Defense Metrics

[PlayerRep]

75, you are so right that many of these posters are agenda-driven, or more accurately they think what they think and they're sticking to it, regardless of the facts. I'm fine with posters having a view, trying to support it, and sticking to it, but making up stuff and ignoring facts isn't right and completely undercuts their views, in my view. You do a good job of showing these things, even if some are so blind that they can't or won't see it.

 

[AZGrizFan]

And the 2nd half of the season also featured the 3 most prolific offenses in the BSC--EWU,MSU,ISU. But I'm sure that didn't have anything to do with it. Nor the fact that the "highest opponent score of the season" happened to include 21 points NOT given up by the defense. For a lawyer you sure exclude a lot of important info.

Oh, I've pointed that all out in the past. No, the reason I post some of this data is to see how many excuses people can come up to explain why the data can't be true, even though ... you know, it actually is. There may be "explanations," but that's different than the usual "oh yeah, well what about ..." and "oh yeah, well what about ...?" and "oh yeah, well what about ...?" until we finally get to the preferred narrative of the individual poster -- that has nothing really to do with "the data" or otherwise, but simply their need to reinforce their designated bias and worldview.

I do like the idea that our Defense, put up against offenses that could do little against a real defense, was so handicapped by those powerful Offenses :roll: that they lost a full touchdown per game in the second half of the season. And, by implication, that is absolute proof that the Defense improved! I understand that people actually think that way. I just happen to enjoy pointing it out.

So, that's clear as mud.

Do you, or do you not, believe that the perceived negative difference in defensive stats in the 1st half vs 2nd half of the season has to do with the quality of opponent and not the change in who was creating/driving the defensive process? And if we're going to base the argument on points allowed, how about we only count points actually allowed by the defense?

 

[horribilisfan8184]

75, you put forth information to elicit other poster's preferred narrative, designated bias and worldview. You repeatedly agitate other's to call them out on their allegiance to the coaching staff. I believe that falls under the definition of a troll. I don't see any difference from a cat fan coming over here to agitate the board and your continued efforts to agitate board members.

I disagree with you on some deeply held beliefs, obviously. No need to become a drama queen about it. I don't get married to the coaches the same way you do, because I've been involved in hiring or adminstering too many of them over the years. I love to see success. I don't like hyperventilated fraud and stupidity because I also know the damage that bandwagons and an obsequious fan culture can do to programs and players.

Are you one of the ones who sticks your chest out and projects that "Stitt is going to hire quarterbacks that are fast and accurate?" As though amazed that you never accused any other coach ever of ... gee, doing just that? As I've said many times now, that's not directed at Stitt at all. I assume that's what he wants to do and will try to do it. I just don't think that he's the first guy to think of it, and I think it is a stupid observation when people like you try and pretend that makes him unique. It's not about him. It's about you. You don't get that, do you?

A fawning, dishonest and obsequious fan culture belongs at Bozeman with their wild mood swings from the "Best Coach Ever," to "Run Him Out of Town." If you can't be an intelligent fan of a good football team, and at least modestly respectful of differing opinions, why don't YOU become a Cat fan?

Pretty sure that is not within the rules.....

Gotta love a guy who bashes posters he claims are exaggerators by exaggerating, and shows its all about him while telling others its not about them. This is classic stuff!

 

[UMGriz75]

So, that's clear as mud.

Do you, or do you not, believe that the perceived negative difference in defensive stats in the 1st half vs 2nd half of the season has to do with the quality of opponent and not the change in who was creating/driving the defensive process? And if we're going to base the argument on points allowed, how about we only count points actually allowed by the defense?

As I've noted many times, sometimes "stats" are interesting without necessarily being useful. In the case of an ongoing argument about this and that "proving" that Semore or Gregorak had "more influence," there does happen to be more than "one way" of measuring it.

One nice one was the bookends of having the same team at the beginning and at the end of the DC "succession." Nobody like that one much.

Others preferred comparisons to EWU and MSU, teams that UM caught in the middle of meltdowns, but by gosh they were sure good on the field weren't they if the argument advantage goes to Semore, and not if the advantage goes to Gregorak. OK, so I pointed to other real-world data. It shows what it shows. If it supported your contentions, I have no doubt you would embrace it, and if it contradicted your views, you would denounce it.

I thought the data was interesting. If I had a strong opinion on the meaning of the data, you wouldn't need to ask. What I do enjoy is that if the data contradicts the narrative, the ingenuity of explanations why the data is "wrong." And of course, that's the fallacy. The data isn't wrong.

 

[AZGrizFan]

So, that's clear as mud.

Do you, or do you not, believe that the perceived negative difference in defensive stats in the 1st half vs 2nd half of the season has to do with the quality of opponent and not the change in who was creating/driving the defensive process? And if we're going to base the argument on points allowed, how about we only count points actually allowed by the defense?

As I've noted many times, sometimes "stats" are interesting without necessarily being useful. In the case of an ongoing argument about this and that "proving" that Semore or Gregorak had "more influence," there does happen to be more than "one way" of measuring it.

One nice one was the bookends of having the same team at the beginning and at the end of the DC "succession."

I thought the data was interesting. If I had a strong opinion on the meaning of the data, you wouldn't need to ask. What I do enjoy is that if the data contradicts the narrative, the ingenuity of explanations why the data is "wrong." And of course, that's the fallacy. The data isn't wrong.

The data does NOT contradict the narrative, and the bookend games prove it: Gregorak's D gave up 475 yards and 35 points. Semore's D gave up 316 yards and 16 points. And while EWU and MSU might have been in the middle of DEFENSIVE meltdowns, there was NOTHING wrong with their offenses...and yet they scored significantly below their season averages AND were held below their season averages in yardage.

So you're right about one thing. The data ISN'T wrong...

 

[grizindabox]

Did I read that correctly....75 stated that "stats can be interesting without necessarily being useful" but that is his entire basis to knock Stitt's record at CSM ....or imply that Simis performed better than Gus.... or that the defense was better prior to the PSU game than it was after.....

 

[AZGrizFan]

Did I read that correctly....75 stated that "stats can be interesting without necessarily being useful" but that is his entire basis to knock Stitt's record at CSM ....or imply that Simis performed better than Gus.... or that the defense was better prior to the PSU game than it was after.....

:lol: :lol: :clap: :clap:

 

[Ursa Major]

75, you put forth information to elicit other poster's preferred narrative, designated bias and worldview. You repeatedly agitate other's to call them out on their allegiance to the coaching staff. I believe that falls under the definition of a troll. I don't see any difference from a cat fan coming over here to agitate the board and your continued efforts to agitate board members.

I disagree with you on some deeply held beliefs, obviously. No need to become a drama queen about it. I don't get married to the coaches the same way you do, because I've been involved in hiring or adminstering too many of them over the years. I love to see success. I don't like hyperventilated fraud and stupidity because I also know the damage that bandwagons and an obsequious fan culture can do to programs and players.

Are you one of the ones who sticks your chest out and projects that "Stitt is going to find quarterbacks that are fast and accurate?" As though amazed that you never accused any other coach ever of ... gee, doing just that? As I've said many times now, that's not directed at Stitt at all. I assume that's what he wants to do and will try to do it. I just don't think that he's the first guy to think of it, and I think it is a stupid observation when people like you try and pretend that makes him unique. It's not about him. It's about you. You don't get that, do you? Indeed, as "brewski" always does, if you point to any of his factual exaggerations, 'YOU HATE STITT!" because Brewski thinks he's Stitt or something ... there is a lot of projection in salivating fans like that. I'm not sorry to point out that projecting your own opinions and distorted facts onto the coach as a way of defending misguided, erroneous, and often bizarre factual fantasies is a disservice to the coach. He doesn't deserve you.

A fawning, dishonest and obsequious fan culture belongs at Bozeman with their wild mood swings from the "Best Coach Ever," to "Run Him Out of Town." If you can't be an intelligent fan of a good football team, and at least modestly respectful of differing opinions, why don't YOU become a Cat fan?

75,
By nature and by training I'm a critical thinker and I'm not a bandwagon kind of guy either. I agree with some of the things you are saying. It's your methods that I can't abide. I hate bullies. Intellectual bullies are the worst.

If I went about trying to change the point of view of everyone that doesn't agree with me, I would be a miserable bastard. Good Luck!

 

[PlayerRep]

75, you put forth information to elicit other poster's preferred narrative, designated bias and worldview. You repeatedly agitate other's to call them out on their allegiance to the coaching staff. I believe that falls under the definition of a troll. I don't see any difference from a cat fan coming over here to agitate the board and your continued efforts to agitate board members.

I disagree with you on some deeply held beliefs, obviously. No need to become a drama queen about it. I don't get married to the coaches the same way you do, because I've been involved in hiring or adminstering too many of them over the years. I love to see success. I don't like hyperventilated fraud and stupidity because I also know the damage that bandwagons and an obsequious fan culture can do to programs and players.

Are you one of the ones who sticks your chest out and projects that "Stitt is going to find quarterbacks that are fast and accurate?" As though amazed that you never accused any other coach ever of ... gee, doing just that? As I've said many times now, that's not directed at Stitt at all. I assume that's what he wants to do and will try to do it. I just don't think that he's the first guy to think of it, and I think it is a stupid observation when people like you try and pretend that makes him unique. It's not about him. It's about you. You don't get that, do you? Indeed, as "brewski" always does, if you point to any of his factual exaggerations, 'YOU HATE STITT!" because Brewski thinks he's Stitt or something ... there is a lot of projection in salivating fans like that. I'm not sorry to point out that projecting your own opinions and distorted facts onto the coach as a way of defending misguided, erroneous, and often bizarre factual fantasies is a disservice to the coach. He doesn't deserve you.

A fawning, dishonest and obsequious fan culture belongs at Bozeman with their wild mood swings from the "Best Coach Ever," to "Run Him Out of Town." If you can't be an intelligent fan of a good football team, and at least modestly respectful of differing opinions, why don't YOU become a Cat fan?

75,
By nature and by training I'm a critical thinker and I'm not a bandwagon kind of guy either. I agree with some of the things you are saying. It's your methods that I can't abide. I hate bullies. Intellectual bullies are the worst.

If I went about trying to change the point of view of everyone that doesn't agree with me, I would be a miserable bastard. Good Luck!

You already are a "miserable bastard". 75's posts aren't even close to bullying. Just because you cant refute them or keep up with him, doesn't mean you need to start making up stuff like bullying.

 

[Ursa Major]

75, you put forth information to elicit other poster's preferred narrative, designated bias and worldview. You repeatedly agitate other's to call them out on their allegiance to the coaching staff. I believe that falls under the definition of a troll. I don't see any difference from a cat fan coming over here to agitate the board and your continued efforts to agitate board members.

I disagree with you on some deeply held beliefs, obviously. No need to become a drama queen about it. I don't get married to the coaches the same way you do, because I've been involved in hiring or adminstering too many of them over the years. I love to see success. I don't like hyperventilated fraud and stupidity because I also know the damage that bandwagons and an obsequious fan culture can do to programs and players.

Are you one of the ones who sticks your chest out and projects that "Stitt is going to find quarterbacks that are fast and accurate?" As though amazed that you never accused any other coach ever of ... gee, doing just that? As I've said many times now, that's not directed at Stitt at all. I assume that's what he wants to do and will try to do it. I just don't think that he's the first guy to think of it, and I think it is a stupid observation when people like you try and pretend that makes him unique. It's not about him. It's about you. You don't get that, do you? Indeed, as "brewski" always does, if you point to any of his factual exaggerations, 'YOU HATE STITT!" because Brewski thinks he's Stitt or something ... there is a lot of projection in salivating fans like that. I'm not sorry to point out that projecting your own opinions and distorted facts onto the coach as a way of defending misguided, erroneous, and often bizarre factual fantasies is a disservice to the coach. He doesn't deserve you.

A fawning, dishonest and obsequious fan culture belongs at Bozeman with their wild mood swings from the "Best Coach Ever," to "Run Him Out of Town." If you can't be an intelligent fan of a good football team, and at least modestly respectful of differing opinions, why don't YOU become a Cat fan?

75,
By nature and by training I'm a critical thinker and I'm not a bandwagon kind of guy either. I agree with some of the things you are saying. It's your methods that I can't abide. I hate bullies. Intellectual bullies are the worst.

If I went about trying to change the point of view of everyone that doesn't agree with me, I would be a miserable bastard. Good Luck!

You already are a "miserable bastard". 75's posts aren't even close to bullying. Just because you cant refute them or keep up with him, doesn't mean you need to start making up stuff like bullying.

 

[Ursa Major]

75, you put forth information to elicit other poster's preferred narrative, designated bias and worldview. You repeatedly agitate other's to call them out on their allegiance to the coaching staff. I believe that falls under the definition of a troll. I don't see any difference from a cat fan coming over here to agitate the board and your continued efforts to agitate board members.

I disagree with you on some deeply held beliefs, obviously. No need to become a drama queen about it. I don't get married to the coaches the same way you do, because I've been involved in hiring or adminstering too many of them over the years. I love to see success. I don't like hyperventilated fraud and stupidity because I also know the damage that bandwagons and an obsequious fan culture can do to programs and players.

Are you one of the ones who sticks your chest out and projects that "Stitt is going to find quarterbacks that are fast and accurate?" As though amazed that you never accused any other coach ever of ... gee, doing just that? As I've said many times now, that's not directed at Stitt at all. I assume that's what he wants to do and will try to do it. I just don't think that he's the first guy to think of it, and I think it is a stupid observation when people like you try and pretend that makes him unique. It's not about him. It's about you. You don't get that, do you? Indeed, as "brewski" always does, if you point to any of his factual exaggerations, 'YOU HATE STITT!" because Brewski thinks he's Stitt or something ... there is a lot of projection in salivating fans like that. I'm not sorry to point out that projecting your own opinions and distorted facts onto the coach as a way of defending misguided, erroneous, and often bizarre factual fantasies is a disservice to the coach. He doesn't deserve you.

A fawning, dishonest and obsequious fan culture belongs at Bozeman with their wild mood swings from the "Best Coach Ever," to "Run Him Out of Town." If you can't be an intelligent fan of a good football team, and at least modestly respectful of differing opinions, why don't YOU become a Cat fan?

75,
By nature and by training I'm a critical thinker and I'm not a bandwagon kind of guy either. I agree with some of the things you are saying. It's your methods that I can't abide. I hate bullies. Intellectual bullies are the worst.

If I went about trying to change the point of view of everyone that doesn't agree with me, I would be a miserable bastard. Good Luck!

You already are a "miserable bastard". 75's posts aren't even close to bullying. Just because you cant refute them or keep up with him, doesn't mean you need to start making up stuff like bullying.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

I disagree with you on some deeply held beliefs, obviously. No need to become a drama queen about it. I don't get married to the coaches the same way you do, because I've been involved in hiring or adminstering too many of them over the years. I love to see success. I don't like hyperventilated fraud and stupidity because I also know the damage that bandwagons and an obsequious fan culture can do to programs and players.

Are you one of the ones who sticks your chest out and projects that "Stitt is going to find quarterbacks that are fast and accurate?" As though amazed that you never accused any other coach ever of ... gee, doing just that? As I've said many times now, that's not directed at Stitt at all. I assume that's what he wants to do and will try to do it. I just don't think that he's the first guy to think of it, and I think it is a stupid observation when people like you try and pretend that makes him unique. It's not about him. It's about you. You don't get that, do you? Indeed, as "brewski" always does, if you point to any of his factual exaggerations, 'YOU HATE STITT!" because Brewski thinks he's Stitt or something ... there is a lot of projection in salivating fans like that. I'm not sorry to point out that projecting your own opinions and distorted facts onto the coach as a way of defending misguided, erroneous, and often bizarre factual fantasies is a disservice to the coach. He doesn't deserve you.

A fawning, dishonest and obsequious fan culture belongs at Bozeman with their wild mood swings from the "Best Coach Ever," to "Run Him Out of Town." If you can't be an intelligent fan of a good football team, and at least modestly respectful of differing opinions, why don't YOU become a Cat fan?

75,
By nature and by training I'm a critical thinker and I'm not a bandwagon kind of guy either. I agree with some of the things you are saying. It's your methods that I can't abide. I hate bullies. Intellectual bullies are the worst.

If I went about trying to change the point of view of everyone that doesn't agree with me, I would be a miserable bastard. Good Luck!

You already are a "miserable bastard". 75's posts aren't even close to bullying. Just because you cant refute them or keep up with him, doesn't mean you need to start making up stuff like bullying.

Brevity is the soul of wit....

 

[grizindabox]

I disagree with you on some deeply held beliefs, obviously. No need to become a drama queen about it. I don't get married to the coaches the same way you do, because I've been involved in hiring or adminstering too many of them over the years. I love to see success. I don't like hyperventilated fraud and stupidity because I also know the damage that bandwagons and an obsequious fan culture can do to programs and players.

Are you one of the ones who sticks your chest out and projects that "Stitt is going to find quarterbacks that are fast and accurate?" As though amazed that you never accused any other coach ever of ... gee, doing just that? As I've said many times now, that's not directed at Stitt at all. I assume that's what he wants to do and will try to do it. I just don't think that he's the first guy to think of it, and I think it is a stupid observation when people like you try and pretend that makes him unique. It's not about him. It's about you. You don't get that, do you? Indeed, as "brewski" always does, if you point to any of his factual exaggerations, 'YOU HATE STITT!" because Brewski thinks he's Stitt or something ... there is a lot of projection in salivating fans like that. I'm not sorry to point out that projecting your own opinions and distorted facts onto the coach as a way of defending misguided, erroneous, and often bizarre factual fantasies is a disservice to the coach. He doesn't deserve you.

A fawning, dishonest and obsequious fan culture belongs at Bozeman with their wild mood swings from the "Best Coach Ever," to "Run Him Out of Town." If you can't be an intelligent fan of a good football team, and at least modestly respectful of differing opinions, why don't YOU become a Cat fan?

75,
By nature and by training I'm a critical thinker and I'm not a bandwagon kind of guy either. I agree with some of the things you are saying. It's your methods that I can't abide. I hate bullies. Intellectual bullies are the worst.

If I went about trying to change the point of view of everyone that doesn't agree with me, I would be a miserable bastard. Good Luck!

You already are a "miserable bastard". 75's posts aren't even close to bullying. Just because you cant refute them or keep up with him, doesn't mean you need to start making up stuff like bullying.

I laughed....

 

[UMGriz75]

Why would you be shocked to find a pro-Griz bias on a Griz board? This is what people do. Sports and politics seem to bring out these biases like no other human experience. You won't change it. If it bothers you, I suggest you stay out of those two arenas. Have you read any of PR's posts? At least he is open about his agenda to take on anyone who he perceives as saying negative things about the coach, the players and the program. Isn't that the kind of posters that really get under your skin?

This actually gets to the part of the problem. You can't have a civil conversation without resorting to hyperbole. When did I say I was shocked to find a pro-Griz bias on a Griz Board?"

Never. That's when.

But when people can't address any given comment without extremist exaggeration, THAT's the problem. It doesn't bother me that there are people just like that fat 'Cat fan in his blue pullover having a cow over his team. It has entertainment value when many of the same people who ridicule him are just like him AND DON'T GET IT.

When somebody like Brewski is practically having an orgasm over Stitt's PHENOMENAL! record at Mines, that's not just over the top; that's delusional. And there's no better demonstration of that than to show that Ash's record at MSU was better than merely arguably better than Stitt's at Mines. So, does Brewski really believe that Ash, with the better record in a better conference, is EVEN MORE AWESOME PHENOMENAL? His own hyperbole traps him. It's ridiculous.

And when the facts are simply pointed out, Brewski can't be wrong, it deserves the vicious denunciation of ANTI-STITT! "ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!" And as I keep saying, no, it merely means Brewski is wrong on his facts, and that conflating his personal grasp of reality with an obvious hero worship complex of significant degree really has the "fan" aspect of all of this backwards. I enjoy being a fan. The irrational ideologue elements, shrieking, spitting and foaming, can stay at home as far as this fan is concerned, and I think that's being the better "fan."

I understand pernicious ideology, and hear the claims that Kim Il Sung was born on a mountaintop in a snowstorm, attended by Tigers, and that the earth shook, and the sky parted. He was, literally, PHENOMENAL!

Fabricating heroic narratives is how people fall into worship traps. It's for kids and their TV programs and their Marvel Comics. I just happen to think its amazing to see allegedly grown men do it for a football team, I don't care who the coach is.

Of course, just to plug in ironies, many regular posters routinely denigrated Mick Delaney, without guilt or suggestions they move to Bozeman. I found it offensive, although I didn't whine about it, but it was offensive because I like Mick and he's a gentleman and a fine football coach.

Routinely actually attacking the Griz coach on a Griz football forum was just fine, then, wasn't it? But, that's the meaning of hypocrisy, isn't it? Grow up boys, there's a real world out there.

 

[tgreseth]

Really trolling hard for brewski aren't you? Good for him not to take the bait!

 

[UMGriz75]

75,
By nature and by training I'm a critical thinker and I'm not a bandwagon kind of guy either. I agree with some of the things you are saying. It's your methods that I can't abide. I hate bullies. Intellectual bullies are the worst.

If I went about trying to change the point of view of everyone that doesn't agree with me, I would be a miserable bastard. Good Luck!

You would have to note my response to Brewski's claims, a direct recitation of the record.

You could compare his vehement response, ad hominem remarks and name-calling.

I think you got the bullies mixed up, but I will give as good as I get; and I do get tired of the routine name-calling. But, you've got your standards. Live them.

 

[UMGriz75]

And while EWU and MSU might have been in the middle of DEFENSIVE meltdowns, there was NOTHING wrong with their offenses...and yet they scored significantly below their season averages AND were held below their season averages in yardage.

Being held to below their season yardages and yet "there was nothing wrong with their offenses?"

OK? :roll:

EWU's average offense in the first half of their conference season ran 520 yards. Their average point score was 43.

EWU's average offense in the last half of their conference season ran 450 yards with an average point score of 27 points.

If an offensive "meltdown" does not "result in scoring significantly below their season averages AND being held below their season averages in yardage," what exactly does an "offensive meltdown" look like?

In the first half of its season, EWU won with 55 points against MSU, 42 points to Cal Poly, and 45 points over ISU.

In the last half of its season, EWU scored just 16 against Montana. It scored just 15 against Weber. It lost with 30 points to NAU, and lost its last game to PSU with 31 points. It's average score in its first four conference games was 43; in its last four conference games was 23.

I don't think "offensive meltdown" means the same thing to me as it does to you.

 

[AZGrizFan]

And while EWU and MSU might have been in the middle of DEFENSIVE meltdowns, there was NOTHING wrong with their offenses...and yet they scored significantly below their season averages AND were held below their season averages in yardage.

Being held to below their season yardages and yet "there was nothing wrong with their offenses?"

OK? :roll:

EWU's average offense in the first half of their conference season ran 520 yards. Their average point score was 43.

EWU's average offense in the last half of their conference season ran 450 yards with an average point score of 27 points.

If an offensive "meltdown" does not "result in scoring significantly below their season averages AND being held below their season averages in yardage," what exactly does an "offensive meltdown" look like?

In the first half of its season, EWU won with 55 points against MSU, 42 points to Cal Poly, and 45 points over ISU.

In the last half of its season, EWU scored just 16 against Montana. It scored just 15 against Weber. It lost with 30 points to NAU, and lost its last game to PSU with 31 points. It's average score in its first four conference games was 43; in its last four conference games was 23.

I don't think "offensive meltdown" means the same thing to me as it does to you.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did their offense get worse? Or did they just start facing better defenses? We know how good PSU's defense was. Weber held us to 21 and NAU held us to 24. And if you watched the Weber game (which I did), you can throw that one out. There was about a 50 mph crosswind that entire game. In fact, watching the kickers try to kick FG's in that game was truly one of the most comical things I've ever seen.

 

[UMGriz75]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did their offense get worse? Or did they just start facing better defenses?

This is the problem. "Here's what actually happened ...". "No, it didn't because of something else over here." "Better defenses." "If the defenses get better over the season, is that scheduling or season improvement." "It depends on which DC we are trying to validate." "Don't offenses improve?" "It depends on whether we are talking Stitt in August or Stitt in December." "So the answer is yes and no, depending on the opponent?" "Yes." "And No." "Even if it is the same opponent?" "Especially if it is the same opponent." "If defense gets better over the season, why did UM's drop a full touchdown to opponents in the last half of the season?" "Because they were facing better offenses." "But, also those offenses were worse because they were facing better defenses." "Our "better" defense got worse because EWU and MSU were facing "better defenses" because we had a better DC." "So, what actually happened has no bearing on what actually happened because of this other stuff?" "Yes."

This is the Mobious loop of Football Fandom.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

75,
By nature and by training I'm a critical thinker and I'm not a bandwagon kind of guy either. I agree with some of the things you are saying. It's your methods that I can't abide. I hate bullies. Intellectual bullies are the worst.

If I went about trying to change the point of view of everyone that doesn't agree with me, I would be a miserable bastard. Good Luck!

You would have to note my response to Brewski's claims, a direct recitation of the record.

You could compare his vehement response, ad hominem remarks and name-calling.

I think you got the bullies mixed up, but I will give as good as I get; and I do get tired of the routine name-calling. But, you've got your standards. Live them.

Holy hell I dread 75s posts.