SHARK Attackers

sjboyd0137 · **Posted:** Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 am

Frank Coztansa wrote:

I prefer to believe it isn't shtick and that SHARK is just a quirky guy who posts facts instead of uneducated opinions like the rest of us.

He'll post opinions too, but it just something rehashed that he heard on 670 or maybe saw on Sportscenter or something. His 'posting like a reporter' theme has gotten far far worse over the last couple of months. Never had a problem with his stuff before, he's gone way over the top lately.[/quote]
+1

The Original Kid Cairo · **Posted:** Thu May 17, 2012 10:03 am

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

SHARK is just a quirky guy who posts facts instead of uneducated opinions like the rest of us.

His "facts" aren't usually fact though. They're opinions cloaked in the guise of being fact. Like saying that ABC would be upset with a Heat/OKC or Heat/Spurs matchup. He didn't say "I don't think ABC would like it." He tried to definitively state it as fact. He does that more often than people like to admit. Others do it and get called out for it. Why is he exempt from being called out?

Nobody is attacking SHARK as a person, but if you're gonna jump into the sports conversations, you should be subjected to having your thoughts picked apart just like everybody else.

Rod · **Posted:** Thu May 17, 2012 10:10 am

The Original Kid Cairo wrote:

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

SHARK is just a quirky guy who posts facts instead of uneducated opinions like the rest of us.

His "facts" aren't usually fact though. They're opinions cloaked in the guise of being fact. Like saying that ABC would be upset with a Heat/OKC or Heat/Spurs matchup. He didn't say "I don't think ABC would like it." He tried to definitively state it as fact. He does that more often than people like to admit. Others do it and get called out for it. Why is he exempt from being called out?

Nobody is attacking SHARK as a person, but if you're gonna jump into the sports conversations, you should be subjected to having your thoughts picked apart just like everybody else.

I only read SHARK for the facts. I refuse to acknowledge his opinions.

Douchebag · **Joined:** Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm **Posts:** 43572

Find a new whipping boy guys. Ugie is right there. C'mon.

The Original Kid Cairo · **Posted:** Thu May 17, 2012 10:14 am

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

I only read SHARK for the facts. I refuse to acknowledge his opinions.

The Original Kid Cairo · **Posted:** Thu May 17, 2012 10:15 am

Douchebag wrote:

Find a new whipping boy guys. Ugie is right there. C'mon.

I'll never say anything bad about Ugie.

Frank Coztansa · **Posted:** Thu May 17, 2012 12:48 pm

The Original Kid Cairo wrote:

His "facts" aren't usually fact though. They're opinions cloaked in the guise of being fact.

Or, they aren't even his own thoughts/opinions; viewtopic.php?f=33&t=70051&p=1436593#p1436534

Terry's Peeps · **Posted:** Thu May 17, 2012 12:49 pm

Hard not to argue...

NSJ · **Posted:** Thu May 17, 2012 1:09 pm

I respect SHARK because he truly seems to care about posting here. I'm sure that many of his posts require more than the average amount of time to write and edit.

My problem with his style has been the same for some time. When I read something that he's written that either I:

-Disagree with

-Find faulty or flawed logic

-Have no idea what he's talking about or referring to

, I will often follow up with a question asking him to clarify his postion or idea. Almost exclusively there is no response ---crickets. I understand that in a message board format there will many threads/posts that will get lost in the shuffle. I'm sure I have failed to respond to another's inquiry or post. But with SHARK it's consistent.

If you're going to advertise yourself as coming to the board with "attitude" and "bite", don't be a wuss and run away when someone questions your post.

Frank Coztansa · **Posted:** Fri May 18, 2012 2:01 pm

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=70102#p1438050

Terry's Peeps · **Posted:** Fri May 18, 2012 2:02 pm

Hard not to argue...

SomeGuy · **Posted:** Fri May 18, 2012 2:11 pm

Terry's Peeps wrote:

Hard not to argue...

So it's easy to argue?

Terry's Peeps · **Posted:** Fri May 18, 2012 2:13 pm

SomeGuy wrote:

Terry's Peeps wrote:

Hard not to argue...

So it's easy to argue?

When in Rome...

rogers park bryan · **Joined:** Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm **Posts:** 81625

Terry's Peeps wrote:

SomeGuy wrote:

Terry's Peeps wrote:

Hard not to argue...

So it's easy to argue?

When in Rome...

Sooooo....Catch-22

Terry's Peeps · **Posted:** Fri May 18, 2012 2:36 pm

rogers park bryan wrote:

Sooooo....Catch-22

Catch-22 is a 1970 satirical war film adapted from the book of the same name by Joseph Heller. Considered a black comedy revolving around the "lunatic characters" of Heller's satirical anti-war novel, it was the work of a talented production team which included director Mike Nichols and screenwriter Buck Henry (who also acted in the film). They worked on the film for two years, and accomplished the tasks of recreating a World War II bomber base and converting Heller's complex novel to the more streamlined medium of a feature film.

Along with Henry, the cast included Alan Arkin, Bob Balaban, Martin Balsam, Richard Benjamin, Italian actress Olimpia Carlisi, French comedian Marcel Dalio, Art Garfunkel, Jack Gilford, Bob Newhart, Anthony Perkins, Paula Prentiss, Martin Sheen, Jon Voight and Orson Welles. Balaban and Garfunkel made acting debuts.

a retard · **Posted:** Sat May 19, 2012 7:33 pm

The good news is that somewhere along the way SHARK became acquainted with the SPACE bar. I recall early in his CSFMB career his posts were frequently one-paragraph monstrosities.

Curious Hair · **Posted:** Sat May 19, 2012 7:42 pm

Don't you mean Enter? otherwiseifonedidn'tusethespacebareverythingwouldlooklikethis.

Frank Coztansa · **Posted:** Mon May 21, 2012 2:26 pm

viewtopic.php?f=100&t=70147#p1440349

Douchebag · **Joined:** Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm **Posts:** 43572

BUMP.

C'mon guys.

spmack · **Posted:** Wed May 23, 2012 2:04 pm

Douchebag wrote:

BUMP.

C'mon guys.

Do you think that SHARK should get a pass? If he says something that we disagree with, can we not call him out?

Hawg Ass · **Joined:** Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:00 pm **Posts:** 30328

Slumps are hard to get out of.

Terry's Peeps · **Posted:** Wed May 23, 2012 2:07 pm

Hawg Ass wrote:

Slumps are hard to get out of.

SHARK needs a slump buster.

Dewskie · **Posted:** Wed May 23, 2012 2:11 pm

I can't really say I've been here long enough to say I have a beef with anyone (cue up Murph soundboard), but I'm pretty sure every forum's got something of a SHARK, re: a guy who tries to be a daily contributor by starting threads that are informative and set the parameters for the discussion to come.

Unfortunately that variety of poster doesn't seem to work around here. This is no ordinary forum that let's posters come in and get a pass like that. If SHARK said some shit that could be deemed as bogus or factually retarded, he's gotta prove to you carnivorous bastards that he won't take bullshit lying down.

Or he can be like me and just get in shouting matches with Boilermaker Rick as I grasp straws to defend the fact that I'm violently wrong. It's sort of like Andy DuFresne fighting off the sisters in the laundry room, or Spider telling Tommy to go fuck himself.

spmack · **Posted:** Wed May 23, 2012 2:16 pm

Don't get me wrong guys, I love SHARK....he's a top 10'er in my book. There have been at least 3 if not 4 SHARK-inspired mults on this board.

Terry's Peeps · **Posted:** Wed May 23, 2012 2:17 pm

spmack wrote:

Don't get me wrong guys, I love SHARK....he's a top 10'er in my book. There have been at least 3 if not 4 SHARK-inspired mults on this board.

reents

Who else?

The Original Kid Cairo · **Posted:** Wed May 23, 2012 2:20 pm

Like I said before, DB nobody has attacked SHARK as a person. He's a-ok in my book. But the board is a different story. He shouldn't be exempt from receiving criticism.

SHARK · **Posted:** Wed May 23, 2012 2:22 pm

The Original Kid Cairo wrote:

Like I said before, DB nobody has attacked SHARK as a person. He's a-ok in my book. But the board is a different story. He shouldn't be exempt from receiving criticism.

I'm cool with that...Nothing wrong with constructive criticism, OKC.

spmack · **Posted:** Wed May 23, 2012 2:23 pm

Terry's Peeps wrote:

spmack wrote:

Don't get me wrong guys, I love SHARK....he's a top 10'er in my book. There have been at least 3 if not 4 SHARK-inspired mults on this board.

reents

Who else?

Well I know that "Guppy" is still around. That at least lets you know that he wasn't owned by any of "The Crew".

And I agree with Kid.....no one is giving him the Nancy treatment.

The Original Kid Cairo · **Posted:** Wed May 23, 2012 2:23 pm

SHARK wrote:

The Original Kid Cairo wrote:

Like I said before, DB nobody has attacked SHARK as a person. He's a-ok in my book. But the board is a different story. He shouldn't be exempt from receiving criticism.

I'm cool with that...Nothing wrong with constructive criticism, OKC.

Exactly. Thanks SHARK..

Frank Coztansa · **Posted:** Wed May 23, 2012 2:24 pm

SHARK has gotten excessively worse with the "I am going to post like am I reporter breaking stories and sharing new thoughts" act over the last few months. If that is the way he is going to post, that is just fine. But then he is gonna have to deal with the responses to that. He is fine when he doesn't post like he is an emcee for the B&B Show or for Sox games.

SHARK Attackers

Who is online