Give Theo time

[nwfisch]

I did, yes.

But I am not talking about me was I???

Nope.

Glad we cleared that up.

[video=youtube;HxUuDPNbkJk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxUuDPNbkJk[/video]

 

[dabynsky]

I did, yes.

But I am not talking about me was I???

Nope.

Glad we cleared that up.

I then look forward to reading your posts about the tremendous progress if Cubs do in fact manage to lose only 93 games or fewer.

 

[KBisBack!]

I then look forward to reading your posts about the tremendous progress if Cubs do in fact manage to lose only 93 games or fewer.

I look forward to you kissing my ass then if they lose 94 games or more.

And if they do lose 93 games or less, they had better make significant moves this offseason to continue the progress.

 

[dabynsky]

I look forward to you kissing my ass then if they lose 94 games or more.

And if they do lose 93 games or less, they had better make significant moves this offseason to continue the progress.

You find a post where I guaranteed that the Cubs would lose less than 94 games somewhere?

Glad we cleared that up.

 

[patg006]

I look forward to you kissing my ass then if they lose 94 games or more.

And if they do lose 93 games or less, they had better make significant moves this offseason to continue the progress.

^This

 

[KBisBack!]

You find a post where I guaranteed that the Cubs would lose less than 94 games somewhere?

Glad we cleared that up.

Find a quote where I guaranteed the Cubs would lose more than 93 games somewhere then.

Glad we cleared that up.

 

[dabynsky]

Find a quote where I guaranteed the Cubs would lose more than 93 games somewhere then.

Glad we cleared that up.

Since this is what I posted....

I then look forward to reading your posts about the tremendous progress if Cubs do in fact manage to lose only 93 games or fewer.

Seems as though there have been no guarantees, but rather just asking for consistency from all parties.

Glad we yada yada. :fap:

 

[KBisBack!]

Since this is what I posted....
Seems as though there have been no guarantees, but rather just asking for consistency from all parties.

Glad we yada yada. :fap:

Worry about your own consistency then and keep your mouth shut if they only lose 90 games since you have argued there is no difference between 100 losses and 90 losses.

 

[Franko725]

No one thinks the sky is falling.

Some think it is unacceptable to field a 100 loss team, do little to nothing to improve the team in the offseason and be faced with yet another 100 loss season.

Although the recent 'hot streak' has them on pace to lose 'only' 93 games.

Which will be lavished for praise as a great success from the same people who say there is no difference between 100 losses and 85 losses and they would rather be bad than lose in the World Series.

Semantics I suppose, but you frequently use this line. Suppose that isn't you saying that they are going to lose 100 games or anything tho.

 

[X]

Hey fellas...



I don't think we've cleared anything up...

 

[nwfisch]

Hey fellas...



I don't think we've cleared anything up...

Sorry pops

 

[KBisBack!]

Semantics I suppose, but you frequently use this line. Suppose that isn't you saying that they are going to lose 100 games or anything tho.

There is nothing in that highlighted comment that says I guarantee the team will lose 100 games.

It mentions there is a very real possibility that the team could lose 100 games again, something that is a completely realistic statement.

So yes, semantics.

Do I THINK they will lose 100 games again? Yes.

Would I be the only one to think that? No.

Does that make it a guarantee? No.

Continue to nitpick away though.

 

[Willrust]

There is nothing in that highlighted comment that says I guarantee the team will lose 100 games.

It mentions there is a very real possibility that the team could lose 100 games again, something that is a completely realistic statement.

So yes, semantics.

Do I THINK they will lose 100 games again? Yes.

Would I be the only one to think that? No.

Does that make it a guarantee? No.

Continue to nitpick away though.

Are there any wagers ready to go out? KB has 99 1/2 + losses & Dabynski has 99 or less. Winner gets to choose other's avatar until start of 2014 season?

opcorn:

 

[Jntg4]

I don't think we lose 100 this year, or at least not on pace for it before a midseason selling of short-term assets.

 

[Jntg4]

Currently on pace for 93.15 losses, I could easily live with 69-93 this season.

 

[brett05]

Currently on pace for 93.15 losses, I could easily live with 69-93 this season.

I am guessing you can live with 30-132 as well :soxwin:

 

[KBisBack!]

Are there any wagers ready to go out? KB has 99 1/2 + losses & Dabynski has 99 or less. Winner gets to choose other's avatar until start of 2014 season?

opcorn:

An avatar bet?

What are we 6 years old here?

 

[KBisBack!]

Currently on pace for 93.15 losses, I could easily live with 69-93 this season.

Another perfect example of someone who has said it doesn't matter how many games the team losses if they don't make the playoffs but now praising an eight game improvement.

#Theospankfest

 

[dabynsky]

Worry about your own consistency then and keep your mouth shut if they only lose 90 games since you have argued there is no difference between 100 losses and 90 losses.

Why you're so quick to claim that your opponents are inconsistent that I am sure you will be more than willing to point it out if it happens in the future?

 

[KBisBack!]

Why you're so quick to claim that your opponents are inconsistent that I am sure you will be more than willing to point it out if it happens in the future?

Apparently the concept of worrying about yourself was too advanced for you to grasp.