Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Can we keep all our upcoming free agents?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TJV" data-source="post: 437150" data-attributes="member: 4300"><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">As I read through this thread yesterday I had the impression JenningsLongCatch and AmishMafia were posting "past each other". Since I inserted myself into their "discussion" and because there's not much else going on I'm going to comment on their exchange: </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">IMO the confusion on this thread began with AmishMafia's post of "No. We won't need to. Other players will continue to emerge." IMO that can be read in two ways. First it can be read as JenningsLongCatch and I initially read it: 'The Packers can't keep all (any) of the FAs and they don't need to'. It can also be read to mean, 'The Packers can't keep all but can keep some of them'. When JenningsLongCatch quoted that post and added, "Nothing like blind faith in TT!" it's pretty clear he was reading it, 'the Packers don't have to keep any of their FAs because Thompson can draft their replacements'. Then in response to SpartaChris' challenge, JenningsLongCatch posted the comment I responded to, "Having blind faith that TT will continue to pluck high caliber players in all rounds of the draft and (undrafted) free agency is insane." After reading through the thread again I think it became very apparent at that point that JenningsLongCatch was thinking AmishMafia's "No…" was regarding <em>any</em> of the FAs mentioned in the OP. In post #36, AmishMafia hints at what he is saying but doesn't spell it out as clearly as he does in the post above. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">On reflection AmishMafia has a good point in saying he meant, 'no the Packers can't keep <em>all</em> of them but they can keep <em>some</em> of them'. So I'm revising my revision. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-shortname=";)" /> Look, it's much more difficult to converse via the written word than in person or even via the phone since any inflection in ones' voice is lost and it usually takes longer to clear up any misconceptions. And because it's more difficult to write clearly than to speak clearly. I now think I understand what both posters were saying and it's just a case of misunderstanding. I think both could have been clearer. For example, if AmishMafia had initially posted, 'No, not all but most or some…' or if JenningsLongCatch would have initially posted, 'Did you mean to say…?' IOW both participated in the misunderstanding and so did I. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">It would be better for the board if we all would ask for clarification whenever there is any ambiguity in a post we are challenging. Either by asking for clarification or by posting, 'If you meant to say ___, then…' BTW, I am as guilty as anyone in not doing so and displayed that fact twice in misunderstanding both AmishMafia and JenningsLongCatch in this thread. So both of you should feel free to "unlike" my posts!</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">Finally regarding sarcasm: I grew up in a rough neighborhood where we had to be on guard physically (regarding fist fights and even an occasional knife fight) as well as in verbal "battles". Some of the older kids in my neighborhood acted as if they invented sarcasm, so I had an early baptism in that "art". So I appreciate good sarcasm but recognize it has a definite "cutting edge". Anyway, I make that point to say while it may be the lowest form of wit, when it's done well it is witty. However, IMO name-calling is the lowest form of posting and absent of wit altogether. </span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TJV, post: 437150, member: 4300"] [FONT=Tahoma]As I read through this thread yesterday I had the impression JenningsLongCatch and AmishMafia were posting "past each other". Since I inserted myself into their "discussion" and because there's not much else going on I'm going to comment on their exchange: [/FONT] [FONT=Tahoma]IMO the confusion on this thread began with AmishMafia's post of "No. We won't need to. Other players will continue to emerge." IMO that can be read in two ways. First it can be read as JenningsLongCatch and I initially read it: 'The Packers can't keep all (any) of the FAs and they don't need to'. It can also be read to mean, 'The Packers can't keep all but can keep some of them'. When JenningsLongCatch quoted that post and added, "Nothing like blind faith in TT!" it's pretty clear he was reading it, 'the Packers don't have to keep any of their FAs because [COLOR=windowtext]Thompson can draft their replacements'. Then in response to SpartaChris' challenge, JenningsLongCatch posted the comment I responded to, "Having blind faith that TT will continue to pluck high caliber players in all rounds of the draft and (undrafted) free agency is insane." After reading through the thread again I think it became very apparent at that point that JenningsLongCatch was thinking AmishMafia's "No…" was regarding [I]any[/I] of the FAs mentioned in the OP. In post #36, AmishMafia hints at what he is saying but doesn't spell it out as clearly as he does in the post above. [/COLOR][/FONT] [FONT=Tahoma]On reflection AmishMafia has a good point in saying he meant, 'no the Packers can't keep [I]all[/I] of them but they can keep [I]some[/I] of them'. So I'm revising my revision. ;) Look, it's much more difficult to converse via the written word than in person or even via the phone since any inflection in ones' voice is lost and it usually takes longer to clear up any misconceptions. And because it's more difficult to write clearly than to speak clearly. I now think I understand what both posters were saying and it's just a case of misunderstanding. I think both could have been clearer. For example, if AmishMafia had initially posted, 'No, not all but most or some…' or if [COLOR=windowtext]JenningsLongCatch would have initially posted, 'Did you mean to say…?' IOW both participated in the misunderstanding and so did I. [/COLOR][/FONT] [COLOR=windowtext][FONT=Tahoma]It would be better for the board if we all would ask for clarification whenever there is any ambiguity in a post we are challenging. Either by asking for clarification or by posting, 'If you meant to say ___, then…' BTW, I am as guilty as anyone in not doing so and displayed that fact twice in misunderstanding both AmishMafia and JenningsLongCatch in this thread. So both of you should feel free to "unlike" my posts![/FONT][/COLOR] [FONT=Tahoma]Finally regarding sarcasm: I grew up in a rough neighborhood where we had to be on guard physically (regarding fist fights and even an occasional knife fight) as well as in verbal "battles". Some of the older kids in my neighborhood acted as if they invented sarcasm, so I had an early baptism in that "art". So I appreciate good sarcasm but recognize it has a definite "cutting edge". Anyway, I make that point to say while it may be the lowest form of wit, when it's done well it is witty. However, IMO name-calling is the lowest form of posting and absent of wit altogether. [/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Packermudgeon
packertracker*
Latest posts
2024 draft discussion thread
Latest: Thirteen Below
Today at 12:58 AM
Draft Talk
2024 Packer UDFA Tracker....
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Yesterday at 10:55 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 3rd round #88 MarShawn Lloyd RB
Latest: Poppa San
Yesterday at 10:38 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
R
2024 2nd Rd pick #58 Javon Bullard S
Latest: RicFlairoftheNFL
Yesterday at 10:05 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 Round 7, pick 245: Michael Pratt, QB
Latest: Thirteen Below
Yesterday at 10:04 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Can we keep all our upcoming free agents?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top