Michael Vick pwned!

[marcray]

He can get over it but I know a lot of people who never will.

are you positive he ever cared enough to "get over it"?

 

[Brad Johnson]

Cat psychology 101 time: Domestic cats are stuck in a perpetual state of adolescence, they never reach adulthood because their "parent" (i.e. YOU) never chases them out of their territory and forces them to fend completely for themselves.

Nice guess but wrong. My cat was doing that before he moved in.

Some domestic cats will take a step further on their own, but most will not. I do know of some that are a bit more independant and actually eat their kills, but they are rare.

Playing with prey is "training", it is how adolescent felinoids learn to kill, playing with different prey animals teaches them how to kill the various food animals they have available. It's not pretty, but it is evolution in action.

Again, my cat kills sometimes, even though he's not hungry. He also eats sometimes.

Leaving a dead animal for you is again basic feline psychology 101. The adolescent feline (from lion to your basic tabby) will kill and then display the kill to it's mother (dads are pretty non-existant in raising them...so you're MOMMY! ). You, being "mom", are presented with the proof of the cat's prowess at providing itself with food, much like your kid coming home with an "A" on a math or science test and being proud to present their accomplishment. Same intent, albeit with vastly different methods!

There are a few other examples of this fact. How about this one: Did you know that NO adult felinoid purrs, yet ALL non-adult felinoids do! Purring is a sign of not being adult in felines! Does your cat purr? Yes? Well, that's because he/she is in a state of arrested development, psychologically, as a feline!

No offense but you seem to have spent far more time understanding the psyche of felines than humans.

There is a very good book about domestic cats, but I don't have it handy right now, and cannot remember the author or title... ...Desmond something or another...You can also waste an inordinate amout of your time watching Discovery Channel, Animal Planet or The Science Channel like I do!

I understand why my cat does what it does. If I were to take the time and effort, I could probably understand why Vick did what he did too.

I think the whole system is fubar. College is about education, or so I thought...:scowl:...it seems to have been perverted into just another money-making scheme in colleges with big-time sports/athletic programs. Sad. (And I'm a college football fan! ) It isn't just Vick I've got an issue with, it's the system that produces a regular crop of pampered, uneducated, unthinking, "the rules don't apply to me, because they never have!" butt-heads like Vick.

But your focus and ire seem to be laser beamed on him, as if he's somehow the posture child of this sort of thing.

You gotta start dealing with the problem - both the system and it's products - somewhere. Vick gave us a flashpoint, or at least a starting place, I say we make the most of it! (I doubt there will be any real success, but one can hope....sigh...)

I think you give Vick more credit than he is due. I doubt he will EVER learn the lesson he is being taught right now. He has been treated differently since he was able to run, he's probably ALWAYS been "special", and not held accountable as you or I in our lives. It's too late to save him, but he can serve as an example to younger athletes that will be our "star" players in the next 10-20 years.

And tomorrow's lottery numbers will be...?

I'm not giving Vick any credit, Gard... what I'm doing is giving him the benefit of the doubt. That's because I'm not omnipotent, I don't know what's in his heart and I don't know if he'll change. You OTOH hand seem to KNOW he won't. I honestly don't get that attitude... never have, never will. You don't know what you will do tomorrow but you know what someone else will.

That said, not all athletes are hosebags, there are plenty of examples of guys that are decent human beings (I like to use Drew Brees as an example...), we need to elevate these individuals to the "star" status we gave people like Mike Vick, even if they aren't the overwhelming physical monsters he was.

As a reformed sports fan, I think it's all BS, this stuff about "stars" and role models. People need to grow up and look at the real world that surrounds them, instead of investing this much emotion in people they only think they know. Talk about cats never reaching adulthood...

Will I ever "get over" what he did? As soon as he understands, in a genuine way, what he did, how wrong it was, and atones for doing it in a way that leaves no doubt, yes, I will get over it.

But he can't... you already determined as much. Remember?

However, I don't think he should ever be allowed on a football field again as a player. It isn't the dog fighting that makes me say this, it's the GAMBLING that does. He financed a gambling operation as well as the dogfighting operation, and plenty of players lost their NFL careers in the past for betting on stuff....much less financing gambling operations.

If that'll make you happy. I know for a fact that there are no other gamblers in the NFL.

 

[Brad Johnson]

are you positive he ever cared enough to "get over it"?

Did I say that?

Are you too saying he "can't"?

Seriously... did I say he WILL? Let me know what I wrote that confused you.

 

[marcray]

Did I say that?

Are you too saying he "can't"?

Seriously... did I say he WILL? Let me know what I wrote that confused you.

Did I say that he "can't"? I asked if you knew for sure if he cared in the first place, to, as you say, "get over it"...

I'll only do that once. If you don't know what else you wrote, then I don't see it as my responsibility to tell you...

 

[Brad Johnson]

Did I say that he "can't"? I asked if you knew for sure if he cared in the first place, to, as you say, "get over it"...

I asked that because you questioned me about my statement that he CAN get over it. If you don't think to the contrary (he can't), what the heck was your question for?

I'll only do that once. If you don't know what else you wrote, then I don't see it as my responsibility to tell you...

Good... it's not like I want to explain it again in the future

You said: "are you positive he ever cared enough to "get over it"?"

I know what I wrote, I don't have a clue what the heck you're reading. I'll answer your question, even though it struck me as particularly goofy. No, I'm not positive he ever cared. How in the world could I be positive of that? That's why I think it's a silly question. Did I say anything remotely resmbling that I was positive of that? No... so why did you ask? I don't see it as my responsibility to answer goofy baseless questions but I will. Once.



OTOH do I think he CAN change? Yes, as long as he's alive he has the ABILTY to do that. Do you disagree?


Heck, think about the question...has he ever cared enough in the first place (that would be in the past tense) to do something different (in the future).


You think people can't change in the future?


Again, maybe you just don't see a distinction between "CAN" and "WILL". I do.

Are we done?

 

[marcray]

I asked that because you questioned me about my statement that he CAN get over it. If you don't think to the contrary (he can't), what the heck was your question for?

do you always get so blustery about 1 simple question?

Good... it's not like I want to explain it again in the future

Why? Must happen a lot to you huh?

You said: "are you positive he ever cared enough to "get over it"?"

I know what I wrote, I don't have a clue what the heck you're reading. I'll answer your question, even though it struck me as particularly goofy. No, I'm not positive he ever cared. How in the world could I be positive of that?

Now, how easy was that? Heaven knows why you couldn't have just said that in the first place...

Funny that you can't be positive of that but...

I know a lot of people who never will.

Maybe it's because you "know" them.

OTOH do I think he CAN change? Yes, as long as he's alive he has the ABILTY to do that. Do you disagree?

I agree he can change.

Heck, think about the question...has he ever cared enough in the first place (that would be in the past tense) to do something different (in the future).

You even confuse yourself...

You think people can't change in the future?

I think people can change, but I'm trying to find where I wrote that they can't.

Again, maybe you just don't see a distinction between "CAN" and "WILL". I do.

You ask whether I know the distinction. You should ask yourself if Vick does.

Are we done?

I don't know, are we?

 

[Brad Johnson]

do you always get so blustery about 1 simple question?

Goofy questions from out of left field? Funny, the people who ask them usually have that reaction.

Why? Must happen a lot to you huh?

That's right, you're the only one who can decide to do something once. Of course that'll likely confuse you too.

Now, how easy was that? Heaven knows why you couldn't have just said that in the first place...

Funny that you can't be positive of that but...

I did say it... why couldn't you read the words in the first place, then you wouldn't have felt the need to ask the dumb question... in the first place?

Remember, this was your tangent, not mine. Now you feel that I'm somehow supposed to explain simple English to you. I clearly said "can". Your inabilty to understand that is the root of your problem and the only reason you had to ask anyway.

Maybe it's because you "know" them.

No, it's because they said it. Duh.

I agree he can change.

Then why the hell would you ask something as dense as you did? Now you're saying you agree with me that he can change. So should I now ask you if your positive he ever cared enough to get over it?

This is goofy. Really, really goofy. Is this the best you can come up with?

You even confuse yourself...

Considering this started with your inability to understand a simple word ("can") in context, I'll take that into consideration.

I think people can change, but I'm trying to find where I wrote that they can't.

One last time. I said he CAN change. You now say that people CAN change. So explain the genius behind asking me if I'm positive he ever cared enough blah blah blah (which I never came close to saying). Are you?

Wow.

You ask whether I know the distinction. You should ask yourself if Vick does.

Between "can" and "will"? Why? What bearing on Vick does can and will have in this tangent?

I hope this is all an act on your part. Otherwise, my sympathies.

A better question would be why I even bothered even addressing a question as obtuse and irrelevant as yours in the first place. Your refusal to acknowledge how off-base the question was, following by the absurdity of you agreeing with what I initially said, is classic stuff.

I don't know, are we?

Yeah, I am. I've seen you in action before and shouldn't known not to expect anything approaching a logical, rational discussion. It's all yours, knock yourself out.


Do us both a favor and don't address me in the future... I'll have no problem leaving you alone.

 

[marcray]

Goofy questions from out of left field? Funny, the people who ask them usually have that reaction.



That's right, you're the only one who can decide to do something once. Of course that'll likely confuse you too.



I did say it... why couldn't you read the words in the first place, then you wouldn't have felt the need to ask the dumb question... in the first place?

Remember, this was your tangent, not mine. Now you feel that I'm somehow supposed to explain simple English to you. I clearly said "can". Your inabilty to understand that is the root of your problem and the only reason you had to ask anyway.



No, it's because they said it. Duh.




Then why the hell would you ask something as dense as you did? Now you're saying you agree with me that he can change. So should I now ask you if your positive he ever cared enough to get over it?

This is goofy. Really, really goofy. Is this the best you can come up with?



Considering this started with your inability to understand a simple word ("can") in context, I'll take that into consideration.




One last time. I said he CAN change. You now say that people CAN change. So explain the genius behind asking me if I'm positive he ever cared enough blah blah blah (which I never came close to saying). Are you?

Wow.



Between "can" and "will"? Why? What bearing on Vick does can and will have in this tangent?

I hope this is all an act on your part. Otherwise, my sympathies.

A better question would be why I even bothered even addressing a question as obtuse and irrelevant as yours in the first place. Your refusal to acknowledge how off-base the question was, following by the absurdity of you agreeing with what I initially said, is classic stuff.



Yeah, I am. I've seen you in action before and shouldn't known not to expect anything approaching a logical, rational discussion. It's all yours, knock yourself out.


Do us both a favor and don't address me in the future... I'll have no problem leaving you alone.

wow what a little tantrum... all this childishness over one simple question... of course answering me in the first place, no matter how much of a tangent and "goofy" you yourself considered it, would have been polite and engaging, and best of all could have avoided all this fuss, but that's just not your style is it...

don't worry, having a 6 year old I'm used to it (including use of words like "goofy")... if you can't handle me addressing you, then I have no problem doing you that favour.

 

[Brad Johnson]

wow what a little tantrum... all this childishness over one stupid question, followed by more stupid questions... don't worry, being a 6 year old I'm used to it... if you can't handle me addressing you, then I have no problem doing you that favour.

/fixed

 

[marcray]

/fixed

maturity level exposed

 

[Brad Johnson]

In post 161.

Next.

Edit: Every conversation with you seems to end up this way. I can honestly say I don't like people like you. You probably don't like me. Fine. Let's end this. If in the future I write something that somehow confuses you, live with it. I'll do the same.

 

[marcray]

In post 161.

Next.

Edit: Every conversation with you seems to end up this way. I can honestly say I don't like people like you. You probably don't like me. Fine. Let's end this. If in the future I write something that somehow confuses you, live with it. I'll do the same.

why would you say I don't like you? I don't know you. All I did was ask if you knew whether the subject of this thread, Michael Vick, cared in the first place...

...and you come to the conclusion that you don't like me or anyone like me?

Are you sure it's limited to your conversations with me, or are all your conversations with people "like me" ending this way?

One day I may care enough to search...

 

[Jared Lash]

Big difference between a battle for dominance and coercing two animals to fight in some twisted game for your pleasure.

Animals do things that seem pretty awful on a regular basis, but it is a part of their instinct, that which makes that particular species what it is. It may seem pretty violent or twisted from our persepctive, but then again we aren't inciting them to do it for our "pleasure", are we?

Vick is a dirtbag, and for the record, so is Roy Jones Jr.

I don't know Michael Vick enough to say whether or not he's a dirt bag (same with Roy Jones Jr.) although he certainly engages in some "dirtbag" behavior. I guess my post was really revolving around two points.

(1) It is interesting to consider what we have deemed acceptable and unacceptable in terms of killing animals. Killing for food, hunted as sport, by a veterinarian to control populations, by farmers to protect crops are by the majority of people deemed acceptable, though there is certainly a percentage of people that would have a problem with each of them.

Fighting animals has been deemed unacceptable, but still, there are degrees of outrage. Cockfighting doesn't nearly upset people as much as dogfighting. And of course, that's only considering this country. In other cultures where dogs are food, or have long been used for this sort of perverse entertainment, the reaction to Vick's behavior would be very different, if not dismissed entirely. In short, this entire ordeal has made me think about the different relationships that humans have with animals. I still find Vick's actions disgusting, but it was interesting to try to understand how and why that visceral reaction came to be.

(2) My second point follows somewhat from the first. Clinton Portis' off the cuff remarks (which he later retracted/apologized for) reveal how some people in this nation view dogs and dog fighting. They don't view these animals as loving companions, but as property, and not necessarily property that they want anything to do with. In their minds, fighting dogs for entertainment simply isn't a big deal. It's probably no t much different in their minds than watching a boxing match or hunting for sport. Obviously, as a dog lover I don't share that view and I'm glad it's illegal, but it is interesting to me to see how other people's sense of right and wrong is calibrated.

Sorry for the long post, but the bottom line for me is that I'm glad Michael Vick was arrested and will serve time for his crime. But I simply can't view him on par with a rapist, a child molester or a murderer. That's not to say others can't view him in that light or worse, just that I don't really understand it. I also don't see him as the alpha and omega of dogfighting. He may have been the ringleader of a fairly large operation, but I think people would be surprised at how much dogfighting really goes on in this country. I'd like to see it all stop, but "hoping" Michael Vick dies in prison (as I've read more than once in this thread) won't make that happen.

 

[Brad Johnson]

why would you say I don't like you? I don't know you. All I did was ask if you knew whether the subject of this thread, Michael Vick, cared in the first place...

And how exactly could I possibly know that and what the hell does that have to do with his ability to change in the future? I asked you that and you didn't answer.

...and you come to the conclusion that you don't like me or anyone like me?

Simply put, yes. Have you given me a reason to like you?


Sometimes people who do what you've done can be amusing. Sometimes it just gets old, the apparently inability to understand simple language. Ask your six year old, maybe it can shed some light on this for you.

Are you sure it's limited to your conversations with me, or is it all conversations with people "like me" that end this way?

I can honestly say I don't like people who refuse to read and even when clarification is given, still refuse to understand something as simple as what this stupid, yes, stupid tangent is based on.

Why would a thinking adult think another person would say they were positive about what someone neither of them knows personally thought, thinks or will do? On what level is that not silly?

Well?

And no, thankfully all conversations with people like you don't end this way. If there's a misunderstanding most people will acknowledge it. You OTOH apparently have something to prove... and it likely has nothing to do with this thread, just me. And I've seen that way too much on TB. The last conversation I vaguely recall having with you ended this way and it just gets old.


Do you really wonder if I'm positive that he ever cared enough to get over it? If you look at the question, it's nonsensical. What does it have to do with what he might do in the future. I already explained that.

If you're not really wondering about this, then what was the point of the question. Go ahead, explain. Otherwise...

There are folks here who think they can see the future and look in people's minds. Talk to them.

 

[marcray]

And how exactly could I possibly know that and what the hell does that have to do with his ability to change in the future? I asked you that and you didn't answer.

excuse me...?? Below is a post from #166 I believe...

I agree he can change.

Simply put, yes. Have you given me a reason to like you?

You want me to take you to dinner or something?

Sometimes people who do what you've done can be amusing. Sometimes it just gets old, the apparently inability to understand simple language. Ask your six year old, maybe it can shed some light on this for you.

You've resorted to referring to my child as "it"? :scowl:

I can honestly say I don't like people who refuse to read and even when clarification is given, still refuse to understand something as simple as what this stupid, yes, stupid tangent is based on.

Why would a thinking adult think another person would say they were positive about what someone neither of them knows personally thought, thinks or will do? On what level is that not silly?

Well?

Given... maybe you just didn't understand the question? Maybe this why you resort to words such as "stupid" and "silly"?

And no, thankfully all conversations with people like you don't end this way. If there's a misunderstanding most people will acknowledge it. You OTOH apparently have something to prove... and it likely has nothing to do with this thread, just me. And I've seen that way too much on TB. The last conversation I vaguely recall having with you ended this way and it just gets old.

The fact that you are always seeing it on TB is interesting isn't it?

Do you really wonder if I'm positive that he ever cared enough to get over it? If you look at the question, it's nonsensical. What does it have to do with what he might do in the future. I already explained that.

If you're not really wondering about this, then what was the point of the question. Go ahead, explain. Otherwise...

There are folks here who think they can see the future and look in people's minds. Talk to them.

Nonsensical? Well that would be a matter of opinion, but yes, it was simple, and again, if you'd have politely answered, all this could have been avoided.

What is clear is that you have a great style of debate and I respect that. You use words effectively and make people think about their own words and thoughts very deeply, and that is extremely valuable and strong. But, I respectfully ask if you ever look deeply inside your own thoughts and words? If you understood this premise then you would have understood the original question that I asked..., that you since have repeatedly put down as "silly and "stupid".

Look, we've never met. Saying you don't like me or anyone like me would seem, to use one of your words, "nonsensical" to me, especially in the world of internet message boards. IMHO It's really not that important.

Please, don't rush to judge me as quickly as the people you have maybe scolded for rushing to judge Michael Vick. (I apologize for the word scolded, that may be the wrong term).

 

[Brad Johnson]

excuse me...?? Below is a post from #166 I believe...

Are you positive???


That's how goofy this is.

You want me to take you to dinner or something?

Absolutely not, based on what I've seen here.

You've resorted to referring to my child as "it"? :scowl:

Are you serious?


Sorry... he/she. I don't recall the sex of your child that YOU brought up as an insult to me and failed to mention. Duh.

It just gets better and better... I guess you're mentioning this because you didn't take offense to it.

Given... maybe you just didn't understand the question? Maybe this why you resort to words such as "stupid" and "silly"?

Maybe you don't know how to ask an intelligent question... but by all means blame me for that. Read the question... it's been quoted several times. Duh.

The fact that you are always seeing it on TB is interesting isn't it?

DId I say I "always" see it on TB? This is exactly what I'm talking about. If there's a really silly way to read something, there you go. Why? Is it really that hard for you to read and consider the first way you took something, reading between the lines and filling in the blanks, may not be the right way.

Nonsensical? Well that would be a matter of opinion, but yes, it was simple, and again, if you'd have politely answered, all this could have been avoided.

You could've kept the dumb question to yourself... or figured out an intelligent way to ask whatever the hell it was that you actually meant. I still don't know, other than what you actually wrote, what other intent you had.

What is clear is that you have a great style of debate and I respect that. You use words effectively and make people think about their own words and thoughts very deeply, and that is extremely valuable and strong. But, I respectfully ask if you ever look deeply inside your own thoughts and words? If you understood this premise then you would have understood the original question that I asked..., that you since have repeatedly put down as "silly and "stupid".

Am I positive? No. How could I possibly be? Before I'd ask anyone a question like that, I'd consider that... and it would keep me from asking it because I would then know it to be non-sensical.

If I did turn rationality off long enough to ask the question and then in response someone explained the same thing to me, I'd think about it and most likely realize the error in my ways. You still haven't, you just keep going and going.

Look, we've never met. Saying you don't like me or anyone like me would seem, to use one of your words, "nonsensical" to me, especially in the world of internet message boards. IMHO It's really not that important.

This part made me laugh out loud... show of hands, who has met Michael Vick, the subject of this thread?

Think.

That's all I asked. You clearly aren't doing that, are you?

I agree, this is not important. Me not liking people who do what you're doing should be equally unimportant, shouldn't it? So far you've shown me nothing to like, and a few things to dislike.

Please, don't rush to judge me as quickly as the people you have maybe scolded for rushing to judge Michael Vick. (I apologize for the word scolded, that may be the wrong term).

Huh?

We've gone back and forth before, I think a moderator may have even gotten involved. This latest tangent is no surprise based on the past.

If you quit doing it, which I think you CAN do...



is this thing on?



BTW I asked people about their position on Vick. I explained mine.

 

[marcray]

Are you positive???


That's how goofy this is.




Absolutely not, based on what I've seen here.


Are you serious?


Sorry... he/she. I don't recall the sex of your child that YOU brought up as an insult to me and failed to mention. Duh.

It just gets better and better... I guess you're mentioning this because you didn't take offense to it.




Maybe you don't know how to ask an intelligent question... but by all means blame me for that. Read the question... it's been quoted several times. Duh.



DId I say I "always" see it on TB? This is exactly what I'm talking about. If there's a really silly way to read something, there you go. Why? Is it really that hard for you to read and consider the first way you took something, reading between the lines and filling in the blanks, may not be the right way.



You could've kept the dumb question to yourself... or figured out an intelligent way to ask whatever the hell it was that you actually meant. I still don't know, other than what you actually wrote, what other intent you had.




Am I positive? No. How could I possibly be? Before I'd ask anyone a question like that, I'd consider that... and it would keep me from asking it because I would then know it to be non-sensical.

If I did turn rationality off long enough to ask the question and then in response someone explained the same thing to me, I'd think about it and most likely realize the error in my ways. You still haven't, you just keep going and going.



This part made me laugh out loud... show of hands, who has met Michael Vick, the subject of this thread?

Think.

That's all I asked. You clearly aren't doing that, are you?

I agree, this is not important. Me not liking people who do what you're doing should be equally unimportant, shouldn't it? So far you've shown me nothing to like, and a few things to dislike.



Huh?

We've gone back and forth before, I think a moderator may have even gotten involved. This latest tangent is no surprise based on the past.

If you quit doing it, which I think you CAN do...



is this thing on?



BTW I asked people about their position on Vick. I explained mine.

Phew, another tantrum... another barrage of literal insults... I guess in your own unique way, you actually answered my last question...

 

[Brad Johnson]

Phew, another tantrum... another barrage of literal insults... I guess in your own unique way, you actually answered my last question...

If anything you're insulting me by continuing with this nonsense. Mission accomplished?


And as usual you haven't answered a single one of mine, no doubt because it might jar something, anything loose and actually force you to see the point.


People like that are useless IMO. That's why I don't like people who do what you're doing. From the constant misreadings, misrepresentations, the doofus indignation that I didn't refer to the child you brought up by it's sex (hint: I stiill have no idea what sex your child is... duh), the inability to put two and two together. Just like before.

Except for occassionally serving as a cautionary tale, completely useless. Fortunately you'll problem remain just as clueless of that as you have of everything else that's been written, to try not to show just how badly your comprehension skills are malfunctioning.

The funny thing is that the reason you won't address the questions is completely transparent.



Let's wrap this up, you're clearly not worth the pixels.

 

[Ryan L.]

And now back to our regularly scheduled thread....................

 

[marcray]

If anything you're insulting me by continuing with this nonsense. Mission accomplished?


And as usual you haven't answered a single one of mine, no doubt because it might jar something, anything loose and actually force you to see the point.


People like that are useless IMO. That's why I don't like people who do what you're doing. From the constant misreadings, misrepresentations, the doofus indignation that I didn't refer to the child you brought up by it's sex (hint: I stiill have no idea what sex your child is... duh), the inability to put two and two together. Just like before.

Except for occassionally serving as a cautionary tale, completely useless. Fortunately you'll problem remain just as clueless of that as you have of everything else that's been written, to try not to show just how badly your comprehension skills are malfunctioning.

The funny thing is that the reason you won't address the questions is completely transparent.



Let's wrap this up, you're clearly not worth the pixels.

EDIT: I had a whole thing here but it's just not going in. The only thing I have to say, is that you've confirmed my suspicions about you.

So by all means, consider it wrapped.