stop the nonsense!

[markshark84]

Jesus, this is going to be a long season.

Good thing we can pick up grammar lessons along the way, huh?!

I only wish deadskins would have watched a couple of those PSAs.....

[riggofan]

Holy cow, somebody just posted a link from grammarbook.com. I can't wait for some further linguistic debate. Perhaps an argument folks can twist the grammar rules to mean whatever they want them to mean?

[Countertrey]

Both interpretations of that sentence are (technically) correct, BUT... I'd suggest that the context would lead MOST to make the same interpretation Deadskins made.

English... ain't it grand???

[markshark84]

Both interpretations of that sentence are (technically) correct, BUT... I'd suggest that the context would lead MOST to make the same interpretation Deadskins made.

English... ain't it grand???

Perhaps next time Deadskins should keep his mouth shut when he wants to critique someone's grammar --- when they're actually correct......

Countertrey ---- If you think "MOST" would interpret it the other way ---- please, I'd love to see you draft the statement using periods. Since there is a conclusory connection between the 3 statements, I'd really enjoy seeing how you connect the statements in different sentences -- while limiting redundancy. And I'm not calling you out. Be clear. I would honestly like to see if there is a better way (which I don't believe).

This is a forum for football. It's pretty sad that I have to defend CORRECT grammar. It is particularly sad that it even had to be brought up ---- although honestly I can understand in the sense that is all he had to go on. When you've been proven wrong so often, you begin to grasp at anything you can......

[Countertrey]

Both interpretations of that sentence are (technically) correct, BUT... I'd suggest that the context would lead MOST to make the same interpretation Deadskins made.

English... ain't it grand???

Perhaps next time Deadskins should keep his mouth shut when he wants to critique someone's grammar --- when they're actually correct......

Countertrey ---- If you think "MOST" would interpret it the other way ---- please, I'd love to see you draft the statement using periods. Since there is a conclusory connection between the 3 statements, I'd really enjoy seeing how you connect the statements in different sentences -- while limiting redundancy. And I'm not calling you out. Be clear. I would honestly like to see if there is a better way (which I don't believe).
...

Sure..."I said this in 2001. In fact, I repeated it with one of my first posts on this forum, and I'll say it again now"

[44diesel]

Both interpretations of that sentence are (technically) correct, BUT... I'd suggest that the context would lead MOST to make the same interpretation Deadskins made.

English... ain't it grand???

Perhaps next time Deadskins should keep his mouth shut when he wants to critique someone's grammar --- when they're actually correct......

Countertrey ---- If you think "MOST" would interpret it the other way ---- please, I'd love to see you draft the statement using periods. Since there is a conclusory connection between the 3 statements, I'd really enjoy seeing how you connect the statements in different sentences -- while limiting redundancy. And I'm not calling you out. Be clear. I would honestly like to see if there is a better way (which I don't believe).
...

Sure..."I said this in 2001. In fact, I repeated it with one of my first posts on this forum, and I'll say it again now"

Ta da!

[markshark84]

Both interpretations of that sentence are (technically) correct, BUT... I'd suggest that the context would lead MOST to make the same interpretation Deadskins made.

English... ain't it grand???

Perhaps next time Deadskins should keep his mouth shut when he wants to critique someone's grammar --- when they're actually correct......

Countertrey ---- If you think "MOST" would interpret it the other way ---- please, I'd love to see you draft the statement using periods. Since there is a conclusory connection between the 3 statements, I'd really enjoy seeing how you connect the statements in different sentences -- while limiting redundancy. And I'm not calling you out. Be clear. I would honestly like to see if there is a better way (which I don't believe).
...

Sure..."I said this in 2001. In fact, I repeated it with one of my first posts on this forum, and I'll say it again now"

I should just let this be, but I am who I am.... You didn't include the conclusion. If you include the conclusion at the end of your second sentence, it doesn't link to the initial statement. Would you include the conclusion prior to the 2001 sentence? That may work, but then your turning what could be a single sentence into 3.

Honestly, it is a dispute in writing styles ---- and writing is 100% subjective. I just found it stupid to be called out on something that was correct.

[Countertrey]

I believe you are moving the goal post... be that as it may, I'll play...

I said this in 2001 (In fact, I repeated it with one of my first posts on this forum, and I'll say it again now): "The Redskins franchise will not be consistently successful as long as Snyder is our owner".

I'll hear your quibble, sir...

Of course, there is truth in your statement

a dispute in writing styles ---- and writing is 100% subjective.

none the less, the author has some burden to ensure he is understood, especially in forum where you may wish to re-forge opinion...

[StorminMormon86]

Maybe someone should start a semantics and grammar thread?

[44diesel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc
...for all you cunning linguists.

[markshark84]

I believe you are moving the goal post... be that as it may, I'll play...

I said this in 2001 (In fact, I repeated it with one of my first posts on this forum, and I'll say it again now): "The Redskins franchise will not be consistently successful as long as Snyder is our owner".

I'll hear your quibble, sir...

Of course, there is truth in your statement

a dispute in writing styles ---- and writing is 100% subjective.

none the less, the author has some burden to ensure he is understood, especially in forum where you may wish to re-forge opinion...

I don't like to use () unless it is somewhat off topic or a sidebar type comment. Here, it was directly related to the conclusion.

Regardless, it is a difference in opinion as to style. No one is wrong here. I still prefer the way I wrote it and believe the vast majority of readers would have understood not to connect the 3 separate statements separated by commas.

I know I had a part in keeping this going, but lets get back to football please!!!!!

[Deadskins]

No one is wrong here.

And yet, you've called me wrong at least twice, while still being incorrect yourself.

I said this in 2001, it was one of my first posts on this forum

Your use of the comma does link the two statements, and this is where you went astray. The object of the prepositional phrase "in 2001," in the first statement, is the word "this." The word "it" in the second statement also refers to the word "this." Thus, the only logical conclusion is that one of your first posts on this forum, was made in 2001. Now, I'll grant you that I was a math/computer science major in college, so I don't know grammar as well as some here. I will defer to Irn-Bru as to who is correct on this subject, as this kind of thing is his profession.

I know I had a part in keeping this going, but lets get back to football please!!!!!

Well, the title of the thread is "stop the nonsense!," so this discussion is actually on topic (though it is undoubtedly in the wrong forum).

And,

Perhaps next time Deadskins should keep his mouth shut

Unlike you, I don't move my lips when I type.

[markshark84]

No one is wrong here.

And yet, you've called me wrong at least twice.

I know I had a part in keeping this going, but lets get back to football please!!!!!

Well, the title of the thread is "stop the nonsense!," so this discussion is actually on topic (though it is undoubtedly in the wrong forum).

And,

Perhaps next time Deadskins should keep his mouth shut

Unlike you, I don't move my lips when I type.

You have quite the penchant for taking things totally out of context

You ARE wrong because you stated that my grammar was incorrect --- when it was, in fact, correct. I don't think anyone can dispute this.

And the (first quoted) above statement wasn't directed at you. That was a comment made to Countertrey's specific post. You need to learn that if a post isn't directed to you, don't apply it to your posts as if it is. That goes back to you comprehension skills. Please learn to realize what is applicable and not applicable to your posts in particular. You are trying way to hard to stir the pot. It just makes you look desperate. Try to add something football relevant next time.

But we can agree on your second comment.

As for your third, it's a figure of speech. Do you not understand that? Again, you come off desperate and whiny. Just stop. You're making yourself look foolish at this point.

[Deadskins]

You ARE wrong because you stated that my grammar was incorrect --- when it was, in fact, correct. I don't think anyone can dispute this.

I can, and did (quite effectively, IMHO).

Again, you come off desperate and whiny. Just stop. You're making yourself look foolish at this point.

Desperate? I don't see it. Whiny? Perhaps, though I think "petty" would be a more descriptive adjective. Foolish? Not by a long shot!

[markshark84]

You ARE wrong because you stated that my grammar was incorrect --- when it was, in fact, correct. I don't think anyone can dispute this.

I can, and did (quite effectively, IMHO).

Holy crap. I literally provided direct support proving I was correct. Nothing you have written within this thread can remotely be considered as "effective".... And your post is what desperation looks like....

Also --- not admitting when you're wrong IS foolish.....

[cowboykillerzRGiii]

Well if thats the case, i'd say, YOU (markshark) are; posting foolishness.

By proclaiming its time for football talk, and trying to be the "last word" guy... its on you to do so, *isn't it?
DS gets his final response, in all fairness, and the debate SHOULD be over.

Now, after re-nigging your "back to football" stance, its clear who is desperately seeking some kind of forum debate W.

I read all the posts this last week and its kind of ironic to see the kettle talk about stirring the pot.

Smmfh

[SkinsJock]

^^^ it's that time of year .... I'm SJ and I endorse this post

[markshark84]

Well if thats the case, i'd say, YOU (markshark) are; posting foolishness.

By proclaiming its time for football talk, and trying to be the "last word" guy... its on you to do so, *isn't it?
DS gets his final response, in all fairness, and the debate SHOULD be over.

Now, after re-nigging your "back to football" stance, its clear who is desperately seeking some kind of forum debate W.

I read all the posts this last week and its kind of ironic to see the kettle talk about stirring the pot.

Smmfh

First your "foolish" statement makes no sense because I admit when I'm wrong. Had you read all the posts from last week, you would know that. I have done this as recently as 5 days ago. In this case, however, I have been proven correct.

Secondly, you know me better than that cowboykillerz. I will not stand for falsehood statements..... If someone calls me out on being wrong when I am, in fact, right, I will hammer that nail down until it is flush to the surface. I don't do it any other way and I have never been shy about saying such. If you come at me, expect a response and you better be correct --- because if you aren't we'll keep going.

[Deadskins]

You ARE wrong because you stated that my grammar was incorrect --- when it was, in fact, correct. I don't think anyone can dispute this.

I can, and did (quite effectively, IMHO).

Holy crap. I literally provided direct support proving I was correct. Nothing you have written within this thread can remotely be considered as "effective".... And your post is what desperation looks like....

Also --- not admitting when you're wrong IS foolish.....

First, my original response was pointing out that the sentence you had written indicated that you first posted to this forum in 2001. There was no mention of grammatical correctness until you brought it up with your "hence the comma" comment. I simply pointed out that if, as you said, you were making "two different statements," the punctuation you were looking for was a period, not a comma. Second, your "direct support" proof was a link to the definition of a comma and it's use, so that hardly proves you correct. Third, I think I was very effective in pointing out how your sentence, written the way it was, could only be interpereted in one way. Lastly, like ckRGIII, I sense the desperation in your posts, and I believe others do as well. But, I do agree with your final point, and implore you to make that admission, so you can stop looking so foolish.

P.S. Here is how you could have easily written your statements that would have been both grammatically and chronologically correct:

I said this in 2001, and I'll say it again now: The Redskins franchise will not be consistently successful as long as Snyder is our owner. This was the subject of one of my first posts on this forum.

[markshark84]

Holy crap. I literally provided direct support proving I was correct. Nothing you have written within this thread can remotely be considered as "effective".... And your post is what desperation looks like....

Also --- not admitting when you're wrong IS foolish.....

First, my original response was pointing out that the sentence you had written indicated that you first posted to this forum in 2001. There was no mention of grammatical correctness until you brought it up with your "hence the comma" comment. I simply pointed out that if, as you said, you were making "two different statements," the punctuation you were looking for was a period, not a comma. Second, your "direct support" proof was a link to the definition of a comma and it's use, so that hardly proves you correct. Third, I think I was very effective in pointing out how your sentence, written the way it was, could only be interpereted in one way. Lastly, like ckRGIII, I sense the desperation in your posts, and I believe others do as well. But, I do agree with your final point, and implore you to make that admission, so you can stop looking so foolish.

P.S. Here is how you could have easily written your statements that would have been both grammatically and chronologically correct:

I said this in 2001, and I'll say it again now: The Redskins franchise will not be consistently successful as long as Snyder is our owner. This was the subject of one of my first posts on this forum.

First, your initial statement was incorrect. I wasn't saying it was my first post on the forum. Your consistent inability to comprehend posts is what created this back and forth --- and I predict it will continue moving forward as I truly think this is an issue with you not only on this website but outside of it as well. Then you incorrectly state my grammar (like a little b@##$) was wrong when it wasn't. I should learn to ignore some things....

Second, what I provided showed the proper use of a comma and the way in which I used was correct. Again, the fact you don't comprehend what is being provided via the source is not my problem (although your ignorance to it is making it my annoyance).

Third, the fact you think the statement could only be interpreted one way shows your inability to critically think and a lack of sentence diagraming. I consistently use an oxford comma to separate 3 or more connected statements. I have literally never had one bit of confusion in my memos.

But I can admit I was foolish to think you understand why your comments were clearly incorrect on their face and that I would be able to teach you why. I should have realized much earlier that fools can't be taught. After all, you're still trying to convince yourself RGIII doesn't have an issue with injuries.....

Lastly, your sentence lacks chronological order. One of the reasons for why I crafted my sentence the way I did was because I wanted to show the maturation and consistency of the conclusion. Jumping around just confuses.

[Deadskins]

First, my original response was pointing out that the sentence you had written indicated that you first posted to this forum in 2001. There was no mention of grammatical correctness until you brought it up with your "hence the comma" comment. I simply pointed out that if, as you said, you were making "two different statements," the punctuation you were looking for was a period, not a comma. Second, your "direct support" proof was a link to the definition of a comma and it's use, so that hardly proves you correct. Third, I think I was very effective in pointing out how your sentence, written the way it was, could only be interpereted in one way. Lastly, like ckRGIII, I sense the desperation in your posts, and I believe others do as well. But, I do agree with your final point, and implore you to make that admission, so you can stop looking so foolish.

P.S. Here is how you could have easily written your statements that would have been both grammatically and chronologically correct:

I said this in 2001, and I'll say it again now: The Redskins franchise will not be consistently successful as long as Snyder is our owner. This was the subject of one of my first posts on this forum.

First, your initial statement was incorrect. I wasn't saying it was my first post on the forum. Your consistent inability to comprehend posts is what created this back and forth --- and I predict it will continue moving forward as I truly think this is an issue with you not only on this website but outside of it as well. Then you incorrectly state my grammar (like a little b@##$) was wrong when it wasn't. I should learn to ignore some things....

Second, what I provided showed the proper use of a comma and the way in which I used was correct. Again, the fact you don't comprehend what is being provided via the source is not my problem (although your ignorance to it is making it my annoyance).

Third, the fact you think the statement could only be interpreted one way shows your inability to critically think and a lack of sentence diagraming. I consistently use an oxford comma to separate 3 or more connected statements. I have literally never had one bit of confusion in my memos.

But I can admit I was foolish to think you understand why your comments were clearly incorrect on their face and that I would be able to teach you why. I should have realized much earlier that fools can't be taught. After all, you're still trying to convince yourself RGIII doesn't have an issue with injuries.....

Lastly, your sentence lacks chronological order. One of the reasons for why I crafted my sentence the way I did was because I wanted to show the maturation and consistency of the conclusion. Jumping around just confuses.

You are projecting your own shortcomings in reading comprehension onto me. I perfectly understood what you were attempting to say in your initial post, and used my response to point out that the way you were saying it did not convey that information. The fact that you need to resort to name calling only proves that your argument is weak, and also displays your desperation to try and salvage some type of "win" in your mind. Even after I showed you why the object of your prepositional phrase in the first statement (this), and the pronoun from the second (it), both referred to the same pronouncement (no consistent success while Snyder is the owner), thereby tying the two together, you say I'm the one who has "a lack of sentence diagraming." <-- That's some well written English, right there. I have no problem with the use of commas to separate connected statements, but it was you who said they were separate statements. Connected statements can be separated by commas, but separate statements shouldn't be connected by commas (read that slowly, I know it's going to throw you). Once again, your site reference did nothing to support your argument.

Here, I will revise my version so as not to confuse you, but still convey the information correctly:

I said this in 2001, I said it in one of my first posts on this forum, and I'll say it again now: The Redskins franchise will not be consistently successful as long as Snyder is our owner.

[markshark84]

First, my original response was pointing out that the sentence you had written indicated that you first posted to this forum in 2001. There was no mention of grammatical correctness until you brought it up with your "hence the comma" comment. I simply pointed out that if, as you said, you were making "two different statements," the punctuation you were looking for was a period, not a comma. Second, your "direct support" proof was a link to the definition of a comma and it's use, so that hardly proves you correct. Third, I think I was very effective in pointing out how your sentence, written the way it was, could only be interpereted in one way. Lastly, like ckRGIII, I sense the desperation in your posts, and I believe others do as well. But, I do agree with your final point, and implore you to make that admission, so you can stop looking so foolish.

P.S. Here is how you could have easily written your statements that would have been both grammatically and chronologically correct:

I said this in 2001, and I'll say it again now: The Redskins franchise will not be consistently successful as long as Snyder is our owner. This was the subject of one of my first posts on this forum.

First, your initial statement was incorrect. I wasn't saying it was my first post on the forum. Your consistent inability to comprehend posts is what created this back and forth --- and I predict it will continue moving forward as I truly think this is an issue with you not only on this website but outside of it as well. Then you incorrectly state my grammar (like a little b@##$) was wrong when it wasn't. I should learn to ignore some things....

Second, what I provided showed the proper use of a comma and the way in which I used was correct. Again, the fact you don't comprehend what is being provided via the source is not my problem (although your ignorance to it is making it my annoyance).

Third, the fact you think the statement could only be interpreted one way shows your inability to critically think and a lack of sentence diagraming. I consistently use an oxford comma to separate 3 or more connected statements. I have literally never had one bit of confusion in my memos.

But I can admit I was foolish to think you understand why your comments were clearly incorrect on their face and that I would be able to teach you why. I should have realized much earlier that fools can't be taught. After all, you're still trying to convince yourself RGIII doesn't have an issue with injuries.....

Lastly, your sentence lacks chronological order. One of the reasons for why I crafted my sentence the way I did was because I wanted to show the maturation and consistency of the conclusion. Jumping around just confuses.

You are projecting your own shortcomings in reading comprehension onto me. I perfectly understood what you were attempting to say in your initial post, and used my response to point out that the way you were saying it did not convey that information. The fact that you need to resort to name calling only proves that your argument is weak, and also displays your desperation to try and salvage some type of "win" in your mind. Even after I showed you why the object of your prepositional phrase in the first statement (this), and the pronoun from the second (it), both referred to the same pronouncement (no consistent success while Snyder is the owner), thereby tying the two together, you say I'm the one who has "a lack of sentence diagraming." <-- That's some well written English, right there. I have no problem with the use of commas to separate connected statements, but it was you who said they were separate statements. Connected statements can be separated by commas, but separate statements shouldn't be connected by commas (read that slowly, I know it's going to throw you). Once again, your site reference did nothing to support your argument.

Here, I will revise my version so as not to confuse you, but still convey the information correctly:

I said this in 2001, I said it in one of my first posts on this forum, and I'll say it again now: The Redskins franchise will not be consistently successful as long as Snyder is our owner.

I am not namecalling; I'm only reporting facts. I state what has been proven. If it is something you don't like and consider it "namecalling" that's on you. It has actually taken a great deal of restraint (out of sheer frustration re your inability to comprehend or objectively look at things) on my part not to go that route. You have historically had poor comprehension within this forum; not only in this thread but others (at least as they pertain to my posts).

And I don't care about a "win". I have "lost" a couple times here and couldn't care less. In this case, it is pretty clear --- you just don't feel it necessary to accurately respond (i.e., you are still stuck on the sentence when it has been PROVEN that mine was correct --- after you said it was wrong. The fact yours is also correct, which was never in dispute because you can do basically anything grammatically with periods (therefore it could have never been wrong), was never the issue --- yet you continue to make it one.) You have a serious issue with the whole subjectivity vs. objectivity thing. My sentence construstion was correct; I have drafted sentences in this manner directed at the most discerning audiences (audiences much more intelligent than both me and you) for nearly a decade and have never received back a single correction/comment.

And based on your last post, this entire back and forth was over 3 different words? Just to be clear: the first one is your most recent; the second one is my original statement. In all humility, I do prefer yours --- but that doesn't mean mine is wrong (which is proven here and what this entire discussion is about) in the least. I also like the use of the oxford comma as an alternative to making each statement a separate sentence....

YOUR sentence:
I said this in 2001, I said it in one of my first posts on this forum, and I'll say it again now: The Redskins franchise will not be consistently successful as long as Snyder is our owner.

My original sentence:
I said this in 2001, it was one of my first posts on this forum, and I'll say it again now: The Redskins franchise will not be consistently successful as long as Snyder is our owner.

[Deadskins]

I am not namecalling

Then you incorrectly state my grammar (like a little b@##$) was wrong when it wasn't.

Not only are you name-calling, but you are trying to rewrite history. I never said your grammar was incorrect (this is where your lack of reading comprehension comes in to play). I never even said you used the comma improperly (this has been the straw man you've been knocking down this entire discussion, and also why your site reference has nothing to do with you being correct or incorrect).

Here is the actual series of events:

1. You posted a sentence (that correctly used commas, btw) that, unintentionally, stated that your first post to this forum was in 2001.
2. I understood what you were trying to say, but thought it would be funny to point out what you actually said in a witty reply.
3. You then brought up your use of a comma, as if that should, magically, change the meaning of the sentence you had written. You said you had used the comma to join two separate statements.
4. I then pointed out the punctuation used between two separate statements should be a period.
5. This is when the conversation got seriously off-track, and you posted your site link to validate your use of the comma.
6. I tried to show you why your original sentence didn't say what you thought it did, and why the comma, while valid, inextricably linked the object of your preposition in the first statement and the pronoun from the second statement.
7. You came back with how your comma link had proven you correct, how you often use a comma to separate two connected statements, and said I lacked "sentence diagramming."
8. Once again, I explained to you that I was fine with your use of a comma in the original sentence, and that I was only going by what you had written in your response when I brought up the period. I even made a quite humorous remark, using the words "connect" and "separate" in two different ways, to illustrate my point.
9. Then there was your latest reply, in which you continue to misunderstand the entire exchange.

I'm done now, but I'll leave you with this paraprosdokian from Groucho Marx, in the hope that it will help you understand why your original sentence said what it did:

"One morning, I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas, I'll never know."

[markshark84]

I am not namecalling

Then you incorrectly state my grammar (like a little b@##$) was wrong when it wasn't.

Not only are you name-calling, but you are trying to rewrite history. I never said your grammar was incorrect (this is where your lack of reading comprehension comes in to play). I never even said you used the comma improperly (this has been the straw man you've been knocking down this entire discussion, and also why your site reference has nothing to do with you being correct or incorrect).

Here is the actual series of events:

1. You posted a sentence (that correctly used commas, btw) that, unintentionally, stated that your first post to this forum was in 2001.
2. I understood what you were trying to say, but thought it would be funny to point out what you actually said in a witty reply.
3. You then brought up your use of a comma, as if that should, magically, change the meaning of the sentence you had written. You said you had used the comma to join two separate statements.
4. I then pointed out the punctuation used between two separate statements should be a period.
5. This is when the conversation got seriously off-track, and you posted your site link to validate your use of the comma.
6. I tried to show you why your original sentence didn't say what you thought it did, and why the comma, while valid, inextricably linked the object of your preposition in the first statement and the pronoun from the second statement.
7. You came back with how your comma link had proven you correct, how you often use a comma to separate two connected statements, and said I lacked "sentence diagramming."
8. Once again, I explained to you that I was fine with your use of a comma in the original sentence, and that I was only going by what you had written in your response when I brought up the period. I even made a quite humorous remark, using the words "connect" and "separate" in two different ways, to illustrate my point.
9. Then there was your latest reply, in which you continue to misunderstand the entire exchange.

I'm done now, but I'll leave you with this paraprosdokian from Groucho Marx, in the hope that it will help you understand why your original sentence said what it did:

"One morning, I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas, I'll never know."

Understood, but the first 2 underlines are what I had issue with -- at least initially. If it was correct, then I said what I meant to -- and as you said, you understood what I meant. So contrary to what most normal people on an internet forum would do, you posted a smart @ss response that just ended up highjacking the thread (which I can take partial blame for -- but you were the one that called me out) --- and it wasn't witty; it was annoying (well, anything as it relates to grammar is annoying, you and I both know that). Your comment was meant as a stabb (especially considering the fact we had just finished our back and forth where you say RGIII isn't injury prone). If it wasn't, that's one me; but based on our history, I didn't take it that way.

I am not going to go into the sentence again. You pointed out the sentence construction was not accurate; I proved it was. It has now been confirmed as being correct by both you and me, so I see nothing more to discuss. How you comprehend what I am saying is on you --- and if it is correct, I can't do anything additional.

As far as misunderstanding --- not at all. I understood what you were saying, but your statements were not adequately supported or valid. I will respond accordingly. You just don't like to be corrected and frankly are unwilling to know when you are wrong --- case in point, you still think RGIII isn't injury prone......

I will say this: I do respect your perseverance. Most would have thrown up their hands and given up by now. I could realistically keep going on this back and forth for months. I enjoy it --- although I would prefer these types of back-and-forths to go on in the offseason.