you still don't get it?
That you won't directly answer a question? I think I "get" that. But I'm giving you multiple chances to not be a little all the same.
Is Ray Lewis the snowflake? Is the owner a snowflake? Is the organization as a whole snowflakes? You could have easily clarified this, hours ago. But you prefer to play games; par for the course.
You don't seem terribly interested in actually knowing since you didn't even take the time to get the obvious answer from my posts. It's clear.
Your answer will be sufficiently "obvious" when you specifically answer the actual questions.
Is Ray Lewis the snowflake? Is the owner a snowflake? Is the organization as a whole snowflakes? You could have easily clarified this, hours ago. But you prefer to play games; par for the course.
It's already out there. But I can see it's really important to you.
Is there a reason you're refusing to eat your vegetables? Simple questions, bro.
Is Ray Lewis the snowflake? Is the owner a snowflake? Is the organization as a whole snowflakes? You could have easily clarified this, hours ago. But you prefer to play games; par for the course.
Since you don't really give a anyway, I'm content to string you along for as long as you keep demanding an answer you don't care about.
This isn't about me, bro. You have not sufficiently answered the question. Answering in questions and riddles is childish. But if you want to be the snowflake and not answer, then irony be thou.
And for the record, I do care. If you answer, then this discussion can take its logical course.
Is Ray Lewis the snowflake? Is the owner a snowflake? Is the organization as a whole snowflakes? You could have easily clarified this, hours ago. But you prefer to play games; par for the course.
That's great.
Is Ray Lewis the snowflake? Is the owner a snowflake? Is the organization as a whole snowflakes? You could have easily clarified this, hours ago. But you prefer to play games; par for the course.
It's made clear in my post tbh.
You have yet to clarify, outright.
Is Ray Lewis the snowflake? Is the owner a snowflake? Is the organization as a whole snowflakes? You could have easily clarified this, hours ago. But you prefer to play games; par for the course.
it's already quite clear. Find the post and read it again.
Answering a question with a question is not clarifying. Man up and put forth definitive answers.
Is Ray Lewis the snowflake? Is the owner a snowflake? Is the organization as a whole snowflakes? You could have easily clarified this, hours ago. But you prefer to play games; par for the course.
Sorry, can't do your thinking for you.
Sure you can. You can answer the straight-forward questions in bold print.
Is Ray Lewis the snowflake? Is the owner a snowflake? Is the organization as a whole snowflakes? You could have easily clarified this, hours ago. But you prefer to play games; par for the course.
Nope. No more help for you.
Bro, let's assume you were speaking of "the owner". That's still only one person. You said "Baltimore snowflakes." So, answer the questions and we can advance this conversation.
Is Ray Lewis the snowflake? Is the owner a snowflake? Is the organization as a whole snowflakes? You could have easily clarified this, hours ago. But you prefer to play games; par for the course.
is ravens a plural word?
He's out of the league because his ability is trumped by his antics. If he was a net positive he'd be in the league. Case in point: Jeff Ayers was one of the tiest players in the history of the Spurs. He still played all season because his net effect on the team didn't detract from their ability to win a championship nor bring bad press or shine a negative light on the organization, ergo Jeff was only judged by his playing ability. He wasn't better than Stephen Jackson yet Jackson was released. Do you think that was because of his play? Let's say Jackson played at Lebron's level, would Pop have released him for refusing to come off the bench? Of course not. Jackson's ability didn't surpass his negatives, same with CK. He might be a serviceable QB in a vacuum, but all things are considered.
So yeah, he's only out of the league because of his play, just like everyone who's out of the league because of their play. Jeremy Lin could have been out of the NBA if he didn't catch fire and get Linsanity started. He's in the league because of the hype and to a much lesser extent, his play.
Tim Tebow is another example. He was a bit of an enigma, a flash in the pan and wasn't even a decent QB. But he was popular, so he played. If CK was popular in a positive way, he'd probably be signed somewhere. If he was Terrell Owens or Pacman Jones level negative, but with Tom Brady ability, he'd definitely be playing.
Yes.
Is Ray Lewis the snowflake? Is the owner a snowflake? Is the organization as a whole snowflakes? You could have easily clarified this, hours ago. But you prefer to play games; par for the course.
Pavlov
Is Ray Lewis the snowflake? Is the owner a snowflake? Is the organization as a whole snowflakes? You could have easily clarified this, hours ago. But you prefer to play games; par for the course.
ing truth bomb. I feel the same way and no one else I know who loves football seems to get it...NFL games are 75% ads, 20% slow motion replays, and 5% action.
Pavlov
Is Ray Lewis the snowflake? Is the owner a snowflake? Is the organization as a whole snowflakes? You could have easily clarified this, hours ago. But you prefer to play games; par for the course.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote