their athletic programs yet. ND an MSU played to a tie in East Lansing, and both teams basically sat on the ball the entire second half playing for a tie. Meanwhile, Alabama went undefeated and outscored opponents by an average of 20+ points and obliterated their opponent in the bowl game. ND and MSU claim a split national title, and Alabama finished third in voting despite starting the season ranked #1. We do not claim this title.
Now, as for H-Town Tiger and his theory that football started when the AP was created, well, that's just silly and chidish. The AP didn't create American football, come on y'all. LSU fans are smarter than that.
Since the inception of the AP and UPI polls, each of Alabama's national titles but one were awarded by either the AP or UPI/Coaches poll. 1941 is completely bogus.
You can argue the merits or procedures used by the AP and UPI polls, but the bottom line is that many other teams claim titles from these polls in their official records (Notre Dame, OU, etc.)
People argue that Alabama claims titles that were awarded before bowl losses. Many people fail to realize two things.
1) Prior to the late 60s/early 70s, bowls were not widely used as evaluating tools for final rankings. They were exhibition games to reward teams and fans for a successful season, but there wasn't a whole lot of value placed in the outcome of the games. It wasn't like today when anyone with a pulse at the end of the season can go play in the Chuck E. Cheese Bowl. Some time ago, bowls were a legitimate reward for the best teams, but most voters placed more value on the body of work during the regular season.
2) Some teams elected to not participate in bowl games. Notre Dame is a prime example. The Irish, as an independent school, declined bowl invitations for almost 40 years! MANY of their national titles were won during seasons when they did not participate in a postseason bowl. From the 30s or 40s until the early 70s they did this. Notre Dame claims about 15 national titles now, but had the luxury of not playing in a game they'd have likely lost on the postseason during many of those "championship runs."
Now tell me...how is it fair on one hand to say that a team like Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. that stepped up and played real competition in a bowl game should not have won a title because they lost said bowl game, but on the other hand, saying it's okay for ND to claim umpteen national titles while they played a weak schedule and declined the challenge of a bowl game?
How many of their elite teams in the 40s-60s would have had their records tarnished because of a bowl loss, as you're claiming Alabama did?
Finally, Alabama went undefeated and untied in 1945 and 1966. To honor Army during the 1945 season, they were awarded the national title in '45. I won't argue the legitimacy of that title because they deserved it and it was a gesture of patriotism and solidarity to do that. But still, Alabama had a very good team and could lay claim to that title. We do not.
In 1966, Alabama had claimed a share of the title in 64 and 65, but the national media wanted to send a message to Southern football teams because many Southern schools had not integrated their athletic programs yet. ND an MSU played to a tie in East Lansing, and both teams basically sat on the ball the entire second half playing for a tie. Meanwhile, Alabama went undefeated and outscored opponents by an average of 20+ points and obliterated their opponent in the bowl game. ND and MSU claim a split national title, and Alabama finished third in voting despite starting the season ranked #1. We do not claim this title.
Now, as for H-Town Tiger and his theory that football started when the AP was created, well, that's just silly and chidish. The AP didn't create American football, come on y'all. LSU fans are smarter than that.
re: national championships using bama logic
Posted by RickyTicky on 2/5/12 at 3:51 pm
We will start with '25 and '26. Many, many, many teams claim NC's from this time period and Alabama doing it is nothing unusual, nothing out of the ordinary at all.
1.) 1925. The facts in the case for 1925 are that Alabama, at the time, was widely considered to be the champions of college football during that year to all the football going public alive at that time. If you were a football fan and followed football, the University of Alabama was the team to be envied this particular year.
'Bama (10-0) traveled out to sunny LA for their first of many Rose Bowls. They defeated a 10-0 Washington team.
Dartmouth, the team that was even halfway in the picture, was 8-0, didn't play a bowl game, and played 4 non-1a teams out of 8 opponents.
'Bama, if there was no such thing as a NC at that time, was certainly the best team in the country. Deal with it. This is the game that made 8,000 Northern sportswriters and West Coast fans commit suicide, lol. Bama(10-0)
2.) 1926. This one is really easy. People were not stupid back in those days. They had just as much sense as modern day folk. They knew champions when they saw them. Let me lay it out for 'ya:
Stanford was 10-0-1 after the TIE in the Rose Bowl with 'Bama. Alabama was 9-0-1 after the TIE with Stanford in the Rose Bowl. Pretty close, right?
Wrong.
Stanford played 6 of what are now considered non-1A opponents out of a total of 10 reg. season games. How many non-1-A opponents did 'Bama face? One, yes, just one.
Therefore, Alabama was what we call in our time National Champions 2 years in a row.
3.) 1930 Another clear cut NC for 'Bama. 'Bama went 9-0 reg. season and then ventured out to sunny LA again, they got tired of seeing us, and stomped a hole clean through the chest cavities of a very strong 9-0, at the time, Washington State team. The final score = Champions 24, Wash. State 0.
Ouch, that one hurt the pride of lot's of folks out on the West Coast.
What did Notre Dame do? They went undefeated at 10-0 just like 'Bama but they stayed at home and said "no mas, no mas" we don't wants to play no bowl game.
Advantage = 'Bama. Number 3 baby, number 3 on our way to greatness. (Bama 10-0)
4.) 1934. A very strong Alabama team this year. Gritty and determined.
In 1934, Alabama surged through a regular season destruction, utter destruction of all opponents, and finished it all off with a face shattering pummeling of a very strong Stanford team whose record, at the time, stood at 9-0-1.
We shamed them and once again made everyone curse those stupid Southern boys who keep bursting apart cherised ideas about football supremacy on the West Coast and in the North.
The score was 29-13 in favor of who? That's right, 'Bama.
3 time Rose Bowl Champ-Ions by this time. You can't stop a team that drops 316 points on the heads of their opponents and lets them only score 46, you just can't stop that type of juggernaut.
What did any team that was even close do? Minnesota went 8-0 and beat a bunch of 4 win teams and naturally, didn't play in a bowl game, no sir, not their style.
Chalk another one up for what very well may be the greatest football team to ever strap on helmets, the Alabama Crimson Tide. (Bama 10-0)
And on we go:
1941. Not a NC. The year 1941 was put on the list to keep Alabama fans humble.
#5.) 1961. AP + UPI + just about everything and everyone else chose 'Bama. Enough said. 5 so far, many more to come. ('Bama 11-0)
#6.) 1964. The AP & UPI, the two big dogs, chose Alabama plus a couple of other selectors. To hell with Arkansas or anyone else. Sure, the AP gave out their trophy before bowl games, that is the way it was. Who is Alabama to tell the AP that what they were doing was wrong? They were just a humble football team doing it's best.
If the BCS decided to give out NC trophies before bowl games in '08, I am sure whoever won it would take it. Let's get real everyone. Don't revise history. 50 years from now, BCS championships may be considered to be invalid, that does not negate the fact that your team may have won a BCS championship. It is what it is. ('Bama 10-1)
#7.) 1965. #7. A great one. This particular trophy is very beautiful and well designed. For this one, I am going to give a link to a much more well thought out summary than I can come up with.
Here you go:
Anxious to avoid the uproar that followed its regular season final poll last year, AP waited until after New Year's to crown the 1965 national champion.
Good move. At the end of the regular season Michigan State, Arkansas and Nebraska were all 10?0, with Alabama at 8?1?1 (the Tide lost their opener to Georgia and tied Tennessee). The bowl match-ups had Arkansas playing LSU in the Cotton, Michigan State vs UCLA in the Rose, and Nebraska vs Alabama in the Orange. Each game followed the other on TV.
The three top-ranked teams all lost. Arkansas had its 22?game winning streak snapped in Dallas. LSU took a 14?7 lead in the second quarter then shut the Razorbacks out in the second half.
Michigan State, UPI's national champ, had opened the regular season with a 13?3 win over UCLA. The Spartans hoped to close the year on the same note, but couldn't overcome the Bruins' 14?0 halftime lead. The victory was UCLA's first Rose Bowl win ever.
So the Orange Bowl, in its second year at night, became the national championship game. Underdog Alabama built up a 24?7 lead by halftime then held off a Nebraska comeback to win 39?28.
Bama's Bear Bryant joined Minnesota's Bernie Bierman (1940?41), Army's Red Blaik (1944?45), Notre Dame's Frank Leahy (1946?47) and Oklahoma's Bud Wilkinson (1955?56) as the only coaches to win back-to-back national titles.
LINK
End of story. For 'Bama fans, it was a story book ending. ('Bama 9-1-1)
#8.) 1973. Love this one. 'Bama was undefeated at the end of the season and the UPI decided we were the best team in the country. It is a nice trophy too, kind of big. See, what many people don't understand is that at this time and during the preceding years, bowl games did not determine NC's, they weren't really important.
Wait, wait, how can that be, you may say. That is just the way it was. Bowl games were meant to be consolation prizes, not determinants of who was the NC. That was already decided after the regular season.
Once again it comes down to modern man attempting to place his mindset and values and ideas about how things should have been done to times past. Guess what? It doesn't work that way.
'Bama shared this one with Notre Dame, the team that beat them in a fantastic and 6 or 7 lead changing Sugar Bowl game. Don't believe Alabama won a NC this year? Come on down and take a look at the UPI trophy. That ain't no People's Championship, folks. ('Bama 11-1)
1.) 1925. The facts in the case for 1925 are that Alabama, at the time, was widely considered to be the champions of college football during that year to all the football going public alive at that time. If you were a football fan and followed football, the University of Alabama was the team to be envied this particular year.
'Bama (10-0) traveled out to sunny LA for their first of many Rose Bowls. They defeated a 10-0 Washington team.
Dartmouth, the team that was even halfway in the picture, was 8-0, didn't play a bowl game, and played 4 non-1a teams out of 8 opponents.
'Bama, if there was no such thing as a NC at that time, was certainly the best team in the country. Deal with it. This is the game that made 8,000 Northern sportswriters and West Coast fans commit suicide, lol. Bama(10-0)
2.) 1926. This one is really easy. People were not stupid back in those days. They had just as much sense as modern day folk. They knew champions when they saw them. Let me lay it out for 'ya:
Stanford was 10-0-1 after the TIE in the Rose Bowl with 'Bama. Alabama was 9-0-1 after the TIE with Stanford in the Rose Bowl. Pretty close, right?
Wrong.
Stanford played 6 of what are now considered non-1A opponents out of a total of 10 reg. season games. How many non-1-A opponents did 'Bama face? One, yes, just one.
Therefore, Alabama was what we call in our time National Champions 2 years in a row.
3.) 1930 Another clear cut NC for 'Bama. 'Bama went 9-0 reg. season and then ventured out to sunny LA again, they got tired of seeing us, and stomped a hole clean through the chest cavities of a very strong 9-0, at the time, Washington State team. The final score = Champions 24, Wash. State 0.
Ouch, that one hurt the pride of lot's of folks out on the West Coast.
What did Notre Dame do? They went undefeated at 10-0 just like 'Bama but they stayed at home and said "no mas, no mas" we don't wants to play no bowl game.
Advantage = 'Bama. Number 3 baby, number 3 on our way to greatness. (Bama 10-0)
4.) 1934. A very strong Alabama team this year. Gritty and determined.
In 1934, Alabama surged through a regular season destruction, utter destruction of all opponents, and finished it all off with a face shattering pummeling of a very strong Stanford team whose record, at the time, stood at 9-0-1.
We shamed them and once again made everyone curse those stupid Southern boys who keep bursting apart cherised ideas about football supremacy on the West Coast and in the North.
The score was 29-13 in favor of who? That's right, 'Bama.
3 time Rose Bowl Champ-Ions by this time. You can't stop a team that drops 316 points on the heads of their opponents and lets them only score 46, you just can't stop that type of juggernaut.
What did any team that was even close do? Minnesota went 8-0 and beat a bunch of 4 win teams and naturally, didn't play in a bowl game, no sir, not their style.
Chalk another one up for what very well may be the greatest football team to ever strap on helmets, the Alabama Crimson Tide. (Bama 10-0)
And on we go:
1941. Not a NC. The year 1941 was put on the list to keep Alabama fans humble.
#5.) 1961. AP + UPI + just about everything and everyone else chose 'Bama. Enough said. 5 so far, many more to come. ('Bama 11-0)
#6.) 1964. The AP & UPI, the two big dogs, chose Alabama plus a couple of other selectors. To hell with Arkansas or anyone else. Sure, the AP gave out their trophy before bowl games, that is the way it was. Who is Alabama to tell the AP that what they were doing was wrong? They were just a humble football team doing it's best.
If the BCS decided to give out NC trophies before bowl games in '08, I am sure whoever won it would take it. Let's get real everyone. Don't revise history. 50 years from now, BCS championships may be considered to be invalid, that does not negate the fact that your team may have won a BCS championship. It is what it is. ('Bama 10-1)
#7.) 1965. #7. A great one. This particular trophy is very beautiful and well designed. For this one, I am going to give a link to a much more well thought out summary than I can come up with.
Here you go:
Anxious to avoid the uproar that followed its regular season final poll last year, AP waited until after New Year's to crown the 1965 national champion.
Good move. At the end of the regular season Michigan State, Arkansas and Nebraska were all 10?0, with Alabama at 8?1?1 (the Tide lost their opener to Georgia and tied Tennessee). The bowl match-ups had Arkansas playing LSU in the Cotton, Michigan State vs UCLA in the Rose, and Nebraska vs Alabama in the Orange. Each game followed the other on TV.
The three top-ranked teams all lost. Arkansas had its 22?game winning streak snapped in Dallas. LSU took a 14?7 lead in the second quarter then shut the Razorbacks out in the second half.
Michigan State, UPI's national champ, had opened the regular season with a 13?3 win over UCLA. The Spartans hoped to close the year on the same note, but couldn't overcome the Bruins' 14?0 halftime lead. The victory was UCLA's first Rose Bowl win ever.
So the Orange Bowl, in its second year at night, became the national championship game. Underdog Alabama built up a 24?7 lead by halftime then held off a Nebraska comeback to win 39?28.
Bama's Bear Bryant joined Minnesota's Bernie Bierman (1940?41), Army's Red Blaik (1944?45), Notre Dame's Frank Leahy (1946?47) and Oklahoma's Bud Wilkinson (1955?56) as the only coaches to win back-to-back national titles.
LINK
End of story. For 'Bama fans, it was a story book ending. ('Bama 9-1-1)
#8.) 1973. Love this one. 'Bama was undefeated at the end of the season and the UPI decided we were the best team in the country. It is a nice trophy too, kind of big. See, what many people don't understand is that at this time and during the preceding years, bowl games did not determine NC's, they weren't really important.
Wait, wait, how can that be, you may say. That is just the way it was. Bowl games were meant to be consolation prizes, not determinants of who was the NC. That was already decided after the regular season.
Once again it comes down to modern man attempting to place his mindset and values and ideas about how things should have been done to times past. Guess what? It doesn't work that way.
'Bama shared this one with Notre Dame, the team that beat them in a fantastic and 6 or 7 lead changing Sugar Bowl game. Don't believe Alabama won a NC this year? Come on down and take a look at the UPI trophy. That ain't no People's Championship, folks. ('Bama 11-1)
re: national championships using bama logic
Posted by RickyTicky on 2/5/12 at 3:48 pm
Pre-WW-II, the Rose Bowl was, in fact, considered a de-facto NC game as it was the only post season game. Any pre-war title claim based on the Rose Bowl is as solid as it gets.
But by the 1940's there were so many bowls popping up that they came to be seen as little more than exhibition games (esp after the Rose began its Pac-10/Big-10 tie in). SO, by the 1950's, Polls are really all that should count - but remember that AP was NOT a respected selector by ANY stretch of the imagination until they changed their voting rules in 1958. UPI was the only respected poll until that time.
The fact is that Polls chose to name champions before the bowls simply reflects the opinion of the country. Bowls were not considered particularly meaningful until the late '60's to early '70's - basically when TV became a huge part of the game. That's why AP didn't permanently switch to post-bowl polls until around '68 and UPI didn't until '74.
Every argument about out 1973 title being bogus only "proves" that we should have been named champion in '77. Any argument about our 1964 Title only "proves" that we were robbed in 1966.
If you think 1941 sucks, then explain 1945?
But by the 1940's there were so many bowls popping up that they came to be seen as little more than exhibition games (esp after the Rose began its Pac-10/Big-10 tie in). SO, by the 1950's, Polls are really all that should count - but remember that AP was NOT a respected selector by ANY stretch of the imagination until they changed their voting rules in 1958. UPI was the only respected poll until that time.
The fact is that Polls chose to name champions before the bowls simply reflects the opinion of the country. Bowls were not considered particularly meaningful until the late '60's to early '70's - basically when TV became a huge part of the game. That's why AP didn't permanently switch to post-bowl polls until around '68 and UPI didn't until '74.
Every argument about out 1973 title being bogus only "proves" that we should have been named champion in '77. Any argument about our 1964 Title only "proves" that we were robbed in 1966.
If you think 1941 sucks, then explain 1945?
re: dre kickpratrick is now Dr Dre
Posted by RickyTicky on 1/19/12 at 4:03 am
quote:
We both did. I'm out of this thread. Congrats on the win, btw. You won't see it on here a lot, but congrats on the win. See you in BR this fall.
Hey, now was that so hard? Thank you for thanking me for the win. I feel like you personally thanked me since I used to play for Bama.
And, I'll tell you since the Bama fan in this thread doesn't seem to catch on very quickly. My first post was meant to just be ironic and absurd.
You know, who really calls weed by the name of narcotics these days besides out of touch old folks? Who wrote that article that was being quoted in the original post anyway?
re: dre kickpratrick is now Dr Dre
Posted by RickyTicky on 1/19/12 at 3:33 am
quote:
How many times do I have to tell you to stop listening to those two idiots? Don't you find it interesting that the subject of narcotics and moon pies sets them off? You are my friend, and I value your presence here.
Well, I thought they were what TigerDroppings was all about. They seemed to present themselves as all that was good and right.
My mistake.
re: dre kickpratrick is now Dr Dre
Posted by RickyTicky on 1/19/12 at 3:31 am
quote:
I'm good, dude. We're 'respectfully' disagreeing and I know you are a cool Bama fan and I, being the major representative of Alabama on this board and all the LSU fans here knowing that I alone am the bestest Bama fan ever, just had to test you.
No problem. I respect that. You felt like another Bama fan was trying to take away your LSU fans and that was intimidating to you. No problem, friend.
re: dre kickpratrick is now Dr Dre
Posted by RickyTicky on 1/19/12 at 3:27 am
quote:
Then leave. You're doing one of two things: 1. You're dumber than a bag of rocks or 2. You enjoy what you're getting. Which is it?
I just ask that you stop intentionally trolling me. Thanks.
re: dre kickpratrick is now Dr Dre
Posted by RickyTicky on 1/19/12 at 3:26 am
quote:
GFY and get off the rant.
You have said that exactly 10 times already. Please stop repeating yourself.
re: dre kickpratrick is now Dr Dre
Posted by RickyTicky on 1/19/12 at 3:25 am
quote:
Do you often take it seriously? Because I have some bad news if you do.
No way, man. I am just having fun with you and your partner. It's all in good fun. I can't believe anyone would really take any of this seriously but, it seems the two of you may have been.
Wow.
re: dre kickpratrick is now Dr Dre
Posted by RickyTicky on 1/19/12 at 3:23 am
quote:
GFY and get off the rant.
You have said that exactly 9 times already. Please stop repeating yourself. It's boring.
re: dre kickpratrick is now Dr Dre
Posted by RickyTicky on 1/19/12 at 3:22 am
quote:
Do what I already told you to do, "new poster." Otherwise GFY and get off the rant.
I don't like being harassed. Please leave me alone.
re: dre kickpratrick is now Dr Dre
Posted by RickyTicky on 1/19/12 at 3:21 am
quote:
I know some dumb..... and I mean DUMB, not mentally handicapped, but just dumb people and this guy..... shite.
You seem very concerned that you come out on the good end of this. Does this kind of situation on message boards happen very often with you?
re: dre kickpratrick is now Dr Dre
Posted by RickyTicky on 1/19/12 at 3:20 am
quote:
GFY and get off the rant.
Please stop harassing me. This is not a very good way to behave.
re: dre kickpratrick is now Dr Dre
Posted by RickyTicky on 1/19/12 at 3:18 am
quote:
GFY and get off the rant.
You are quite devastating when you get rolling aren't you. I bet you feel like everyone is applauding you, right?
I mean, GFY is pretty hardcore.
re: dre kickpratrick is now Dr Dre
Posted by RickyTicky on 1/19/12 at 3:17 am
quote:
WTF? When was the last time these three words showed up on the rant?
You and your friend have really acted horribly tonight.
re: dre kickpratrick is now Dr Dre
Posted by RickyTicky on 1/19/12 at 3:16 am
quote:
Nothing I did was illegal. YOU are the one who started the whole topic of Bama huffing glue in the context of cheating. Now, we find Dre at the gates of a lifetime in prison, after vainly attempting to replenish his stolen swag via the narcotics needle. Seems like a good time to review Saban's policy of promising narcotics to recruits.
Exactly. That's all I was saying when that fake Bama fan attacked me. It was absurd and I had no idea why NorthShore was behaving like that.
He is out of control.
re: dre kickpratrick is now Dr Dre
Posted by RickyTicky on 1/19/12 at 3:13 am
quote:
northshorebamaman Alabama Fan Seattle, WA Member since Jul 2009 1227 posts Online re: dre kickpratrick is now Dr Dre (Posted on 1/19/12 at 2:52 a.m. to RickyTicky) quote: Coach Stallings only drank purified mineral water from a carbon spring. Saban only promises wealth and glory through 1st round draft type money in 'dat pocket, and Dre does smoke Narcotics. And you wonder why...
Shame on you for changing that quote and making it seem as if I actually typed it.
I think you are trolling. That probably isn't allowed here.
re: dre kickpratrick is now Dr Dre
Posted by RickyTicky on 1/19/12 at 3:07 am
quote:
What if I told you I'm a Congressional Medal of Honor recipient? You dim bastard, do you believe every random poster, or just this one?
Maybe he just saw how you hacked my quote and added words to it and decided that you were a dishonest person that couldn't be trusted.
Just a guess. Go to changing quotes and you lose trust. People may start to think you are a troll or you are being very dishonest to make a point that isn't really there.
Popular
24
