View Single Post
Old 10-20-2010   #871
DexmanC
Hall of Fame
 
DexmanC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,869
Rep Power: 38103 DexmanC is a quality contributor and well respectedDexmanC is a quality contributor and well respectedDexmanC is a quality contributor and well respectedDexmanC is a quality contributor and well respectedDexmanC is a quality contributor and well respectedDexmanC is a quality contributor and well respectedDexmanC is a quality contributor and well respectedDexmanC is a quality contributor and well respectedDexmanC is a quality contributor and well respectedDexmanC is a quality contributor and well respectedDexmanC is a quality contributor and well respected
Default Re: The All Encompassing FIRE KUBIAK thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderkyss View Post
English must not be your native language. It's like you don't read the whole post before you reply.

He wasn't comparing Kubiak to Slocum. Slocum (or rather the firing of Slocum) was used to illustrate a point.

He started his post with the words, "Be careful what you wish for..."

Not, "Kubiak is like Slocum..." or "Kubiak reminds me of Slocum..." or even, "Kubiak has been as successful as Slocum..."
Yeah, yeah. I get what you're sayin', but I just couldn't let it slide.
The phrase "be careful what you wish for..." is paired with "something else"
a lot of people are "wishing for." The mind wanders into a logical direction...

"Be careful what you wish for" + "Inclusion of the name 'Kubiak" +
"Inclusion of the name 'Slocum'" = "Logical conclusion of 'Firing Kubiak'
is analogous in its consequences to 'Firing Slocum'"


So, after doing the math, one can clearly see I was attacking the logic
of his post, by cutting to the chase. Kubiak should not be
mentioned in the same sentence as Slocum, unless he is being referenced
as a member of R.C.'s staff.

żMe entiendes?
__________________
Coach O'Brien just might lead the Texans to their first 35-0 thumping of a decent opponent in 2014.
DexmanC is offline