Collateral Damage of winning a national title

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

That's the definition of something not being arbitrary. It's the literal timeframe in which they have 2 titles.

It’s arbitrary because it’s in response to saying both teams have won two titles in the last half century.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Yet maize here you are not once showing how I was wrong. You just lob that petty insult while offering nothing to help prove your point. This is embarrassing indeed.

I already showed you where you were wrong with a literal screen grab of you hilariously posting below the screen grab in question.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I already showed you where you were wrong with a literal screen grab of you hilariously posting below the screen grab in question.

8 pages after you tried to tell me my video was a screen grab. The only person that has been proven wrong is you maize. But because you have an inflated ego, you aren't capable of admitting this. It's as ridiculous as saying the blue flash on the sunglasses frame is a glare from the scoreboard. Pants on head stupid.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

8 pages after you tried to tell me my video was a screen grab. The only person that has been proven wrong is you maize. But because you have an inflated ego, you aren't capable of admitting this. It's as ridiculous as saying the blue flash on the sunglasses frame is a glare from the scoreboard. Pants on head stupid.

I didn't. I told you it was referencing a twitter post of the image. You just can't read.

My very first reference of "screen grab"

It wasn't on during the game. It was like in one screen grab of the blurry image. And most likely just a lense flare or glare on the actual glasses. I'm also not sure the normal reaction to players coming at you isn't to just hide your head so you don't get smacked in the face. All pretty lame circumstantial stuff if you ask me.

And very shortly after that, in response to another poster, I even clarified specifically that I wasn't referencing the video:

There is a long video, the blue light does not exist but for a moment on that video. It is almost certainly a reflection of something in teh stadium.

like I said, you just can't read.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I didn't. I told you it was referencing a twitter post of the image. You just can't read.

My very first reference of "screen grab"


And very shortly after that, in response to another poster, I even clarified specifically that I wasn't referencing the video:

like I said, you just can't read.

NONE of what you just quoted has any mention of a Twitter post you want to now claim you were referencing before.

However you did say this to me after I posted my video. I bolded

Show me video of a blue flashy thing and not a screen grab. This is called confirmation bias. You want something to be true so you went looking for a way to make it. No, he wasn't wearing recording sunglasses.

You quite literally asked me to show a video (which I did) and not a SCREEN GRAB. (Which I didn’t) Even a few other posters called you out on this. You want to say I can’t read?

You’re just a Disingenuous douchebag that thinks too highly of himself.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

NONE of what you just quoted has any mention of a Twitter post you want to now claim you were referencing before.

However you did say this to me after I posted my video. I bolded

You quite literally asked me to show a video (which I did) and not a SCREEN GRAB. (Which I didn’t) Even a few other posters called you out on this. You want to say I can’t read?

You’re just a Disingenuous douchebag that thinks too highly of himself.

I mentioned the image specifically showing the “blue light”. Just because I didn’t say Twitter specifically doesn’t negate that I was talking about a very specific image circulating around.

And No. I asked you to show me a video of the blue flashy thing and not simply a screen grab. No video shows the blue thing. That was my point. You just can read.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I mentioned the image specifically showing the “blue light”. Just because I didn’t say Twitter specifically doesn’t negate that I was talking about a very specific image circulating around.

So you didn't in fact say Twitter image. You just lied ya did, got it.

And No. I asked you to show me a video of the blue flashy thing and not simply a screen grab. No video shows the blue thing. That was my point. You just can read.

And here you do it again. What I posted was a video, not a screen grab. It's constantly moving, it does not stop until the end. Thank you for proving my initial point here, you don't know what a screen grab is. You may go.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

So you didn't in fact say Twitter image. You just lied ya did, got it.

And here you do it again. What I posted was a video, not a screen grab. It's constantly moving, it does not stop until the end. Thank you for proving my initial point here, you don't know what a screen grab is. You may go.

I very much clarified that to you later in the conversation when you questioned what image I was talking about; insisting it was a video. Hell. Someone even posted it. You ignored it all because you didn’t want to admit you misunderstood. Quite sad really.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I very much clarified that to you later in the conversation when you questioned what image I was talking about; insisting it was a video. Hell. Someone even posted it. You ignored it all because you didn’t want to admit you misunderstood. Quite sad really.

No you didn’t clarify it. Someone posted it 8 pages later maize. You then latch on to that after realizing you were wrong saying you meant that instead. It is quite sad you are going to the depths to lie because you can’t admit you are wrong. Like you quite literally did again (confuse a video for screen grab) what you did in just your second to last post. You really are a sad person.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

No you didn’t clarify it. Someone posted it 8 pages later maize. You then latch on to that after realizing you were wrong saying you meant that instead. It is quite sad you are going to the depths to lie because you can’t admit you are wrong. Like you quite literally did again (confuse a video for screen grab) what you did in just your second to last post. You really are a sad person.

No man. You just can’t read. I was very clearly referencing a still shot of the video that includes a glare. You just can’t read. It didn’t need to be sourced. And if I cared enough, I bet I could find it earlier than that in that 130 page thread.

 

[ralphiewvu]

No man. You just can’t read. I was very clearly referencing a still shot of the video that includes a glare. You just can’t read. It didn’t need to be sourced. And if I cared enough, I bet I could find it earlier than that in that 130 page thread.

No you weren’t and no, you couldn’t. Because again Maize you referenced my video as a still grab which infact for nth time, it was a video. If you cared enough? No you mean if you actually could prove it. We both know you can’t, nor can you admit you are wrong in this. Because if you could do ether of those things this conversation would have ended.

 

[Across The Field]

It’s arbitrary because it’s in response to saying both teams have won two titles in the last half century.

No it's not, it's the opposite. It's precise.

It's the definition of arbitrary for you to go back 50 years.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

No it's not, it's the opposite. It's precise.

It's the definition of arbitrary for you to go back 50 years.

50 years is a standard measure of time. Just like talking about “in the last decade”. It isn’t based on a football footnote to start the timeline.

 

[Across The Field]

50 years is a standard measure of time. Just like talking about “in the last decade”. It isn’t based on a football footnote to start the timeline.

Ironically, you feel that way about a decade or 50 years because of something completely arbitrary.

I'm not sure how this conversation got started back up, but me saying OSU has two titles in the last 21 years is not remotely arbitrary. You're just trying to push that idea because it kills your narrative.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Ironically, you feel that way about a decade or 50 years because of something completely arbitrary.

I'm not sure how this conversation got started back up, but me saying OSU has two titles in the last 21 years is not remotely arbitrary. You're just trying to push that idea because it kills your narrative.

I mean, we could do all time but then I get accused of leather helmets. 50 years is a pretty acceptable time frame to measure success.

This started because I said both teams have two national titles in the last 50 years. Your response was that Ohio State has two in the last 21. To which I called arbitrary and pointed out that Michigan has two in the last 26, or 1 in the last 9 (also purposefully arbitrary)

 

[Across The Field]

I mean, we could do all time but then I get accused of leather helmets. 50 years is a pretty acceptable time frame to measure success.

This started because I said both teams have two national titles in the last 50 years. Your response was that Ohio State has two in the last 21. To which I called arbitrary and pointed out that Michigan has two in the last 26, or 1 in the last 9 (also purposefully arbitrary)

Well michigan doesn't have two in the last 26 either. This most recent one is their first full one since 1948. OSU has two in the last 21 years, both of them undisputed.

If you'd like to go back to 1948, the most recent year michigan had an undisputed title before this most recent one, we can, but OSU has had 7 in that timeframe, so I'm sure you do not.