quote:

Originally posted by Change of Possession:
That has never happened. Doubt it'll happen again.

Does this mean that you doubt that it'll never have happened again? You might sound good to you, but you don't make much sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Change of Possession:

quote:

Originally posted by Max:
I honestly believe that if MV could ask the most important person in shaping the direction of the Packers organization one question, it would not be a question to which he already knows the answer.

Right... Never...not ever...has someone known something but the entire key was getting someone to admit to it publicly. That has never happened. Doubt it'll happen again.

You know, this is probably why you're "unpopular."

I say that I believe in this instance that if a reporter could ask somebody one question, he wouldn't ask a question he already knows the answer to.

You respond with this sarcastic drivel ridiculing the notion that it's never happened that a person has asked a question they already know the answer to -- as if I or anyone said anything of the sort.

I'm sure Vandermause knows things he doesn't report. I suspect this is an instance where he has a pretty good guess, but doesn't know for sure, which is why he'd ask the question.

Well, with education and backgrounds in both disciplines, I'll bite, Boris.

Lawyers aren't going to ask questions to which they don't already know the answer - at trial. In depositions/discovery, that's not necessarily true, as they're looking more for holes/inconsistencies to exploit later. However, since TT isn't on the witness stand here, that position is pure bunk when applied to the situation at hand, as AFAIK no one is being sued here, no judges/juries/court reporters/witnesses were in the room, and no questions were even being asked of TT.

Journalists would be wasting their time asking questions to which they know the answer, unless it's to simply attempt to confirm a story they've already put together with a different source, named or unnamed. Since this is an answer to a chat question, that doesn't appear to be the case here, so I don't even follow the thinking that TT=Packer reporter=chat=Mike VM=attorney=journalist=trial=witness stand=ask only questions to which he already knows the answer=my assertion is true. Asserting that something is 'likely' because he probably already knows the answer is a logical leap at best, intellectually dishonest and self-serving at worst.

I think Max needs to put together another one of those fancy equations for us, since I agree with his take on this in the first place.

You know it's the offseason when such 5th grade fodder is considered print worthy.

Johnny in Beloit - "Ummm, if you could have 3 wishes for the Green Bay Packers, what would they be?"

MV - "Well, gee Johnny, that's a really grown up question! You must be a big boy! First, I would wish for the Magical Sunshine Fairy Princess of Lambeau to travel back in time and blow, warm southernly winds on all the Packer players during last year's Championship game... Secondly, I would wish for ....."

quote:

Originally posted by Max:
Uh, because TT would deny it? And no one would have any way of knowing whether TT's denial was true or untrue? (We all know which camp you'd fall into.) And then Vandermause would draw criticism for an explosive column which was flatly denied by its primary subject?

Absolutely, and anyone with a streetsmarts IQ of at least 5 would instinctively know all of the above.

quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:
anyone with a streetsmarts IQ of at least 5

Where do I get tested for a streetsmarts IQ?

CoP if you want to know the answer to this question, why don't you just look at the top secret files in your garage. I'm sure there's something in there about it! If not I'm sure Gil Brandt has something!

quote:

Originally posted by Max:

quote:

Originally posted by Change of Possession:

quote:

Originally posted by Max:
I honestly believe that if MV could ask the most important person in shaping the direction of the Packers organization one question, it would not be a question to which he already knows the answer.

Right... Never...not ever...has someone known something but the entire key was getting someone to admit to it publicly. That has never happened. Doubt it'll happen again.

You know, this is probably why you're "unpopular."

I say that I believe in this instance that if a reporter could ask somebody one question, he wouldn't ask a question he already knows the answer to.

You respond with this sarcastic drivel ridiculing the notion that it's never happened that a person has asked a question they already know the answer to -- as if I or anyone said anything of the sort.

I'm sure Vandermause knows things he doesn't report. I suspect this is an instance where he has a pretty good guess, but doesn't know for sure, which is why he'd ask the question.

Chuckle... You think I'm the one who posts sarcastic drivel in a vacuum? Again...interpretation. I interpret you, specifically, always being sarcastic with me. Most, like the sandwich man, Brak, are always out to ridicule everything I say. I understand it. I post with the knowledge that I'm unpopular and have the regulars here squarely against me. If I come across a little sarcastic it might be interesting for you to be in my shoes for a moment.

I would suspect Vandemause would ask that question because the questioner asked ...if he could get a STRAIGHT ANSWER. I'm sure he does know that TT was tickled Favre and his 12 mil went off the books. Knowing that and getting an admission is what he's after IMO. It would be great to get HONEST answers to every question in life because it's rarer and rare these days.

You know, I understand how the board works. I understand that it's nearly impossible to have a conversation about a specific topic without somebody who carries a grudge from something said three days earlier in an entirely different thread about an entirely different topic bringing it into the discussion, and we're off and running.

I don't know anything about you apart from this message board. I don't CARE to. I don't care who you are, what you've said or done elsewhere, your professional history, etc. Whenever anyone says they know all these things from working in the business or whatever, whether it's you or FRZ, I just gloss it over. I don't care. I don't know anything about you, and you don't know anything about me, beyond what we post here. The people I'm friendliest with from X4 seldom post here.

So if I speak to you sarcastically in the Favre/Rodgers thread, it was something that resulted from the thread itself -- e.g., my interpretation of your words on Favre, which essentially called the guy a dumb, lazy coward. Perhaps my delivery was sarcastic. I tend to think I used remarkable restraint, but as you say, it's a matter of interpretation.

So that discussion was over and done with, and I at least moved the hell on. Who cares? It was a discussion, it was yesterday, now it's done.

Today I amble into this discussion about what Mike Vandermause may or may not think or know. You think he knows something. I think he may think something. That's really all there needs to be. Instead, you extrapolate my opinion about one specific item into an entire world-view where people would never even think of asking questions they already know the answer to.

You think you're unpopular because you have strong opinions and the "board regulars" are out to get you or whatever. I think you're unpopular, at least with me personally, because of your delivery. I don't care if your opinions are different from mine. Lots of people here disagree with me about lots of things. Most of them manage to do it without being a total ass about it. That's not sarcasm, by the way.

quote:

You think you're unpopular because you have strong opinions and the "board regulars" are out to get you or whatever. I think you're unpopular, at least with me personally, because of your delivery. I don't care if your opinions are different from mine. Lots of people here disagree with me about lots of things. Most of them manage to do it without being a total ass about it. That's not sarcasm, by the way.

Yeah, what Max said.

I think you all underestimate the great humility with which CoP posts.

That's sarcasm, BTW.

But the dude has boxes full of phone numbers out in his garage people!!!

Don't you get it?

quote:

Originally posted by MsPacman:

quote:

You think you're unpopular because you have strong opinions and the "board regulars" are out to get you or whatever. I think you're unpopular, at least with me personally, because of your delivery. I don't care if your opinions are different from mine. Lots of people here disagree with me about lots of things. Most of them manage to do it without being a total ass about it. That's not sarcasm, by the way.

Yeah, what Max said.

What's really funny is if he knew who Max really is, he'd probably be starstruck and afraid to post.

I dont know who Max really is and dont really care.

What I do know is he has been in my top 3-5 posters all time here at X4.

Thats even if he has me on ignore and hates my guts. But to me when Max speaks I listen, and 99.9 percent of the time shake my head in agreement.

FWIW

At least with CoP around I'm no longer the consensus village idiot. Though, I hope I've made strides to improve my standing among the 3-or-so posters who have not yet blocked me.

quote:

Originally posted by Boris:

quote:

Originally posted by MsPacman:

quote:

You think you're unpopular because you have strong opinions and the "board regulars" are out to get you or whatever. I think you're unpopular, at least with me personally, because of your delivery. I don't care if your opinions are different from mine. Lots of people here disagree with me about lots of things. Most of them manage to do it without being a total ass about it. That's not sarcasm, by the way.

Yeah, what Max said.

What's really funny is if he knew who Max really is, he'd probably be starstruck and afraid to post.

Afraid to post? Max really is the Incredible Hulk!! You don't want Max to get angry.

quote:

Originally posted by DurangoDoug:
I dont know who Max really is and dont really care.

In real life, I'm Oshbaul

Why do I picture Napolean in a dirty sweatshirt, sitting in his Mother's basement every time COP posts?

quote:

Originally posted by Change of Possession:

quote:

Originally posted by Brak:

quote:

Originally posted by Change of Possession:
So, no one wants to comment on the fact that it appears to me that MV thinks TT is happy Brett retired? Has he written any articles on this? Hmm. There are so many things he knows that he'll never touch in print.

Evidently nobody wants to comment on the FACT that it APPEARS to YOU that MV thinks TT is happy Brett retired.

Yes. It sure does. No thoughts on anything but me, personally? Does anyone actually think this isn't true?

I think TT wanted Favre to retire.

quote:

Originally posted by Max:
You know, I basically agree it would be a big deal if TT felt that way, but then again, why should it? TT drafted Rodgers. His hand-picked head coach developed him. Since he's a young guy he's (in theory) the franchise for the next decade, as opposed to a guy who is well past the age most NFL quarterbacks continue playing. I wouldn't really blame TT for being eager to see his guy in the lineup. That doesn't automatically mean, however, that he was trying to boot Favre out the door, as people said for, you know, basically his entire tenure to this point. It might just mean he's not going to spend much time dwelling on 2007 when he can look ahead to 2008 and 2009, as the GM of the Packers should. It might just mean that although I'm happy when my sister's kids do something great in school, I'm even happier when my own kids do.

I think TT wanted to get rid of Favre, because Favre would undermine coaching and game planning by changing plays. That's why he got rid of the people around Favre who were enabling him, such as William Henderson and Bubba Franks. Ahman Green was getting to the end of the line, but this might have been a factor with him too. And the two guards, Rivera and Wahle.
I think TT was purposely jerking Favre around, as we saw with the Randy Moss fiasco. Favre was jerking the team around too.

quote:

Originally posted by nerdmann:
I think TT wanted to get rid of Favre, because Favre would undermine coaching and game planning by changing plays. That's why he got rid of the people around Favre who were enabling him, such as William Henderson and Bubba Franks. Ahman Green was getting to the end of the line, but this might have been a factor with him too. And the two guards, Rivera and Wahle.
I think TT was purposely jerking Favre around, as we saw with the Randy Moss fiasco. Favre was jerking the team around too.

Do you really believe this?

Henderson, Green, and Rivera were all done. Franks was nothing...unproductive. Wahle left because he got tons of MONEY...maybe he could have thrown big money at him but he didn't. You make it sound almost personal with Favre? IT'S A BUSINESS...Why would we pay Green and Franks and Henderson big money when we could get the same, if not better, production from guys like Donald Lee and Ryan Grant and John Kuhn who were claimed off waivers? Makes sense to me.

Thompson's formula is simple, here it is: get rid of the high paid, unproductive players and reward/sign the productive guys. I firmly believe Favre retired on his own terms and Thompson didn't push him out the door. Maybe Thompson was a little anxious to see if his first draft pick ever would pan out (a pick that will define his tenure as GM) but his goal is the same as everyone else's...win a SB.

If I had to guess what Thompson's opinion of Favre being with the team was, I bet he would have been happy either way. If Favre stays, theres a good chance we bring a Lombardi back to GB. If Favre leaves, a new chapter in GB begins and he gets to see how his tenure as GM is defined with Rodgers. I seriously doubt he lost a ton of sleep about what Brett Favre was going to do!

quote:

Originally posted by Grave Digger:

quote:

Originally posted by nerdmann:
I think TT wanted to get rid of Favre, because Favre would undermine coaching and game planning by changing plays. That's why he got rid of the people around Favre who were enabling him, such as William Henderson and Bubba Franks. Ahman Green was getting to the end of the line, but this might have been a factor with him too. And the two guards, Rivera and Wahle.
I think TT was purposely jerking Favre around, as we saw with the Randy Moss fiasco. Favre was jerking the team around too.

Do you really believe this?

Henderson, Green, and Rivera were all done. Franks was nothing...unproductive. Wahle left because he got tons of MONEY...maybe he could have thrown big money at him but he didn't. You make it sound almost personal with Favre? IT'S A BUSINESS...Why would we pay Green and Franks and Henderson big money when we could get the same, if not better, production from guys like Donald Lee and Ryan Grant and John Kuhn who were claimed off waivers? Makes sense to me.

Thompson's formula is simple, here it is: get rid of the high paid, unproductive players and reward/sign the productive guys. I firmly believe Favre retired on his own terms and Thompson didn't push him out the door. Maybe Thompson was a little anxious to see if his first draft pick ever would pan out (a pick that will define his tenure as GM) but his goal is the same as everyone else's...win a SB.

If I had to guess what Thompson's opinion of Favre being with the team was, I bet he would have been happy either way. If Favre stays, theres a good chance we bring a Lombardi back to GB. If Favre leaves, a new chapter in GB begins and he gets to see how his tenure as GM is defined with Rodgers. I seriously doubt he lost a ton of sleep about what Brett Favre was going to do!

Yep, I really believe it. Sherman wouldn't stand up to Favre. TT and MM needed to get him under control. MM did a good job of this. But I think it went beyond TT just wanting "his guy" in there.

Sometimes all you can do is shake your head at the completely uninformed.