Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2017 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/18/2017 1:04:00 PM (view original):
Here's the thing:

1) I'm not Mike's "lackey". I think we just share many (though not all) of the same beliefs.

2) If somebody says something stupid, even if it's specifically addressed to somebody else, I'm going to respond. It's a public forum.

3) I don't need validation from random internet people to establish of maintain my self-esteem.

2) But if it’s mike saying something stupid, you back him up.

Example?

Posted by tecwrg on 11/18/2017 2:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2017 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/18/2017 1:04:00 PM (view original):
Here's the thing:

1) I'm not Mike's "lackey". I think we just share many (though not all) of the same beliefs.

2) If somebody says something stupid, even if it's specifically addressed to somebody else, I'm going to respond. It's a public forum.

3) I don't need validation from random internet people to establish of maintain my self-esteem.

2) But if it’s mike saying something stupid, you back him up.

Example?

This one is by far my favorite example:

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=465120&threadID=11305509#l_11305509

I bumped it in the Non-sports forum for you. Here is the text:

Posted by tecwrg on 3/1/2013 8:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/1/2013 5:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/1/2013 5:30:00 PM (view original):
Just that if the government was selling enough treasury bonds, there wouldn't be a deficit.

Treasury notes aren't funding the deficit,

By definition, nothing funds a deficit.

This is so funny I had to post it again.

Funny, because you don't understand it?

Yeah, that was not me backing him up. I don't really know much about at all about treasury bonds, so I wouldn't be commenting about them. That was me poking at you.

In case you haven't noticed, I do that a lot.

Anything else?

BTW . . . it's funny that you can pull up posts from over 4 1/2 years ago when you think it suits your argument. Do you have those threads indexed and organized/bookmarked in an EXCEL spreadsheet or something similar? Because that would be pretty pathetic if you did.

If you just spent time looking for that, that's also pathetic in a different way. You wouldn't be worth my time to do that unless I was really, really, really bored.

I think we can let your defense of mike in his finest moment speak for itself.

OK, thanks for playing.

Posted by tecwrg on 11/18/2017 7:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by d_rock97 on 11/18/2017 12:27:00 AM (view original):
Also Mike, this is where you want your best hitter taking a borderline pitch 3-2 tying run on 3rd two outs. Cuz u know damn well he ain’t getting a hit.

Are you BL's dumber little bro?

You don't take borderline pitches in that situation, unless you're a big fan of called strike threes to end innings.

There's a term for that. It's called "Pat Burrell".

Posted by toddcommish on 11/19/2017 1:03:00 AM (view original):
Whenever this subject comes up, I think back to the 9th inning of Game Six of the 2010 NLCS when Ryan Howard took a 3-2 pitch for a called strike three with the tying run on 2nd (and the winning run on 1st) and the Phillies facing elimination.

No way should the cleanup hitter EVER take that pitch trying to walk in that situation.

Yep. Perfect example there. And like I said in the other post, I can't tell you how many times I watched Pat Burrell freeze on a called strike three. He never got it. Was he productive? Yeah. But he was a rally killer.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2017 5:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/18/2017 2:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2017 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/18/2017 1:04:00 PM (view original):
Here's the thing:

1) I'm not Mike's "lackey". I think we just share many (though not all) of the same beliefs.

2) If somebody says something stupid, even if it's specifically addressed to somebody else, I'm going to respond. It's a public forum.

3) I don't need validation from random internet people to establish of maintain my self-esteem.

2) But if it’s mike saying something stupid, you back him up.

Example?

This one is by far my favorite example:

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=465120&threadID=11305509#l_11305509

I bumped it in the Non-sports forum for you. Here is the text:

Posted by tecwrg on 3/1/2013 8:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/1/2013 5:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/1/2013 5:30:00 PM (view original):
Just that if the government was selling enough treasury bonds, there wouldn't be a deficit.

Treasury notes aren't funding the deficit,

By definition, nothing funds a deficit.

This is so funny I had to post it again.

Funny, because you don't understand it?

LOL.

First, I was out of town so I'm not reading this thread. Unlike some people who are in Dallas and will remain nameless, this forum doesn't interest me enough to "catch up" or post in while traveling.

Second, this is about the 10th time in the last week that BL brought up this 2013 post. Once again, I left work early, got ********* and, for whatever reason, decided to post(which is odd because the internet doesn't interest me when I'm lit up). I wouldn't even recall this exchange if BL didn't bring it up every time I make him look stupid(which is often).

Finally, which thread did I make BL look so stupid that he feels the need to bring up his 2013 "win" so frequently over the last week?

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/19/2017 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2017 5:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/18/2017 2:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2017 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/18/2017 1:04:00 PM (view original):
Here's the thing:

1) I'm not Mike's "lackey". I think we just share many (though not all) of the same beliefs.

2) If somebody says something stupid, even if it's specifically addressed to somebody else, I'm going to respond. It's a public forum.

3) I don't need validation from random internet people to establish of maintain my self-esteem.

2) But if it’s mike saying something stupid, you back him up.

Example?

This one is by far my favorite example:

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=465120&threadID=11305509#l_11305509

I bumped it in the Non-sports forum for you. Here is the text:

Posted by tecwrg on 3/1/2013 8:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/1/2013 5:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/1/2013 5:30:00 PM (view original):
Just that if the government was selling enough treasury bonds, there wouldn't be a deficit.

Treasury notes aren't funding the deficit,

By definition, nothing funds a deficit.

This is so funny I had to post it again.

Funny, because you don't understand it?

LOL.

First, I was out of town so I'm not reading this thread. Unlike some people who are in Dallas and will remain nameless, this forum doesn't interest me enough to "catch up" or post in while traveling.

Second, this is about the 10th time in the last week that BL brought up this 2013 post. Once again, I left work early, got ********* and, for whatever reason, decided to post(which is odd because the internet doesn't interest me when I'm lit up). I wouldn't even recall this exchange if BL didn't bring it up every time I make him look stupid(which is often).

Finally, which thread did I make BL look so stupid that he feels the need to bring up his 2013 "win" so frequently over the last week?

There’s the inevitable “This is the internet, I have a life” post! Knew it was coming!

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/19/2017 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2017 5:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/18/2017 2:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2017 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/18/2017 1:04:00 PM (view original):
Here's the thing:

1) I'm not Mike's "lackey". I think we just share many (though not all) of the same beliefs.

2) If somebody says something stupid, even if it's specifically addressed to somebody else, I'm going to respond. It's a public forum.

3) I don't need validation from random internet people to establish of maintain my self-esteem.

2) But if it’s mike saying something stupid, you back him up.

Example?

This one is by far my favorite example:

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=465120&threadID=11305509#l_11305509

I bumped it in the Non-sports forum for you. Here is the text:

Posted by tecwrg on 3/1/2013 8:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/1/2013 5:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/1/2013 5:30:00 PM (view original):
Just that if the government was selling enough treasury bonds, there wouldn't be a deficit.

Treasury notes aren't funding the deficit,

By definition, nothing funds a deficit.

This is so funny I had to post it again.

Funny, because you don't understand it?

LOL.

First, I was out of town so I'm not reading this thread. Unlike some people who are in Dallas and will remain nameless, this forum doesn't interest me enough to "catch up" or post in while traveling.

Second, this is about the 10th time in the last week that BL brought up this 2013 post. Once again, I left work early, got ********* and, for whatever reason, decided to post(which is odd because the internet doesn't interest me when I'm lit up). I wouldn't even recall this exchange if BL didn't bring it up every time I make him look stupid(which is often).

Finally, which thread did I make BL look so stupid that he feels the need to bring up his 2013 "win" so frequently over the last week?

This was referring to tec’s desire to always back you up, no matter how dumb you are.

But I usually bring this post up to point out that you will insist on arguing a point even when you have no idea what you are talking about.

You would not have known how deficits and treasury bonds work even if you were sober. But you still insisted that you knew how a deficit impacts the economy, despite the fact that it’s a complex subject that isn’t necessarily intuitive.

This was referring to tec’s desire to always back you up, no matter how dumb you are.

As I already pointed out, I wasn't backing anybody up. I was poking at you. Because it's fun.

But I usually bring this post up to point out that you will insist on arguing a point even when you have no idea what you are talking about.

Dude. Self awareness. You are BY FAR the most argumentative person here. And are most often wrong. And then you double down on the stupidity of your argument.

Likely story.

The reality is you you tried to back mike up while he was shitting all over himself. Loyal, but dumb.

LOL.

It's always funny when you claim to "know" what somebody really means when they post something snarky towards you.