forums

Jarvis Brownlee commits

Advertisement
If I am following this, a "man" is not a man, but is just a "yussp a$$ ******" if he has a problem with another man's conduct and posts about it on a message board (and presumably any other public forum) instead of saying something to the second man's face. And it would appear the second man's conduct, no matter how egregious, emotional, illogical, or traitorous, has no bearing on this.

So if, hypothetically, a "man" disagrees with the President's immigration policy and believes (right or wrong) that he is acting like a cruel, unsympathetic *******, that "man" would either have to say it to his face or he shouldn't share that opinion? If he goes to Twitter or a message board or even tells his wife at dinner, "the President is a ******* *******," that "man" is not really a man, but a ******? Or if a "man" is at a Fin's game and Ryan Tannehill has another lame duck year and throws a couple of picks against the Jets, that person would need to try and get on the field to tell him he sucks, or say nothing at all? If I am understanding you correctly, to do otherwise is unmanly and "******" behavior?

First follow-up questions: if, for the sake of argument, Traitor Choad continues to steer kids away from UM now that Al Folden is gone, is he not acting like a ****** for "being all in his feelings" about something from the last administration? And if he is acting like a "******," but then someone talks **** about him on a message board, does that make them both "biatches"?

Second follow-up question: if a "man" sends Traitor Choad a letter with his address on it, and in that letter he politely explains to Traitor Choad that it is his sincerely held belief Traitor Choad is an emotional cvnt holding onto his feelings like a 16 year-old girl who got stood up at the Homecoming dance and his figurative Cane Card should be permanently revoked, would this "man" be a "******" or a man? It would seem to me the inclusion of the address in the letter arguably shifts the burden to Traitor Choad to turn around and respond in kind. If Traitor Choad does nothing at that point, is Traitor Choad a "******?" Are they both "biatches"?

This can be pretty confusing stuff, so I thank you in advance for your responses.


p.s.- I don't think the people who were replying to you above and making general comments about Traitor Choad had the intention of "talking **** about him to [you]." At the risk of speaking for these individuals and misrepresenting them (without being a "******"), my best guess is, although they were using the "reply" feature, they meant to express their opinion to the board/community. If they meant to specifically single you out for their **** talking, I imagine they would have used PMs. If I was you, I wouldn't take it personal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Advertisement
No_Fly_Zone said:
If I am following this, a "man" is not a man, but is just a "yussp a$$ ******" if he has a problem with another man's conduct and posts about it on a message board (and presumably any other public forum) instead of saying something to the second man's face. And it would appear the second man's conduct, no matter how egregious, emotional, illogical, or traitorous, has no bearing on this.

So if, hypothetically, a "man" disagrees with the President's immigration policy and believes (right or wrong) that he is acting like a cruel, unsympathetic *******, that "man" would either have to say it to his face or he shouldn't share that opinion? If he goes to Twitter or a message board or even tells his wife at dinner, "the President is a ******* *******," that "man" is not really a man, but a ******? Or if a "man" is at a Fin's game and Ryan Tannehill has another lame duck year and throws a couple of picks against the Jets, that person would need to try and get on the field to tell him he sucks, or say nothing at all? If I am understanding you correctly, to do otherwise is unmanly and "******" behavior?

First follow-up questions: if, for the sake of argument, Traitor Choad continues to steer kids away from UM now that Al Folden is gone, is he not acting like a ****** for "being all in his feelings" about something from the last administration? And if he is acting like a ******, but then someone talks **** about him on a message board, does that make them both biatches?

Second follow-up question: if a "man" sends Traitor Choad a letter with his address on it, and in that letter he politely explains to Traitor Choad that it is his sincerely held belief Traitor Choad is an emotional cvnt holding onto his feelings like a 16 year-old girl who got stood up at the Homecoming dance and his figurative Cane Card should be permanently revoked, would this "man" be a "******" or a man? It would seem to me the inclusion of the address in the letter arguably shifts the burden to Traitor Choad to turn around and respond in kind. If Traitor Choad does nothing at that point, is Traitor Choad a "******?" Are they both "biatches"?

This can be pretty confusing stuff, so I thank you in advance for your responses.


p.s.- I don't think the people who were replying to you above and making general comments about Traitor Choad had the intention of "talking **** about him to [you]." At the risk of speaking for these individuals and misrepresenting them (without being a "******"), my best guess is, although they were using the "reply" feature, they meant to express their opinion to the board/community. If they meant to specifically single you out for their **** talking, I imagine they would have used PMs. If I was you, I wouldn't take it personal.
Click to expand...

****, I gotta say this a strongly worded and meticulously crafted response. Kudos
 
Traitor Choad is a great nickname.
Now if we can only find a name that goes with Whole Foods.
 
No_Fly_Zone said:
If I am following this, a "man" is not a man, but is just a "yussp a$$ ******" if he has a problem with another man's conduct and posts about it on a message board (and presumably any other public forum) instead of saying something to the second man's face. And it would appear the second man's conduct, no matter how egregious, emotional, illogical, or traitorous, has no bearing on this.

So if, hypothetically, a "man" disagrees with the President's immigration policy and believes (right or wrong) that he is acting like a cruel, unsympathetic *******, that "man" would either have to say it to his face or he shouldn't share that opinion? If he goes to Twitter or a message board or even tells his wife at dinner, "the President is a ******* *******," that "man" is not really a man, but a ******? Or if a "man" is at a Fin's game and Ryan Tannehill has another lame duck year and throws a couple of picks against the Jets, that person would need to try and get on the field to tell him he sucks, or say nothing at all? If I am understanding you correctly, to do otherwise is unmanly and "******" behavior?

First follow-up questions: if, for the sake of argument, Traitor Choad continues to steer kids away from UM now that Al Folden is gone, is he not acting like a ****** for "being all in his feelings" about something from the last administration? And if he is acting like a "******," but then someone talks **** about him on a message board, does that make them both "biatches"?

Second follow-up question: if a "man" sends Traitor Choad a letter with his address on it, and in that letter he politely explains to Traitor Choad that it is his sincerely held belief Traitor Choad is an emotional cvnt holding onto his feelings like a 16 year-old girl who got stood up at the Homecoming dance and his figurative Cane Card should be permanently revoked, would this "man" be a "******" or a man? It would seem to me the inclusion of the address in the letter arguably shifts the burden to Traitor Choad to turn around and respond in kind. If Traitor Choad does nothing at that point, is Traitor Choad a "******?" Are they both "biatches"?

This can be pretty confusing stuff, so I thank you in advance for your responses.


p.s.- I don't think the people who were replying to you above and making general comments about Traitor Choad had the intention of "talking **** about him to [you]." At the risk of speaking for these individuals and misrepresenting them (without being a "******"), my best guess is, although they were using the "reply" feature, they meant to express their opinion to the board/community. If they meant to specifically single you out for their **** talking, I imagine they would have used PMs. If I was you, I wouldn't take it personal.
Click to expand...

This is just getting weird...I am not about to debate with you about someone you don't like and have an obvious problem with. Be a man and tell him to his face.

Don't tell me..tell this to your chick or Chad since you have such an issue with him.

I don't care and you wrote me a bible about another man because he is in your head RENT FREE!

Like you really compared Chad Wilson whose pretty accessible to the POTUS? LOLOLOLOLOL

Chad even advertises where he is training...go out there and tell him how you feel about him.

Let us know how it goes..
 
Last edited:
What is weird to me is a (presumably) grown man on a message board talking **** about the masculinity of other men on a message board for talking **** about other men on message boards. That, and the way you internalize their responses as though they were broadcasting them at you (and apparently continue to do, based on your "don't tell me" line), when very clearly they are broadcasting these opinions to the board at large.
 
Advertisement
No_Fly_Zone said:
What is weird to me is a (presumably) grown man on a message board talking **** about the masculinity of other men on a message board for talking **** about other men on message boards. That, and the way you internalize their responses as though they were broadcasting them at you (and apparently continue to do, based on your "don't tell me" line), when very clearly they are broadcasting these opinions to the board at large.
Click to expand...

It should be weird considering the fact that you wrote me an essay about a man you don't like but won't go tell him how you feel. So any normal questioning of your masculinity will always be weird to you, it's expected.

Again...go and tell Chad how you feel. I don't care.
 
Choad Wilson can still suck my dirty ******* after a Taco Bell binge whether he sees this post or not. Fck him in his eye sockets, and I hope his guts rot out.

It's one thing to have UF and FSU ***** down here recruiting against us; it's another level of dirtbag diarrhea puddle to be a UM alum and recruit against UM because one dumb fck HC didn't offer your son quickly enough.

A rat's a fcking rat, and that scumbag is the ultimate rat.
 
Advertisement
Tape doesnt really impress me too much but he has a lot of intangibles you can develop. I dont think he needs to play right away anyways.
 
Advertisement
Jassid82 said:
In the war between the "Wilsons and UM" we drew first blood as John Rambo famously said in "Rambo: First Blood" when we $hitted on Quincy Wilson and didn't offer him and they never let us live it down.

I am not a fan of Chad Wilson but as long as he doesn't recruit against us with kids who he has no skin in the game... he can train whoever he wants.
Click to expand...

“Chad Wilson but as long as he doesn't recruit against us with kids who he has no skin in the game...”

Mmmmm seems like he has done that very thing
 
The Franchise said:
We (UM) didn’t do **** to Choad or his kids. The worst coach in UM history decided to wait what they considered to be too long to offer Nipsy or whatever the fck his name is. To hold the action of a carpetbagger bum against his alma mater in perpetuity is the definition of bytch-made behavior.

You know what UM did for Choad after that? Let him finish his degree for free and welcomed him back with open arms when Rick arrived. He chose to continue to be an insolent ****.
Click to expand...

I would also add...UM SAVED Choad’s career by offering him a scholarship when the program he was playing for disbanded.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top