Dan McNeil (Birthday Boy)

badrogue17 · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:40 am

Douchebag wrote:

denisdman wrote:

badrogue17 wrote:

Steve isn't friends with Mac, and this golf outing probably didn't even happen.

Well he's close enough to him for Mac to agree to spend his birthday golfing with him. Guess Mac would be the one to answer the question of friends though .

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

Id say they are friends. Mac has always had Steve's back.

And people ARE responding to the poster. Rogue is right about that.

But is responding to the poster warranted in some cases? That's the question.

badrogue17 · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:54 am

redskingreg wrote:

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

denisdman wrote:

Like BR said, responding to the poster, not the post.

Why? Steve has given many people an active reason to dislike him. Why does that go away because he made a post that happened to not be offensive?

Why don't we all post anonymously then? That way you can only respond to posts. :roll:

You're right Greg we should just jump on everything someone posts because some posts are offensive . Have you met Chus by any chance?

bigfan · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:55 am

Perry's Teeps wrote:

As Darkside correctly pointed out to me during the Kohl's Dumpster Sex thread, a poster's previous history absolutely should judge how their post is viewed and responded to.

Rogue, if Kid Cairo posted tomorrow about the Bulls, would you not "respond to the poster" rather than the post?

IF OKC had the fucking Balls to post and out himself I would drop a Sini like essay on what a complete shithead of a person he is on all levels, no matter what issue he chose to comment on that broke ass liltte fucking crybaby shithead of a lowlife scumbag.

Douchebag · **Joined:** Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm **Posts:** 43788

Perry's Teeps wrote:

Rogue, if Kid Cairo posted tomorrow about the Bulls, would you not "respond to the poster" rather than the post?

redskingreg · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:56 am

badrogue17 wrote:

redskingreg wrote:

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

denisdman wrote:

Like BR said, responding to the poster, not the post.

Why? Steve has given many people an active reason to dislike him. Why does that go away because he made a post that happened to not be offensive?

Why don't we all post anonymously then? That way you can only respond to posts. :roll:

You're right Greg we should just jump on everything someone posts because some posts are offensive . Have you met Chus by any chance?

I have met Chus. Guess that makes me a dipshit by association?

Eaglo Jeff · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:57 am

Wow.....

no punches pulled there.

Brick · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:59 am

badrogue17 wrote:

You're right Greg we should just jump on everything someone posts because some posts are offensive.

Everyone has the right to not like someone on here especially when they are unapologetic about the behavior that made you not like them.

Eaglo Jeff · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:00 am

Perry's Teeps wrote:

Wait a second? Um.....I thought I was dyslexic there, Perry/Terry. Is this your Panther oppo account?

badrogue17 · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:01 am

Perry's Teeps wrote:

As Darkside correctly pointed out to me during the Kohl's Dumpster Sex thread, a poster's previous history absolutely should judge how their post is viewed and responded to.

Rogue, if Kid Cairo posted tomorrow about the Bulls, would you not "respond to the poster" rather than the post?

I get the feeling by responding to this I am responding to Cairo.

Don Tiny · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:05 am

So, am I to understand this thread is actually a ploy by Mitch to make the midday show seem appealing by comparison?

Eaglo Jeff · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:07 am

Don Tiny wrote:

So, am I to understand this thread is actually a ploy by Mitch to make the midday show seem appealing by comparison?

What are they calling it? Snapping with Meat?

redskingreg · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:07 am

Don Tiny wrote:

So, am I to understand this thread is actually a ploy by Mitch to make the midday show seem appealing by comparison?

Anything is tolerable when compared to the prick thread starter.

Don Tiny · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:09 am

redskingreg wrote:

Don Tiny wrote:

So, am I to understand this thread is actually a ploy by Mitch to make the midday show seem appealing by comparison?

Anything is tolerable when compared to the prick thread starter.

Are you responding to my post or me the poster?

YES OR NO?

LEFT OR RIGHT?

DIGITAL OR ANALOG?

REGULAR OR EXTRA CRISPY?

Scorehead · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:36 am

bigfan wrote:

Perry's Teeps wrote:

As Darkside correctly pointed out to me during the Kohl's Dumpster Sex thread, a poster's previous history absolutely should judge how their post is viewed and responded to.

Rogue, if Kid Cairo posted tomorrow about the Bulls, would you not "respond to the poster" rather than the post?

IF OKC had the fucking Balls to post and out himself I would drop a Sini like essay on what a complete shithead of a person he is on all levels, no matter what issue he chose to comment on that broke ass liltte fucking crybaby shithead of a lowlife scumbag.

leashyourkids · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 11:25 am

Cry me a river. We're really gonna sit here and talk about whether it's okay to go after Steve?

"Respond to the post, not the poster" works in general, but not always. It's dumb to say about every single post. If we always responded to the post and not the poster, you couldn't call anyone out for hypocrisy or refer to their previous points of view.

During the Trayvon Martin discussion, Steve said that he would show more respect if we were hanging him in the streets like we did his ancestors. And he's not even apologetic about it. In fact, he loves it. If you don't think that deserves a mocking each and every time he posts something on this board, feel free.

It is certainly Steve's right to post his stupid bullshit. And it is our right to tell him how dumb he is each and every time he posts here.

leashyourkids · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 11:27 am

badrogue17 wrote:

Perry's Teeps wrote:

As Darkside correctly pointed out to me during the Kohl's Dumpster Sex thread, a poster's previous history absolutely should judge how their post is viewed and responded to.

Rogue, if Kid Cairo posted tomorrow about the Bulls, would you not "respond to the poster" rather than the post?

I get the feeling by responding to this I am responding to Cairo.

It's a great question, though. You've responded negatively to Ivan, and you surely would to Cairo or anyone else from the other board. Why aren't you responding to the post and not the poster? What makes it different?

badrogue17 · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 11:28 am

leashyourkids wrote:

Cry me a river. We're really gonna sit here and talk about whether it's okay to go after Steve?

"Respond to the post, not the poster" works in general, but not always. It's dumb to say about every single post. If we always responded to the post and not the poster, you couldn't call anyone out for hypocrisy or refer to their previous points of view.

During the Trayvon Martin discussion, Steve said that he would show more respect if we were hanging him in the streets like we did his ancestors. And he's not even apologetic about it. In fact, he loves it. If you don't think that deserves a mocking each and every time he posts something on this board, feel free.

It is certainly Steve's right to post his stupid bullshit. And it is our right to tell him how dumb he is each and every time he posts here.

Yeah? well how do you feel about the Win stat for starting pitchers ?

leashyourkids · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 11:29 am

badrogue17 wrote:

leashyourkids wrote:

Cry me a river. We're really gonna sit here and talk about whether it's okay to go after Steve?

"Respond to the post, not the poster" works in general, but not always. It's dumb to say about every single post. If we always responded to the post and not the poster, you couldn't call anyone out for hypocrisy or refer to their previous points of view.

During the Trayvon Martin discussion, Steve said that he would show more respect if we were hanging him in the streets like we did his ancestors. And he's not even apologetic about it. In fact, he loves it. If you don't think that deserves a mocking each and every time he posts something on this board, feel free.

It is certainly Steve's right to post his stupid bullshit. And it is our right to tell him how dumb he is each and every time he posts here.

Yeah? well how do you feel about the Win stat for starting pitchers ?

#killthewin

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

leashyourkids wrote:

badrogue17 wrote:

leashyourkids wrote:

Cry me a river. We're really gonna sit here and talk about whether it's okay to go after Steve?

"Respond to the post, not the poster" works in general, but not always. It's dumb to say about every single post. If we always responded to the post and not the poster, you couldn't call anyone out for hypocrisy or refer to their previous points of view.

During the Trayvon Martin discussion, Steve said that he would show more respect if we were hanging him in the streets like we did his ancestors. And he's not even apologetic about it. In fact, he loves it. If you don't think that deserves a mocking each and every time he posts something on this board, feel free.

It is certainly Steve's right to post his stupid bullshit. And it is our right to tell him how dumb he is each and every time he posts here.

Yeah? well how do you feel about the Win stat for starting pitchers ?

#killthewin

#killedwin

badrogue17 · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 11:41 am

I have to say, this mult certainly posts as much as Peeps did.

Frank Coztansa · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 11:57 am

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Frank Coztansa wrote:

I notice Steve said nothing about his own scores. My guess is it was 112, but when he added it up he came up with 93.

That was his bowling score.

BigW72 · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 12:45 pm

I took a few years sebatical from the board. Since I've been back, I've seen the obvious dislike for Steve. Whether it's warranted or not...I don't care.

Regardless of the poster and focusing on the post...the post is very ass-licky...and should be worthy of movement to the Douchebag section.

Chus · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 12:56 pm

badrogue17 wrote:

Cool , we agree that you're an asswipe. Glad we could come to an accord.

And you are an arrogant hypocrite, who seems to think people care about your self appointed title of moral arbiter.

badrogue17 wrote:

This day won't be a total waste then.

You have already wasted everybody's time by announcing that you don't like my posts...yet again. When my time on this earth passes, I want that they bury me face down, so you can kiss my ass. Do yourself a favor, and put me on ignore. Spare everybody from your self-righteous indignation.

Chus · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 12:58 pm

badrogue17 wrote:

redskingreg wrote:

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

denisdman wrote:

Like BR said, responding to the poster, not the post.

Why? Steve has given many people an active reason to dislike him. Why does that go away because he made a post that happened to not be offensive?

Why don't we all post anonymously then? That way you can only respond to posts. :roll:

You're right Greg we should just jump on everything someone posts because some posts are offensive . Have you met Chus by any chance?

You just can't stop thinking about me, can you? I'm flattered, but I'm not interested.

badrogue17 · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 1:01 pm

OOOH so now I get the serious Chus front page bold type treatment usually reserved for your epic battles with setting chas straight. Pretty heady stuff for someone who doesnt care what I think. :lol:

Chus · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 1:04 pm

badrogue17 wrote:

OOOH so now I get the serious Chus front page bold type treatment usually reserved for your epic battles with setting chas straight. Pretty heady stuff for someone who doesnt care what I think. :lol:

Responding to the poster? Arrogant hypocrite indeed.

Go outside, and take a walk. Some fresh air would do you well. You just took a deep pounding in the ass in this thread.

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

Im a little uneasy with the term "Birthday boy" for a middle aged man.

badrogue17 · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 1:09 pm

Chus wrote:

badrogue17 wrote:

OOOH so now I get the serious Chus front page bold type treatment usually reserved for your epic battles with setting chas straight. Pretty heady stuff for someone who doesnt care what I think. :lol:

Responding to the poster? Arrogant hypocrite indeed.

Go outside, and take a walk. Some fresh air would do you well. You just took a deep pounding in the ass in this thread.

Yep, you sure showed me. I can barely type the words out I'm so shamed.

Chus · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2014 1:11 pm

badrogue17 wrote:

Chus wrote:

badrogue17 wrote:

OOOH so now I get the serious Chus front page bold type treatment usually reserved for your epic battles with setting chas straight. Pretty heady stuff for someone who doesnt care what I think. :lol:

Responding to the poster? Arrogant hypocrite indeed.

Go outside, and take a walk. Some fresh air would do you well. You just took a deep pounding in the ass in this thread.

Yep, you sure showed me. I can barely type the words out I'm so shamed.

It's about time you feel some shame for this embarrassing display.

Like I said, your suggestions go right into the circular file. Bigfan wears the bag around here. Send him a PM, and tell him how horrible I am. Here is a link. I made it very easy for you.

ucp.php?i=pm&mode=compose&u=2

Dan McNeil (Birthday Boy)

Who is online