Re: The truth about NFL contracts.


"AllYou!" <Idaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:GIudnc1ArILu82LfRVn-jA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Captain Charisma" <A@xxxxx> wrote in message
> news:OXoLe.7443$ns.2316@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Once again, clown, I find myself in the position of having to bitch-slap
>> some sense into you. No problem.
>>
>>>> "Therefore, the total amount of
>>>> money spent on players (i.e., all the money which all 32 teams spend on
>>>> all the
>>>> players) will not change. Some players will get more, and others less,
>>>> but the
>>>> total will not change appreciably."
>>>>
>>>> The context does not matter here.
>>>
>>> Of course it does, you fucking retard. Take a look at the very first
>>> word! *Therefore* means *for that reason*, and so the previous
>>> statement(s) is the whole reason for the one you posted you fucking
>>> moron.
>>
>> No, it doesn't, you ignorant monkey. If I were to say that there is 100%
>> humidity today and therefore it rained, is it not true that it rained?
>> Does it matter what the reason was? It FUCKING RAINED, dip***. END OF
>> STORY.
>
>
> But in that case, you ignorant ***, the therefore precedes the *reason*
> given for the fact that it rained, and so whether or not it rained isn't
> the thrust of that statement as much as the *reason* for the rain. Man,
> are you pretending to be that stupid, or are you actually that way?

You really are dense, aren't ya? Your head is harder than a fucking
diamond, and no, that's not a compliment. No matter what the reason, it
RAINED, you friggin ape. Does that seep thru your head, clown? Who gives a
*** about the reason? IT RAINED, dip*** and that's all your ignorant ass
needs to know.

>>> And what reason would that be? To what change am I referring in the
>>> sentences you posted? It's the change from the current system of
>>> essentially non-guarenteed contracts to a system of mandatory guarenteed
>>> contracts. What a fucking idiot you are. Context doesn't matter? LOL!
>>> Fucktard.
>>
>> At the end of the day, the total does not change "appreciably" according
>> to your horse*** logic. Own it, you lil miserable wretch. You said it.
>> Don't try to tap-dance around it like the little bitch you are. Be a
>> man.
>
> But that term, as well as how I used it, has nothing to do with the
> subject you're trying to pin it on, you stupid bitch. I never claimed
> that there was no appreciable difference between the cap floor and the cap
> ceiling you *** idiot,

Yes, you did, you fucking liar. You said the total will not change
appreciably. Inherent within that statement is your misguided ignorance of
the fact that there IS a appreciable difference between the cap floor and
ceiling.


> I claimed that there would be no reason to believe that there would be any
> appreciable difference between what teams spend now and what they would
> spend if the nature of contracts were to change. How fucking stupid can
> you get?

No, what you stated is that "Total money received by the total of the
players will not change". Why are you trying to run away from that?

>
>>>> In other words, forget all the talk about guaranteed contracts
>>>
>>> But that's the very subject that was under discussion you dip***. LOL!
>>
>> IT DOESN"T MATTER, you fucking clown.
>
> It doesn't matter what was being discussed? It doesn't matter that to
> anyone above Mongoloid intelligence, it's obvious that I wasn't talking
> about the difference between the cap floor and that cap ceiling? So tell
> me, ***, if context doesn't matter, how did you come to the conclusion
> that's what I was talking about? Without using any context whatsoever,
> how'd you come to that? LOL!

See my rain example, clown.

>> You made a statement that is an ABSOLUTE.
>
> What statement?

You're an idiot. It's ABSOLUTE.

>> Do you understand that or do I have to draw you some colorful pictures?
>> For all your talk about guaranteed contracts, the CONCLUSION, dork, that
>> you arrived at, was that "the total does not change appreciably".
>
> This is like shooting fish in a barrel. It isn't often I get a fish on
> the line who's quite as stupid as you. Don't shake the hook any time
> soon, guppy, this is just too much fun.

I'm sure you feel that way.

ROTFLMAO!!

>>>> So once again, let me ask you if the difference between 56% and 65.5%
>>>> is appreciable or not? Yes or no, Norman Bates?
>>>
>>> Once again, you fucking wack job, that's not what's under discussion.
>>
>> Once again, jackfuckingass, it doesn't matter. Shut the fuck up before I
>> embarrass you even further.
>
> It doesn't matter that I wasn't referring to that subject at all? LOL!
> This is just too good to be true.

Your idiocy continues!

LOL


.