HawkleberryFinn
Well-Known Member
Or...you could try to directly refute my argument with evidence instead of making weak attempts to distract and evade. My points were clear and obvious to anyone who’s been paying attention.
Iowa Wins Combine, but...
- Thread starter HawkleberryFinn
- Start date
Or...you could try to directly refute my argument with evidence instead of making weak attempts to distract and evade. My points were clear and obvious to anyone who’s been paying attention.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
<<Fant is the most glaring example>>
Drop of a pass in his face in OT at NW in 2017. Drop of a sure TD pass in opener of 2018. Miscues at PSU. Other drops too numerous to mention.
You started this with the "Brian Ferentz could win 10.5-11 games at O$U". You now throw out various red herring statements as "underutilized" and "dog house". Yet you presume that 1) there is such a thing as "dog house" and 2) that people don't earn their way into same.
I'm finished here. The further you wawaver and wriggle the line, the dumber the discussion becomes. I get it. You don't like KF or BF. You think Iowa was a historical blueblood until KF took over. THEN you decide to bring in Marc Morehouse with "union card". I'm not even sure WTF you expect, let alone what you actually see during a game.
Adieu...
HawkleberryFinn
Well-Known Member
Yes, you better peace out, because I made you realize your argument is bogus. I notice you didn’t even address the point I made in the last message—this is telling. Instead you opted for a classic straw man argument—focusing on something that has no bearing on the central point I made. Again, because I said B Ferentz could win 10.5-11 at OSU, you ASSumed I thought he should be able to do the same at Iowa—that was never my point. Rather than address this you strawmanned to ancillary points, avoiding my central claim. Not only this, but the arguments you bobbed and weaved to don’t even add up. Of course there’s a doghouse—no one with any sense refutes this including Dochterman and Morehouse—they’ve said this. And yes players under Kirk don’t always win positions because they’re the best—there’s a long track record of this often discussed by the likes of Dochterman and Morehouse. This aside, would you like to actually address the fact you assumed my central argument (and were wrong)? I hope you’re not a lawyer dude.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
You've bypassed "moron" and gone straight to "lunatic"....
<<I notice you didn't even address the point I made in the last message>>
Yes, because you've been at moron-to-lunatic level since the FIRST message, and have yet to answer THAT point you made. Just stop.
HawkleberryFinn
Well-Known Member
“Moron,” “Lunatic”...launching a barrage of ad hominem attacks isn’t helping your case. It just makes you look silly and flailing. Face it man, your argument was flawed from the outset. You have still yet to address my main point—and that’s because if you did, you’d have to admit error. Just take your lumps and move along. There are greater defeats in life. Here you, in fact, have been thoroughly defeated. Since you won’t address my argument I’m willing to debate others who support your flawed position.
