Fire Lou

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=105431:date=Jul 14 2010, 08:54 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Jul 14 2010, 08:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105341:date=Jul 13 2010, 07:19 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 13 2010, 07:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105330:date=Jul 13 2010, 06:31 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Jul 13 2010, 06:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105274:date=Jul 13 2010, 12:31 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 13 2010, 12:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105227:date=Jul 13 2010, 08:40 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Jul 13 2010, 08:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105208:date=Jul 13 2010, 06:30 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 13 2010, 06:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->And then when it's over, he'll say Lou should be fired anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I don't understand why this upsets you so much. Why, if you believe the Cubs should get a new manager, do you have to 100% dump on the current one for every single thing he does?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Why, if you believe the Cubs should get a new manager, do you have to 100% defend the current one every single time someone else dumps on him?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I don't 100% defend him. Case in point, I agree with you on the Soto argument you guys are having with BT. I don't blindly defend him either. I speak my mind on what I think on each individual topic. If I hear someone saying Lou is not paying attention/senile/doesn't care/etc. then I will defend him on that because I think he is paying attention, is not senile, and does care. Not because I blindly defend him. Just because I disagree with you should not automatically make me the subject of your criticism.

Which brings me to my next defense. The way you guys are talking to BT is really smarmy and shitty. You're faulting him for the way he defends his arguments? The guy makes valid points. Even on points I disagree with him on (which, as hard as it is to believe, does in fact happen) I have to admit he makes a good case. Don't try to turn it into "you're actually wrong but you've convinced yourself you're right". That's just bullshit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Yeah, it's real shitty of me to say he's a convincing debater. What a dick I am.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Right, because there was absolutely no sarcasm in anything you said. Right? This line really convinced me of that.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->That's why I want to keep Hendry and Lou. I can't win. No one can.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Right?




Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Piss rain is still rain.

Anyway, in the end, all I'm really doing is complimenting BT. I don't give a flying fuck if you believe that or not.

The fact of the matter is that every time I'm convinced of something, BT presents an argument that has me questioning my own beliefs. That's a fact. If you think that's insulting, that's your prerogative, but i really don't think BT needs you to stand up for him. He does pretty well on his own.

You, on the other, seem to convince me that my beliefs are right on the money. Maybe therein lies the problem?