"He'll be back Saturday."

[Windyplayer]

To be fair, BigDaddy said that Duane would be back for the Wisconsin game. 

I'm appalled.

[wadesworld]

A little sensitive are we, wades? Sheesh. Forgive me for being skeptical of "news" on Scoop that starts with, "I heard from a guy..." Honestly, I didn't even pay attention to who started the thread nor have I followed your insider info particularly closely. For that, I apologize  

By the way, your obsession with Jay Cutler is comical.

Not really sensitive.  Just think that it's odd that you'd call a source not credible if you didn't even pay attention to who started the thread.  If you don't take into account what the source is, then how would you know whether the source is credible or not?

And you may not follow my insider info particularly closely, but it isn't the first time you've tried telling others that my information is not legitimate or credible...

He doesn't know.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=40160.msg522616#msg522616

[NavinRJohnson]

Not really sensitive.  Just think that it's odd that you'd call a source not credible if you didn't even pay attention to who started the thread.  If you don't take into account what the source is, then how would you know whether the source is credible or not?

And you may not follow my insider info particularly closely, but it isn't the first time you've tried telling others that my information is not legitimate or

[wadesworld]

When I talk, you listen.  You'll learn soon enough.

[Big Daddy 84]

To be fair, BigDaddy said that Duane would be back for the Wisconsin game. 

To be specific I said he would be cleared by Wisco game, but would not likely play until IUPUI...I stand by that.

[Lighthouse 84]

    To be specific I said he would be cleared by Wisco game, but would not likely play until IUPUI...I stand by that.

Right you are BD.  I don't think you've steered us wrong yet.  Thanks for the info. 

[keefe]

   To be specific I said he would be cleared by Wisco game, but would not likely play until IUPUI...I stand by that.

Bid Daddy tells it like it is

[MUHoopsFan2]

Fair point. Buzz did say he is cleared to play. But playing and being cleared are different things.

BINGO.....exactly.

[MerrittsMustache]

Not really sensitive.  Just think that it's odd that you'd call a source not credible if you didn't even pay attention to who started the thread.  If you don't take into account what the source is, then how would you know whether the source is credible or not?

And you may not follow my insider info particularly closely, but it isn't the first time you've tried telling others that my information is not legitimate or credible...

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=40160.msg522616#msg522616

You're under 5'9", correct?

[AZWarrior]

You're under 5'9", correct?

Point being?

[GGGG]

I don't understand why people have to bash those who come here with information.  Sometimes it is bad (like the mystery commit who is close to Vander...not happening), but many times it is good (as wades points out, he has gotten good info from this guy previously.)

Now wade's thin-skinned reaction to the criticism is another thing entirely...

[MerrittsMustache]

I don't understand why people have to bash those who come here with information.  Sometimes it is bad (like the mystery commit who is close to Vander...not happening), but many times it is good (as wades points out, he has gotten good info from this guy previously.)

Now wade's thin-skinned reaction to the criticism is another thing entirely...

I don't think anyone bashed wades' info. I simply said that until I hear news from a legit (preferably named) source I'm going to be skeptical. I don't think that's unreasonable nor was it worthy of wades' subsequent rants.

[leever]

Point being?

Short man syndrome.

[wadesworld]

You're under 5'9", correct?

Incorrect.

[MerrittsMustache]

Incorrect.

Hmm...5'9" exactly? Or maybe it's something more complex that has made you so ultra sensitive.

[AZWarrior]

Point being?

Short man syndrome.

What I suspected.  Meaning that rather than attack a poster's argument, or the reasoning behind their position, the poster is attacked directly.  Besides being a classic argumentative flaw, it's tacky.

[leever]

Point being?

What I suspected.  Meaning that rather than attack a poster's argument, or the reasoning behind their position, the poster is attacked directly.  Besides being a classic argumentative flaw, it's tacky.

You are correct, sir.  I was merely taking a stab at explaining the comment, not necessarily supporting it.

[keefe]

You're under 5'9", correct?

Erect or flaccid?

[MerrittsMustache]

Point being?

What I suspected.  Meaning that rather than attack a poster's argument, or the reasoning behind their position, the poster is attacked directly.  Besides being a classic argumentative flaw, it's tacky.

I'm skeptical of posts involving "I heard from a guy..." information. I don't really understand what's wrong with that. However, when I said this, wades flew off the handle with THREE separate posts wondering how anyone could ever question him and his airtight sources. Being overly sensitive is not new territory for wades. If you're ever on the NFL North thread, you know what I mean. I was merely trying to figure out why he's so ultra sensitive and decided to use Occam's Razor (thanks, Guns). Sorry if you think that's tacky but it's a logical place to start.

[AZWarrior]

I'm skeptical of posts involving "I heard from a guy..." information. I don't really understand what's wrong with that. However, when I said this, wades flew off the handle with THREE separate posts wondering how anyone could ever question him and his airtight sources. Being overly sensitive is not new territory for wades. If you're ever on the NFL North thread, you know what I mean. I was merely trying to figure out why he's so ultra sensitive and decided to use Occam's Razor (thanks, Guns). Sorry if you think that's tacky but it's a logical place to start.

Well, I actually had zero problem with your post.  You stated the reasoning behind why you are skeptical of his posts.   That makes for a high quality post.  No worries.   

I just have a problem with "you're under 5'9", right?" type posts.

[wadesworld]

Point being?

What I suspected.  Meaning that rather than attack a poster's argument, or the reasoning behind their position, the poster is attacked directly.  Besides being a classic argumentative flaw, it's tacky.

Bingo.

I'm skeptical of posts involving "I heard from a guy..." information. I don't really understand what's wrong with that. However, when I said this, wades flew off the handle with THREE separate posts wondering how anyone could ever question him and his airtight sources. Being overly sensitive is not new territory for wades. If you're ever on the NFL North thread, you know what I mean. I was merely trying to figure out why he's so ultra sensitive and decided to use Occam's Razor (thanks, Guns). Sorry if you think that's tacky but it's a logical place to start.

I'm not the one who questions the credibility of the source every time you post something.  Then again, you already explained that you didn't even look at who was posting when you questioned the credibility of the source when you questioned it.  Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Questioning a source without looking at the source.  Interesting route to take.

Also funny that you cite the NFC North thread as proof of me being ultrasensitive.  All I have done is provide the numbers that Cutler and McCown have put up.  What you do in response?  Instead of providing numbers to prove facts, you just state that anybody who thinks McCown may be better off as the Bears QB is just a "football idiot."  Once again, attack the poster rather than the argument.  Maybe somebody else is ultrasensitive?

[MerrittsMustache]

Bingo.

I'm not the one who questions the credibility of the source every time you post something.  Then again, you already explained that you didn't even look at who was posting when you questioned the credibility of the source when you questioned it.  Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Questioning a source without looking at the source.  Interesting route to take.

Also funny that you cite the NFC North thread as proof of me being ultrasensitive.  All I have done is provide the numbers that Cutler and McCown have put up.  What you do in response?  Instead of providing numbers to prove facts, you just state that anybody who thinks McCown may be better off as the Bears QB is just a "football idiot."  Once again, attack the poster rather than the argument.  Maybe somebody else is ultrasensitive?

Oh good. Another rant about how you're not oversensitive.   Congrats on your insider info but I'm still going to be skeptical of any insider info posted on a message board that isn't from an obvious credible source. So what? Why does that bother you so much?

Actually, that's not what I said on the other thread. My exact comment was: "Jay Cutler is a significantly better and more talented QB than Josh McCown. Anyone arguing otherwise, quite frankly, is a football idiot." Care to disagree with that? Also, that post wasn't in response to anything that you said specifically yet you took it personally. Hmm...

I don't want to hijack this thread any more. Let's all move on.

[wadesworld]

Oh good. Another rant about how you're not oversensitive.   Congrats on your insider info but I'm still going to be skeptical of any insider info posted on a message board that isn't from an obvious credible source. So what? Why does that bother you so much?

Actually, that's not what I said on the other thread. My exact comment was: "Jay Cutler is a significantly better and more talented QB than Josh McCown. Anyone arguing otherwise, quite frankly, is a football idiot." Care to disagree with that? Also, that post wasn't in response to anything that you said specifically yet you took it personally. Hmm...

I don't want to hijack this thread any more. Let's all move on.

I actually didn't even respond to it at all. So no I didn't take it personally. Just pointing out you ignore numbers and attack posters.

[Spotcheck Billy]

....

[MerrittsMustache]

I actually didn't even respond to it at all. So no I didn't take it personally. Just pointing out you ignore numbers and attack posters.

Sigh...

Have a nice weekend, everybody! Go Marquette!