Running the table

beej67 said:
We're way too shallow to go undefeated. If all our guys stay healthy the whole season we have a prayer, but I don't see that happening.
Click to expand...

I think you are right about the depth and unfortunately we have a tough back end of the schedule. I have enjoyed our success so far but keeping the right guys healthy could definitely be an issue.
 
Since there is no way for us to go 11-1, I'm just wondering if anyone can tell me which game(s) I should choose not to watch.
 
gtfan088 said:
Since there is no way for us to go 11-1, I'm just wondering if anyone can tell me which game(s) I should choose not to watch.
Click to expand...

you should, of course, watch them all. we may not win them all, but you should watch them all
 
NATSman said:
With all due respect, I don't really see how that comment provides any input relevant to the topic of the post.
Click to expand...

well, the man asked which games he should choose not to watch. so i told him that he should watch them all. IMO a fan doesnt avoid the bad, just use it to make the good better. plus the team needs you most when they are doing poorly.

most likely, the poster was inferring that since no one can predict which games we will lose, that this means that we will lose no games. However, that is a logical fallacy. the fact that you cannot predict exactly when it will rain, does not mean that you cannot predict that it will rain.

however, the man never stated his preferences and thus his question is not an adequate one. for example, perhaps the man is a masochist, and prefers to watch games where we lose. or perhaps the man has a phobia of breast implants, and thus one would choose to avoid the FSU game. since he does not state preferences, it is difficult to answer the question.

if one infers from context that the condition that would make one choose not to watch a game is that the game is lost, then one could answer the question easily.

The question, better posed, might be:
"What are the most likely games that we lose?"

from the current perspective, one would have to say FSU, UNC, and UGa.

perhaps this explains in much greater length what i meant by that short one previously
 
BuzzCzar said:
you should, of course, watch them all. we may not win them all, but you should watch them all
Click to expand...

And I will...I just don't like the idea that it's a foregone conclusion that we will lose another game. Obviously, the odds are against us going 11-1. It could happen though. We won' play all the good teams we play in one week. I always hear people preaching one week at a time in regards to not looking past people, but rarely ever applied in regards to not assuming defeat.

There are several teams that could possibly beat us, but I would argue that none of them are playing any better than we are now so there's no reason to assume that any are better than us. Certainly we will have games that we aren't as sharp as in others, but I sincerely doubt we will face every team playing at their full potential, with full strength.
 
BuzzCzar said:
well, the man asked which games he should choose not to watch. so i told him that he should watch them all. IMO a fan doesnt avoid the bad, just use it to make the good better. plus the team needs you most when they are doing poorly.

most likely, the poster was inferring that since no one can predict which games we will lose, that this means that we will lose no games. However, that is a logical fallacy. the fact that you cannot predict exactly when it will rain, does not mean that you cannot predict that it will rain.

however, the man never stated his preferences and thus his question is not an adequate one. for example, perhaps the man is a masochist, and prefers to watch games where we lose. or perhaps the man has a phobia of breast implants, and thus one would choose to avoid the FSU game. since he does not state preferences, it is difficult to answer the question.

if one infers from context that the condition that would make one choose not to watch a game is that the game is lost, then one could answer the question easily.

The question, better posed, might be:
"What are the most likely games that we lose?"

from the current perspective, one would have to say FSU, UNC, and UGa.

perhaps this explains in much greater length what i meant by that short one previously
Click to expand...

Not a good assumption in this case. My post was tongue-in-cheek. Simply put, I'm against the attitude that "well we play all these pretty good teams, so winning them all is just not in the cards." I'm NOT saying we will win them all, and if you forced me to predict what our record would be, I would go with 10-2 or 9-3. BUT we can win them all and I don't see any reason to believe that another loss is inevitable.
 
p(beating Clemson) = .5
p(beat UVa) = .75
p(beat FSU) = .6
p(beat UNC) = .5 (their home place)
p(beat UM) = .6
p(beat @ugag)=.4

3-4 more wins after GWU seems to me. These are upside. Clem lost to WFU last night but still have scary talent. Their O line is killing them.

UVa killed a surprising Md team. None of the rest are sure things. We have more potential downside on 8-9 wins than upside, for example.

Nesbitt hurt worse than thought
Jaybo gets hurt
Bebe gets hurt
Dwyer gets hurt
Close games decided by F/G

We are way dependent on a few key players and thin underneath.
 
CU = 0.6
UVA = 0.8
FSU = 0.5
UNC = 0.5
UM = 0.7
UGA = 0.3

Total is 3.4 wins, so we are looking at a 8-9 win season and a 2.52% chance of winning out.
 
NATSman said:
Either you're an idiot trying to come across as intelligent or you do a damned good impression. Either way, keep posting. Hilarious.
Click to expand...

you must be a mental Goliath, i assume, KyleJr.
 
NATSman is BeeBad, you fools! Ignore list immediately! Hurry! This guy is a psycho!
 
NATSman said:
The biblical character Goliath lost, but the word "Goliath" can also just mean "giant" in general without negative connotation to those of us possessing at least a high school student's familiarity with the English language. Your attempt to point out some kind of contradiction or fallacy is therefore lame and exposes you as what I have been saying all along: An idiot who is trying very hard to come across as an intellectual.
Click to expand...

Either you're an idiot trying to come across as intelligent or you do a damned good impression. Either way, keep posting. Hilarious.
 
NATSman said:
The biblical character Goliath lost, but the word "Goliath" can also just mean "giant" in general without negative connotation to those of us possessing at least a high school student's familiarity with the English language. Your attempt to point out some kind of contradiction or fallacy is therefore lame and exposes you as what I have been saying all along: An idiot who is trying very hard to come across as an intellectual.
Click to expand...

whatever you think genius, if i had written "goliath" you would have a chance of being correct, but since i CAPITALIZED the name, that means it is a proper name, and thus tied directly to the biblical character.
 
NATSman said:
Should I believe you, or this dictionary?

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Go·li·ath 2
n. A person or thing of colossal power or achievement.

However, I will grant that I am beginning to feel like a loser because I have continued to voluntarily interact with you, which would make anyone a loser.
Click to expand...

how about a nice game of chess? ill meet you on the quad right after I collect my ascot from the haberdasher...
 
NATSman said:
Should I believe you, or this dictionary?
Click to expand...

you need better sources, and not pick and chose the one of six that supports your claim

Goliath

7 dictionary results for: goliath
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
Go·li·ath
–noun

1.
the giant warrior of the Philistines whom David killed with a stone from a sling. I Sam. 17:48–51.


2.
(usually lowercase ) a giant.


3.
(usually lowercase ) a very large, powerful, or influential person or thing: a neighborhood grocery competing against the supermarket goliaths.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Go·li·ath In the Bible, a giant Philistine warrior who was slain by David with a stone and sling.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Go·li·ath
n. A person or thing of colossal power or achievement.

[After Goliath.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Goliath
L.L., from Heb. Golyath, name of Philistine giant killed by David [I Sam. xvii].

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

goliath (NOTE THE LOWERCASE SPELLING)

noun
1.
(Old Testament) a giant Philistine warrior who was slain by David with a slingshot
2.
someone or something that is abnormally large and powerful [syn: giant]

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Goliath

great. (1.) A famous giant of Gath, who for forty days openly defied the armies of Israel, but was at length slain by David with a stone from a sling (1 Sam. 17:4). He was probably descended from the Rephaim who found refuge among the Philistines after they were dispersed by the Ammonites (Deut. 2:20, 21). His height was "six cubits and a span," which, taking the cubit at 21 inches, is equal to 10 1/2 feet. David cut off his head (1 Sam. 17:51) and brought it to Jerusalem, while he hung the armour which he took from him in his tent. His sword was preserved at Nob as a religious trophy (21:9). David's victory over Goliath was the turning point in his life. He came into public notice now as the deliverer of Israel and the chief among Saul's men of war (18:5), and the devoted friend of Jonathan. (2.) In 2 Sam. 21:19 there is another giant of the same name mentioned as slain by Elhanan. The staff of his apear "was like a weaver's beam." The Authorized Version interpolates the words "the brother of" from 1 Chr. 20:5, where this giant is called Lahmi.
Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary



and it is telling that of about 6 different sources, you cite ONE that lists this as the correct way. you are not only a dumbass, but also a deceitful one
 
Last edited:
NATSman said:
Idiot:

Your position has been that "Goliath" always connotes losing. Mine has been that this is not necessarily true. Your authority here says that when the word merely means something big and/or powerful it is usually lowercase. "Usually" means not always. Thus, your cite says that sometimes, Goliath, even when capitalized, can mean a large and/or powerful thing or person without negative connotation or a suggestion of losing. You are so dumb that you have offered support for my position and you didn't even realize it.
Click to expand...

no, i realize that the proper way to do it is to use a lowercase just like you would for president, unless you use the proper name, in which case you use the capital, like President Bush.

the fact that idiots like you dont know how to do that, is why they have to say "usually".

How long did it take you to get out of Tech and what was your GPA? not that that means anything, but just curious
 
NATSman said:
Idiot:

Thus, your cite says that sometimes, Goliath, even when capitalized, can mean a large and/or powerful thing or person without negative connotation or a suggestion of losing.
Click to expand...

NATSman said:
If you need something to do, go research when it is appropriate to use a comma; you obviously need help with that.
Click to expand...

This is a football message board, and we are arguing over the g(G)oliath definition, but the expression people in glass houses should not throw stones applies here. There should have been no "," after "sometimes."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top