Simmons

[BuffMania]

If by "not as optimistic" you mean you are a pessimist, than yes, you are correct. Not everyone needs to be a sunshine pumper, but you don't seem to have any positive takes on the Buffs. Most posters here are pretty realistic when it comes to the Buffs, and most of us are hopeful that 2009 is the season that things finally come together, such is the way things are in mid July. You seem to have a very black and white view of things.

First, I disagree that most on here are realistic when it comes to the 2009 season. Second, my opinions are simply just that, my opinions. I don't think it's smart to expect great things from a JUCO player who arrives days before fall camp. I don't agree with placing Scott above Stewart when Stewart clearly was the better back last year, ect., ect. That does not make me a Husker fans, or a whatever else. It's a differing opinion. Handle it.

Tell that to Shawn Mohler...

First, I don't recall exactly when Mohler came in. I don't think it was as late as Simmons, but I could be wrong.

Secondly, I'm not saying Simmons WON'T or CAN'T have an impact, I'm saying I don't think he will, nor do I think should he be expected to have one.

 

[Highflyer]

First, I disagree that most on here are realistic when it comes to the 2009 season. Second, my opinions are simply just that, my opinions. I don't think it's smart to expect great things from a JUCO player who arrives days before fall camp. I don't agree with placing Scott above Stewart when Stewart clearly was the better back last year, ect., ect. That does not make me a Husker fans, or a whatever else. It's a differing opinion. Handle it.

Did you neg rep Unleash (as he reported) for articulating his opinion on runningbacks? If so, how do you reconcile the respect you request for your opinions with your lack of respect for the opinion of others?

Thanks in advance for your reply.

First, I disagree that most on here are realistic when it comes to the 2009 season. Second, my opinions are simply just that, my opinions. I don't think it's smart to expect great things from a JUCO player who arrives days before fall camp. I don't agree with placing Scott above Stewart when Stewart clearly was the better back last year, ect., ect. That does not make me a Husker fans, or a whatever else. It's a differing opinion. Handle it.

I agree with you about about the Stewart/Scott deal. Speedy has proved it o the field. That said I expect Scott to be a different player than last year. As for a Juco not being able to come in and contribute right away, the JUCO that have come to CU in recent years have more success than they have failure.

First, I don't recall exactly when Mohler came in. I don't think it was as late as Simmons, but I could be wrong.

Secondly, I'm not saying Simmons WON'T or CAN'T have an impact, I'm saying I don't think he will, nor do I think should he be expected to have one.

Well, Simmons expects to make an impact, the coaches expect him to make an impact, so I thinks it's fair that fans expect him to. You chose not to, and that's fine. I believe it's misplaced, but to each their own.

 

[BuffMania]

Did you neg rep Unleash (as he reported) for articulating his opinion on runningbacks? If so, how do you reconcile the respect you request for your opinions with your lack of respect for the opinion of others?


Thanks in advance for your reply.

First of all, no.

Second of all, you should be the last one asking about negative reps. The insults you throw around in negative reps (when you don't jack them up) are weak.





"Are my (The Walrus's) insults weaker than _________?"

Fill in the blank, and the answer will always be yes. But go ahead, give me yet another negative rep comment, The Walrus. They're comical! :thumbsup:

 

[The Guest]

First of all, no.

Second of all, you should be the last one asking about negative reps. The insults you throw around in negative reps (when you don't jack them up) are weak.

So you didn't neg rep Unleash?

Are my insults weaker than "not the sharpest knife in the kitchen?", because that's pretty weak. Or perhaps they're weaker than your quote from above? That's some pretty heavy stuff right there.

 

[sackman]

As author of this thread, I would like to thank all of you who have contributed to making this thread RAWK!

:woot:

 

[Duff Man]

As author of this thread, I would like to thank all of you who have contributed to making this thread RAWK!

:woot:

**** you.

 

[The Guest]

"Are my (The Walrus's) insults weaker than _________?"

Fill in the blank, and the answer will always be yes. But go ahead, give me yet another negative rep comment, The Walrus. They're comical! :thumbsup:

Since you're such a self-proclaimed fan of logic, perhaps you could help me answer a question. Here're the clues...

1. Buffmania makes an appearance on Allbuffs and argues vehenemently that there's no real difference in circumstances between J-Fly's scholarship release and Clemons' release from Michigan. Furthermore, his position remains unchanged after many other Allbuffers provide evidence otherwise.

2. Buffmania resists acknowledging that Tom Osborne voted CU anything other than #1 in the final UPI football poll of the 1990 season. He continues to resist after a copy-and-paste from Wikipedia. Still he won't waver when told by other Allbuffers that Tom Osborne admitted that he placed GT above CU AND furthermore, discussed it in his recent radio appearance.

3. Unleash Hell claims Buffmania neg-repped his post which outlined his prediction on who would be the most valuable member of the CU offensive backfield this season.

4. Buffmania denies neg-rep was ever delivered to Unleash.

5. When questioned about the "closet husker" tag below his log-in name, Buffmania claims that it was assigned to him by a mod.

6. A mod denies having that power.

Question: Buffmania, fan or troll?

 

[BuffMania]

Since you're such a self-proclaimed fan of logic, perhaps you could help me answer a question. Here're the clues...

1. Buffmania makes an appearance on Allbuffs and argues vehenemently that there's no real difference in circumstances between J-Fly's scholarship release and Clemons' release from Michigan. Furthermore, his position remains unchanged after many other Allbuffers provide evidence otherwise.

That's a lie. I noted the differences, but I simply do not think they (the differences) are large enough to warrant completely opposite reactions. You, on the otherhand, refused to accept any similarities between the two situations. Just take another shot of kool-aid.

2. Buffmania resists acknowledging that Tom Osborne voted CU anything other than #1 in the final UPI football poll of the 1990 season. He continues to resist after a copy-and-paste from Wikipedia. Still he won't waver when told by other Allbuffers that Tom Osborne admitted that he placed GT above CU AND furthermore, discussed it in his recent radio appearance.

Hey, what do you know, another LIE from The Walrus. I never said Osborne didn't vote GT #1 over CU. I asked for evidence of Osborne voting CU LOWER than #2. Hopefully, you have the ability to distinguish between being ranked #2 and #3 or #4. If not, then you have my condolences.

5. When questioned about the "closet husker" tag below his log-in name, Buffmania claims that it was assigned to him by a mod.

6. A mod denies having that power.

I will stake anything in my life on this: Someone, without my permission, put "Closet Husker Fan" underneath my screen name. Whether or not that someone will have the balls to admit it, I do not know. I'm sure that a typical member of the board does not have the power to do that, so my only guess is that a moderator, or the chief moderator, does.

 

[The Guest]

That's a lie. I noted the differences, but I simply do not think they (the differences) are large enough to warrant completely opposite reactions. You, on the otherhand, refused to accept any similarities between the two situations. Just take another shot of kool-aid.



Hey, what do you know, another LIE from The Walrus. I never said Osborne didn't vote GT #1 over CU. I asked for evidence of Osborne voting CU LOWER than #2. Hopefully, you have the ability to distinguish between being ranked #2 and #3 or #4. If not, then you have my condolences.


I will stake anything in my life on this: Someone, without my permission, put "Closet Husker Fan" underneath my screen name. Whether or not that someone will have the balls to admit it, I do not know. I'm sure that a typical member of the board does not have the power to do that, so my only guess is that a moderator, or the chief moderator, does.

You left out numbers three and four.

Also, as I've explained before, I didn't have a dog in the fight regarding the scholarships. I've asked you to produce evidence to support your point before. I'd ask you to do so again. What is your evidence to justify your statement in the below quote?

You, on the otherhand, refused to accept any similarities between the two situations.

 

[NashBuff]

Because it's two years of eligibility, not one. I'm not saying Simmons won't make an impact in 2010, I just don't think he'll make it in 2009. Does he know the playbook? The system? The environment? The speed and strength of Div1A football?

He'll have fall camp to get acquainted to A LOT. I just don't see it happening quickly enough for him to make a significant impact.

Mohler was in the same situation last year and it would be understandable if Simmons won't make the same kind of impact that we hope he makes this season. Having to do 25 credit hours in that time frame would have to be mentally exhausting.

If Simmons is able to put in that kind of work on the football field, it'd rub off the other players nicely. :thumbsup:

 

[BuffMania]

Instead of allowing you to run rampant asking me 21 questions, why don't you first address your inaccurate comment about me claiming there is no evidence Osborne voted CU #2. Explain how you can claim that, when I clearly asked for evidence that showed if Osborne voted CU anything below #2.

Thanks in advance.

 

[The Guest]

Instead of allowing you to run rampant asking me 21 questions, why don't you first address your inaccurate comment about me claiming there is no evidence Osborne voted CU #2. Explain how you can claim that, when I clearly asked for evidence that showed if Osborne voted CU anything below #2.

Thanks in advance.

I misrepresented your view and for that I apologize. I went back and reviewed the post. Though I feel that my statement fell short of "another lie" as you claimed, and even short of gross negligence.

How do you respond to your innaccurate comment regarding my views on the J-Fly thread?

How do your respond to your accusation of "another lie"? Assuming that my statement regarding the Osborne thread was in fact a lie (which I address above), could you please list the previous lies that warrant the term "another"? I'm curious.

 

[BuffMania]

I misrepresented your view and for that I apologize. I went back and reviewed the post. Though I feel that my statement fell short of "another lie" as you claimed, and even short of gross negligence.

How do you respond to your innaccurate comment regarding my views on the J-Fly thread?

How do your respond to your accusation of "another lie"? Assuming that my statement regarding the Osborne thread was in fact a lie (which I address above), could you please list the previous lies that warrant the term "another"? I'm curious.

Either it's lies, or you're constantly misrepresenting my views. I told you a week ago when you drug the topic up, that I did recognize there were differences in Smith and Clemons, but that I didn't feel the differences were big enough to consitute such drastically different beliefs on the matter. At that time, if you simply had mistaken my viewpoint, I corrected it for you. Yet, again today, you do the same exact thing. I already told you, there are differenes in the situations, but those differences, in my opinion, simply aren't enough to explain why some have no problem with Clemons "breaking a contract" yet have such a large problem with Smith "breaking a contract." Now, beyond that, were there differences? Yes. There were. I think the biggest difference for most is that one was LEAVING CU and one was COMING to CU...but that's obviously just my opinion.

Now onto Osborne and where he voted CU. I clearly stated what I stated in that thread, and then I even REITERATED to you that I was talking about voting CU BELOW #2. Yet today, AGAIN, you drug up that thread and grossly misrepresented what I said.

If you are seriously interested in bringing up my past statements, fine, I'm all for that. However, when doing so, just be accurate.

My opinions on this board alone are enough to generate negative discussion, we don't need to alter them any to accomplish that. :smile:

 

[Hugegroove]

BuffMania -

You should be able to go into your profile and change your location. Also, I was not trying to throw fuel on your fire when I posted my "suspicious location" comment. I only meant to point out to others that your screen name and location were somewhat counterproductive.

 

[The Guest]

Either it's lies, or you're constantly misrepresenting my views. I told you a week ago when you drug the topic up, that I did recognize there were differences in Smith and Clemons, but that I didn't feel the differences were big enough to consitute such drastically different beliefs on the matter. At that time, if you simply had mistaken my viewpoint, I corrected it for you. Yet, again today, you do the same exact thing. I already told you, there are differenes in the situations, but those differences, in my opinion, simply aren't enough to explain why some have no problem with Clemons "breaking a contract" yet have such a large problem with Smith "breaking a contract." Now, beyond that, were there differences? Yes. There were. I think the biggest difference for most is that one was LEAVING CU and one was COMING to CU...but that's obviously just my opinion.

That's my impression of your J-Fly views. However, folks are more than welcome to view the thread and decide for themselves.

Now onto Osborne and where he voted CU. I clearly stated what I stated in that thread, and then I even REITERATED to you that I was talking about voting CU BELOW #2. Yet today, AGAIN, you drug up that thread and grossly misrepresented what I said.

Yes, I apologized for that. Are you planning on continuing to use this as a diversionary tactic?

If you are seriously interested in bringing up my past statements, fine, I'm all for that. However, when doing so, just be accurate.

I promise to do my best.

My opinions on this board alone are enough to generate negative discussion, we don't need to alter them any to accomplish that. :smile:

I'm sorry, did you respond to any of the questions I asked you? No?

 

[Unleash Hell]

First of all, no.

Stop lying, you lied about neg repping Boulder Buff too.

Top rusher in 2009? 07-20-2009 12:20 AMBuffMania Stewart has to be at least #2 back

 

[BuffMania]

BuffMania -

You should be able to go into your profile and change your location. Also, I was not trying to throw fuel on your fire when I posted my "suspicious location" comment. I only meant to point out to others that your screen name and location were somewhat counterproductive.

It wasn't my location that was changed by someone...it was the little comments that go underneath the screen name. For instance, some read "Club Member", ect...someone changed mine to read "Closest Husker Fan"...

Stop lying, you lied about neg repping Boulder Buff too.

Top rusher in 2009? 07-20-2009 12:20 AMBuffMania Stewart has to be at least #2 back

I'm not lying. I didn't negative rep you for "expressing your opinion", I gave you a neg rep for suggesting Stewart could be #4 on the depth chart, and then a few posts later, saying Stewart had more talent than Sumler.

Sounded very inconsistent to me.

 

[Unleash Hell]

I'm not lying. I didn't negative rep you for "expressing your opinion", I gave you a neg rep for suggesting Stewart could be #4 on the depth chart, and then a few posts later, saying Stewart had more talent than Sumler.

Sounded very inconsistent to me.

:lol: I hate calling people names, but you sir are a god damn assclown!:lol:

 

[BuffMania]

That's my impression of your J-Fly views. However, folks are more than welcome to view the thread and decide for themselves.

Sounds good to me.

:lol: I hate calling people names, but you sir are a god damn assclown!:lol:

You can say whatever you want. I'm at least consistent, something you clearly are not. Go ahead, suggest that Speedy may fall to #4 on the depth chart. You will see how very wrong you are once the season rolls along.

 

[Duff Man]

opcorn:

 

[Unleash Hell]

Sounds good to me.








You can say whatever you want. I'm at least consistent, something you clearly are not. Go ahead, suggest that Speedy may fall to #4 on the depth chart. You will see how very wrong you are once the season rolls along.

Again, I stated an opinion. I like Speedy and hope he plays a lot, I just don't think he's an everydown back, and think he could fall that far. Do you have to neg rep me for stating an opinion? Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, doesn't mean you go neg repping everyone you disagree with.

 

[BuffMania]

Again, I stated an opinion. I like Speedy and hope he plays a lot, I just don't think he's an everydown back, and think he could fall that far. Do you have to neg rep me for stating an opinion? Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, doesn't mean you go neg
repping everyone you disagree with.

I disapproved of your flip-flopping and you intitially suggesting Speedy could fall to #4. It's a message board negative rep comment, get over it.

 

[The Guest]

Again, I stated an opinion. I like Speedy and hope he plays a lot, I just don't think he's an everydown back, and think he could fall that far. Do you have to neg rep me for stating an opinion? Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, doesn't mean you go neg repping everyone you disagree with.

Oddly, when Buffmania puts on his martyr hat, he usually psts something which reads like your last sentence. However, it would appear based on recent posts, that Buffmania wears an extra large martyr hat to fit over his hypocracy hat.

 

[Highflyer]

First, I don't recall exactly when Mohler came in. I don't think it was as late as Simmons, but I could be wrong.

Secondly, I'm not saying Simmons WON'T or CAN'T have an impact, I'm saying I don't think he will, nor do I think should he be expected to have one.

Mohler got here about this time last summer, which would be maybe two weeks before Simmons would get here, again assuming he does. I don't think those two weeks are that big of a deal. I think anyone who can pass the number of credits that Mohler and Simmons have to get into CU are driven, talented and smart enough to grasp the playbook with a month of practice and playbook study.

 

[The Guest]

I disapproved of your flip-flopping and you intitially suggesting Speedy could fall to #4. It's a message board negative rep comment, get over it.

Actually, I think the issue is more one of credibility. I took responsibility when I misrepresented your position.

In this case it appears--despite your pathetic attempt to spin it otherwise--that you outright lied. It doesn't appear as though you're going to take responsibility for it, however.

On another topic. How many neg reps do you think I've given you? I assure you that you'll know they're from me--I always sign them.

 

[Unleash Hell]

I disapproved of your flip-flopping and you intitially suggesting Speedy could fall to #4. It's a message board negative rep comment, get over it.

It doesn't bother me, what I find funny is you're the first "buff" fan that has neg repped me ever. And I have said a lot of things that people don't agree with. Again, I seriously doubt you're a cu fan.

 

[BuffMania]

Mohler got here about this time last summer, which would be maybe two weeks before Simmons would get here, again assuming he does. I don't think those two weeks are that big of a deal. I think anyone who can pass the number of credits that Mohler and Simmons have to get into CU are driven, talented and smart enough to grasp the playbook with a month of practice and playbook study.

Fair enough, but the playbook is only one adjustment.

Actually, I think the issue is more one of credibility. I took responsibility when I misrepresented your position.

On another topic. How many neg reps do you think I've given you? I assure you that you'll know they're from me--I always sign them.

That's be fine and dandy, but it's not the first time you misrepresented my position, and it wasn't the first time I corrected the EXACT SAME misrepresentation.

I think I got 2 signed from you...and another positive rep comment.

 

[FightCu1414]

Buffmania is just giving neg rep because he is bored and has nothing better to do. Buffmania pick your rep wisely and just hand it out.

 

[Liver]

dear bm,

i just neg-repped you for the hell of it. no reason at all. just for fun.

do you feel the lasting sting of the rep blade?

are you remorseful now?

:rofl:

 

[BuffMania]

It doesn't bother me, what I find funny is you're the first "buff" fan that has neg repped me ever.

And if you keep whining about being neg rep'd, it won't be the last time I give you one. You're letting it get to you way more than it should. As far as you not thinking I'm a Buff fan, I could care less. I know where my allegiance has always been. I'd stand shoulder to shoulder with any Buff fan on this board. With you? I'd try, but something tells me my shoulder lwould be level with that ugly mug of yours.