SmashMouth

5 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I had a friend text me a little while back, predicting that this thread would go to page 6 before 4:30pm today. I told her no way. Boy was I wrong.

Ha ha. I must be lying. I'm never wrong. At least that is what my last armchair psychologist told me. Should I continue seeing that psychologist or just emulate Trump and emphatically say "You're fired!"

That was fun.

You're re right. I'm sorry.

22 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Does this describe you...to a tee? After all, you started with a condescending post. I just followed.

I figured you would realize that sentiment from my previous post. But apparenty, whooosh.

This is now so boring. It's the middle of the day but you are putting all the readers to sleep. Where is CardinalBacker to liven this back up?

"Psychologists suggest trying to find compassion for that antagonistic narcissist . After all, through their negative behavior, they are shielding their threatened ego with their insistence on always being right."

I'm sorry @Englebert

I will try to be more compassionate. 

8 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Are you exhibiting "intern's syndrome"? Passive-Aggressive is just too obvious. Projection is right on the nose.

You project arrogance. You get called out on it. So you resort to textbook self-defense mechanisms. You are too funny. But now just boring. Either up your game or bow out.

Someone with antagonistic narcissism may try to exploit others to get ahead. They may put others down in an attempt to gain the upper hand or appear dominant.

Antagonistic Narcissism 

Antagonistic narcissism is defined by a sense of competitiveness, arrogance, and rivalry. While all people with narcissistic traits can be overly concerned with how they appear to others, antagonistic narcissists are particularly concerned with coming out “on top."

Someone with antagonistic narcissism may try to exploit others to get ahead. They may put others down in an attempt to gain the upper hand or appear dominant.

4 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Again, following your lead. You're welcome.

Unless you have something else to say other than trying to defend your insensitive statements, this conversation has run it's course. But naturally, I will be on the edge of my seat waiting for your next reply. 

I'm actually just waiting for CardinalBacker to rejoin. You were a surprise distraction.

I'm glad we all exist for your enjoyment. Happy to oblige.

15 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Whatever makes you feel special.

Your first sentence in your first post on this topic today was "I will do my best to explain so everyone can understand". Can you get more condescending than that?

Later in the post, you wrote "Stop trying to defend the infraction du jour and just be honest about it." So you are implying someone, both, all are lying, being dishonest, and you are playing morality police by calling out said posters. This was your first post. I ignored those quips and tried to let you explain your post. And your response was just nonsensical. So yes, you did the dragging.

Are you sure you want to continue dragging this down to the gutter? (I spelled it out for you.)

You're being sensitive. "I will do my best to explain so everyone can understand" was simply meant to include both left and right points of view (everyone, not just conservatives or liberals). Now that I read it, possibly it was condescending. Not my intent. 

The second point about the infraction du jour is meant to say just what I implied. All of us will defend "our" side through deflection and finger pointing. This is all my opinion, but it's what I see. 

You: "Are you sure you want to continue dragging this down to the gutter? (I spelled it out for you.)" 

Me: "You don't have to try to belittle me to make you better."

24 minutes ago, Englebert said:

You tried to play morality police in the same post that you disparaged two other posters.

And for the record, I like @Reagan. But he posts some of the most off the wall stuff. Facts. I'm not disparaging him though. As far as @Big girl is concerned, yeah I probably hit below the belt on that one. I always tried to be fair and nice with her, but her thieving "our" money and bragging about it really gets to me. 

2 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I just followed your lead. You did the dragging.

Dragging? I don't think so.

Just now, Englebert said:

I was being nice. But I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Look, it's the talking down crap like the above that I don't get. And believe me, I've done my fair share of it too. Using condescending language is a favorite tool of someone who wants to appear more intelligent or sophisticated or wiser than the one they are facing in a discussion or argument.

You're a smart guy, one that in premise I usually agree with. But my disagreeing with something or pointing something out doesn't make you any more or less smart than me. You don't have to try to belittle me to make you better.

2 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Wow. The hilarity came out of nowhere. I'll leave it at that.

That's what I would've said if I wasn't able to come up with anything better too...

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Don’t see anyone defending Trump, simply pointing out the exact opposite reaction (from government and media) when him and Biden have done the same thing, along with every other President.

It's not the same thing. And even if it was (which it's not), then why are we asking for Trump to get off just because Biden did? Why aren't we asking why both should have to face consequences? Why do we keep putting our politicians on a pedestal & above the law?

37 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I'm still trying to comprehend how this post was relevant in the wake of the current discussion. You're "both sides do it so shut up" doesn't seem to fit in here.

It was just as relevant as the "current discussion" being discussed under the topic "House Passes Laken Riley Act". If "both sides do it so shut up" is all you can glean from what I posted, then I'm sorry I wasn't more clear, because that was definitely not the accentuated point. Read the last sentence of the post: "Quit calling each other names and pointing the finger and try to have a discussion that's meaningful."

Just now, Englebert said:

Does something need explaining? 

Who is defending the "infraction du jour"?

The latest posts where discussing revisionist history, and then this pops up. I feel like I'm missing something.

It was more than just about the last few posts, or even this topic specifically. All I read on here is "Well, what about...(insert what ever deflection you want to come up with)". If you're missing something, then you are no different than most - me included. We become so polarized to "our guy" that we can't see the forest for the trees.

@Reagan posts sensationalized articles about "what the left did this time" and @Big girl, God bless her, can't seem to make sense of what day it is. Both are extreme and the truth falls somewhere in the middle. But there isn't any middle ground thee days. There isn't any give and take these days. Between social media, mainstream media (which includes CNN, Fox, the Big 3, MSNBC, etc.), we are willingly being polarized. It's for a reason, both political & social. We are slaves to their thoughts. Most people can't admit that Trump is a narcissistic crook. I can. I'm still going to vote for him...because, in my opinion, it beats the alternative. 

Quit calling each other names and pointing the finger and try to have a discussion that's meaningful.

13 hours ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

We have a minimum age requirement to run, we should have a maximum age as well! We wouldn't even be dealing with these 2  nursing home 🤡's JMO... 

I don't know if I agree with age discrimination. There are those well past the age of 70 that are of sound mind. Perhaps each candidate would have to pass a mental acuity test or something along those lines, no matter what age they are. 

I will do my best to explain so everyone can understand:

• Trump took classified docs
• Biden took classified docs
• Everybody takes classified docs

• Trump is a liar
• Biden is a liar
• Most, if not all, politicians are liars

Stop trying to defend the infraction du jour and just be honest about it. 

I will choose the lesser of two evils when it comes to voting for the POTUS. Trump gets my vote over Biden today, tomorrow & twice on Sunday (wait, that's voter fraud).

1 hour ago, AggiesAreWe said:

As why it's interim.

Like I stated, some on the board want it to be a requirement.

Doesn't matter to me. I think McDonald would be a good promotion.

I agree with what you’re saying. Will they or have they released a list of applicants for the job?

51 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

I'm thinking McDonald will be interim through next season.

Even without a Master's Degree?!?! (said in my facetious voice...)

16 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:

How about funding programs that teach women to keep their legs closed?  

And to be fair, that teach men to keep their unit in their pants. Two-way street...

45 minutes ago, Guitar Man said:

Whether you like it or not, McDonald is the best hire here. The players and community support him 100%. The man is about as loyal as it gets when it comes to this job. Lumberton born and raised and came back to coach the game that he loves. Bringing in an outsider is not always the best move, because honestly to most outsiders, Lumberton is a stepping stone job. Reyes benefited greatly from that stable of kids he had. With all the talent graduating, this job is gonna be tough. McDonald isn't some guy who is gonna treat this as a notch on the ladder, and leave. That place is his home. 

He’s a good hire for sure. Is he the best hire? Who knows. Probably not. I like him though. 

54 minutes ago, Right99JOH said:

Woods, Buffett, Cook, Jassy, Barra, just to name a few and If I remember correctly from a Forbes article, roughly 35% of CEOs/Chairs/Presidents how a graduate degree.

Yep. But we are talking about a 4A program whose previous few AD’s didn’t have a master’s either…not a Fortune 500 company. Where I work, our CFO, CEO President and all our VPs have Bachelor’s degrees only. A couple have no degree at all. It’s a very successful company that employs several thousand employees. A master’s isn’t necessary for the Lumberton AD/HC. 

On 3/10/2024 at 1:02 AM, Reagan said:

Joe Biden went off script and recognized that one of the illegals he let into our country murdered Laken Riley.

You mean Lincoln Riley, right?

Just now, Excoach1970 said:

80 percent AD’s/Head football coaches don’t have a masters.. PNG head coach don’t, BC coach doesn’t, vidor coach doesn’t, HJ coach doesn’t, ex Nederland coach didn’t, pa coach doesn’t 

 

so the masters things is false 

Exactly...

1 hour ago, Right99JOH said:

I can think of numerous reasons why you would want a candidate to have a master's degree to become AD... Program management, budgeting/financing, UIL compliance, etc... smh.  Not just about the X's and O's.  Not just about football.

Btw, Sam Walton worth hundreds of billions of dollars while still alive had only a bachelor's degree. He founded and ran the largest retailer in the world, Walmart. Also held the title of richest man in the world for a period. Sure wish he’d have gotten that master’s. SMH. 

45 minutes ago, Right99JOH said:

I can think of numerous reasons why you would want a candidate to have a master's degree to become AD... Program management, budgeting/financing, UIL compliance, etc... smh.  Not just about the X's and O's.  Not just about football.

You're silly if you think a master's degree is necessary for any of those tasks. Hell, there are many CEO's of corporations that don't have graduate degrees... some with no degree whatsoever. Silly man...

Just now, Right99JOH said:

Are you ever satisfied?!?!.... Probably not.  And you can't see why?!?! WOW!!!

Not really sure what you mean about me being satisfied or seeing why. Explain what you're asking and I'll try to answer.