Interesting sports info, no baseball, six months, counting.

Sports related topics.

Postby 10up » Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:14 am

I didn't comment again after the Eli Manning thing because I didn't figure I'd need to.

If something that asinine goes unnoticed by the other denizens of this board we have a much bigger problem than me talking about how good the Saints are.
you're not the girl you think you are
User avatar
10up
 
Posts: 3051
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:55 am
Location: inside my pants

Postby grodney » Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:01 pm

How do you make fun of a We guy on a board full of We guys?

Come on guys. Why isn't the We guy more scorned? It's sooooooooo stupid. Seriously.

Posted to my blog Nov 23, 2005:

Team Loyalty
I hereby delcare a cease and desist on people talking about a sports team and using the term "we". If you don't play for them, it's not *we*, it's *them*. I understand that you love your team. I understand you are a loyal fan. I understand you feel like you are a part of it. But you aren't. High school is a little more understandable, especially if your kids are involved. College? Barely. Pro? Not at all. *You* are not the Yankees. *You* are not the Steelers. Here are the rules. If you currently play for the team, you can say "we" all you want. If you once played for the team, you get 2 exemptions, 2 slip-ups, per year: I know, it's hard to let go of the glory days. If you are an alum of the high school or college in question, or if you have children currently competing, you get 1 exemption per year. If you don't fall into these categories, you get no grace period. You must stop saying "we" immediately. Penalties will come down, and they will be harsh.
User avatar
grodney
 
Posts: 2298
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:08 am

Postby 10up » Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:14 pm

tl;dr

I disagree. We is incorporated into my vernacular for the same reasons it's ever used, by anyone, generally to represent a similar or like-minded group of people partaking in or recognizing the same events.

Just as you would say "we" as americans, or "we" as bushwhackers, or "we" as any other generalized representation of a group. In the sports case it is fandom.

A good example of the different uses of "we" can be found in my above post where I was referring to the members and posters of this board. "We" have a bigger problem.

Just like, as a Saints fan, after a loss. "We got smoked last night, it sucked", referring to me, the players, and the millions of Saints fans that, were they standing behind me at the moment of the statement, would nod their heads in agreement.

We is a necessary part of the english language and is used by those who really believe by offering their fanship to a certain program, they become part of what it is.

Just because you don't see the necessity in that does not make it wrong, or even strange in any way. It's actually the most common form of expressing being a part of.
you're not the girl you think you are
User avatar
10up
 
Posts: 3051
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:55 am
Location: inside my pants

Postby Single L » Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:44 pm

I agree with our East Coast Brethren on this one as this is one of my biggest sports pet peeves

10up wrote:tl;dr

I disagree. We is incorporated into my vernacular for the same reasons it's ever used, by anyone, generally to represent a similar or like-minded group of people partaking in or recognizing the same events.

Just as you would say "we" as Americans, or "we" as bushwhackers, or "we" as any other generalized representation of a group. In the sports case it is fandom.
You can say “we” because you ARE and an American, and you ARE a Bushwhacker

A good example of the different uses of "we" can be found in my above post where I was referring to the members and posters of this board. "We" have a bigger problem. That is the proper usage as you are part of this board and would be a “we” in this situation.

Just like, as a Saints fan, after a loss. "We got smoked last night, it sucked", referring to me, the players, and the millions of Saints fans that, were they standing behind me at the moment of the statement, would nod their heads in agreement.
Your grouping of "we" is being a Saints Fans; as to your definition is a similar or like-minded group of people partaking in or recognizing the same events. The event you are partaking in is enjoying the Saints not actually being the Saints. So the Saints, not the Saints Fans, got smoked last night, as the fans are not on the field.

We is a necessary part of the english language and is used by those who really believe by offering their fanship to a certain program, they become part of what it is.

Just because you don't see the necessity in that does not make it wrong, or even strange in any way. It's actually the most common form of expressing being a part of.
Last edited by Single L on Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"I'm not impressed with aces of any kind. 95% of the time, they're just bad shots that got lucky and happened to hit the chains. Otherwise, they'd have sailed 50' past the hole." ~ Cydisc
User avatar
Single L
 
Posts: 5981
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: Bushwhacking in DSM

Postby 10up » Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:49 pm

I understand there is no literal connection.

I was saying it is a common expression of people who feel they are a part of something. We is really the only word that implies being a part of and still is general enough to seperate you from the actual team. "they" is detached and doesn't convey the emotional connection necessary for the speaker.
you're not the girl you think you are
User avatar
10up
 
Posts: 3051
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:55 am
Location: inside my pants

Postby Single L » Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:59 pm

10up wrote:I understand there is no literal connection.

I was saying it is a common expression of people who feel they are a part of something. We is really the only word that implies being a part of and still is general enough to seperate you from the actual team. "they" is detached and doesn't convey the emotional connection necessary for the speaker.

I agree that "we" conveys a stronger connection than "They", but that’s the point Grodeny is pointing out; you don’t deserve that kind of connection, you’re not on the team. You can still be emotionally vested in the team and say “they”. They sell all kinds of swag so you can show your passion. Only a diehard fan would get caught in public in that ridiculous hat you always wear :oops:
"I'm not impressed with aces of any kind. 95% of the time, they're just bad shots that got lucky and happened to hit the chains. Otherwise, they'd have sailed 50' past the hole." ~ Cydisc
User avatar
Single L
 
Posts: 5981
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: Bushwhacking in DSM

Postby grodney » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:01 pm

10up wrote: "they" is detached and doesn't convey the emotional connection


Take this sh!t to Oprah.
User avatar
grodney
 
Posts: 2298
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:08 am

Postby 10up » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:03 pm

oh believe me I would.
you're not the girl you think you are
User avatar
10up
 
Posts: 3051
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:55 am
Location: inside my pants

Postby GaW27166 » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:05 pm

Discwrangler wrote:
The Donator wrote:
SARG27044 wrote:
Discwrangler wrote:
SpikeHyzer wrote:Gotta agree with Grant...throw on Roethlisberger before Brees.


No way Jose.
i dont think Big Ben is a better QB either, but he does have a ring...........Which is something Brees wont accomplish with the Saints-FACT

Brees is a MUCH better QB than TurdBurger and Eli, there is no question about it. This rings argument is just ridiculous.


Q4T

Defense is out of Drew's hands.


If he is a top 3 QB then it shouldnt matter what the defense does as he would be outscoring every team anyways. Remeber we arent talking fantasy QBs here.
User avatar
GaW27166
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 11:49 pm
Location: Des Moines, IA

Postby grodney » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:06 pm

Back to other sports: That was so freaking AMAZING when we made that putt on 18 to win Arnie's tournament. I was really excited for us going into the Masters. I wish we could have played better, and I wish we could have beat Phil, if not win it all. I think we'll re-focus and we should be able to win at the USOpen.

By the way, I'm going to the Quail Hollow Championship (formerly Wachovia) in a couple weeks, so I'm looking forward to see if we commit to playing in it. Then I'll know if I'm going to be seeing us while I'm there.
User avatar
grodney
 
Posts: 2298
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:08 am

Postby swan » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:12 pm

The Donator wrote:
SARG27044 wrote:
Discwrangler wrote:
SpikeHyzer wrote:Gotta agree with Grant...throw on Roethlisberger before Brees.


No way Jose.
i dont think Big Ben is a better QB either, but he does have a ring...........Which is something Brees wont accomplish with the Saints-FACT

Brees is a MUCH better QB than TurdBurger and Eli, there is no question about it. This rings argument is just ridiculous.


Totally agree with this. Are saying that Doug Williams and Trent Dilfer are better than Dan Marino and Warren Moon? SB rings obviously give you notoriety, but they don't automatically make you an elite QB. Rings equate a solid TEAM. There have been plenty of elite QBs who never won a SB. (Marino, Moon, Fouts, Cunningham, Kelly)
swan
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:38 pm
Location: moline

Postby MDR_3000 » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:17 pm

GaW27166 wrote:
If he is a top 3 QB then it shouldnt matter what the defense does as he would be outscoring every team anyways. Remeber we arent talking fantasy QBs here.



This is probably the third dumbest thing ever said on this board. See swan's post for a detailed explanation.
If she can't swim....she's bound to drizzown.
User avatar
MDR_3000
 
Posts: 2969
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:09 pm
Location: Straight outta NoCash.

Postby Single L » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:18 pm

grodney wrote:Back to other sports: That was so freaking AMAZING when we made that putt on 18 to win Arnie's tournament. I was really excited for us going into the Masters. I wish we could have played better, and I wish we could have beat Phil, if not win it all. I think we'll re-focus and we should be able to win at the USOpen.

By the way, I'm going to the Quail Hollow Championship (formerly Wachovia) in a couple weeks, so I'm looking forward to see if we commit to playing in it. Then I'll know if I'm going to be seeing us while I'm there.


:lol: LMFAO :lol:
"I'm not impressed with aces of any kind. 95% of the time, they're just bad shots that got lucky and happened to hit the chains. Otherwise, they'd have sailed 50' past the hole." ~ Cydisc
User avatar
Single L
 
Posts: 5981
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: Bushwhacking in DSM

Postby The Donator » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:20 pm

GaW27166 wrote:If he is a top 3 QB then it shouldnt matter what the defense does as he would be outscoring every team anyways. Remeber we arent talking fantasy QBs here.

Time to lay down the pipe there Grant.
I speak my mind, cuz bitin' my tongue hurts
User avatar
The Donator
 
Posts: 6304
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:07 pm
Location: West Des Moines, IA

Postby The Donator » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:21 pm

grodney wrote:Back to other sports: That was so freaking AMAZING when we made that putt on 18 to win Arnie's tournament. I was really excited for us going into the Masters. I wish we could have played better, and I wish we could have beat Phil, if not win it all. I think we'll re-focus and we should be able to win at the USOpen.

By the way, I'm going to the Quail Hollow Championship (formerly Wachovia) in a couple weeks, so I'm looking forward to see if we commit to playing in it. Then I'll know if I'm going to be seeing us while I'm there.

This might be the fourth dumbest thing ever said on this board.
I speak my mind, cuz bitin' my tongue hurts
User avatar
The Donator
 
Posts: 6304
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:07 pm
Location: West Des Moines, IA

PreviousNext

Return to Sports

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest