|
Post by Raven on Feb 22, 2016 11:45:47 GMT -6
Your point is rendered mute The word is moot. Please use it correctly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2016 12:34:19 GMT -6
Moot means debatable. Used as I have, MUTE means shhhh............silent. Of no consequence But, thanks for the effort.
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Feb 22, 2016 12:51:25 GMT -6
Moot means debatable. Used as I have, MUTE means shhhh............silent. Of no consequence But, thanks for the effort. Learn English before you decide to try schooling someone, son. As you can see below, the first two definitions are still in use today. "Debatable" in that context, means doubtful. In the way you used the term moot, it should be considered as example #2 of little value or purely academic. Moot: adjective 1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic. (per your definition example: "of little consequence")
3. Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical. verb (used with object) 4. to present or introduce (any point, subject, project, etc.) for discussion. 5. to reduce or remove the practical significance of; make purely theoretical or academic. 6. Archaic. to argue (a case), especially in a mock court. noun 7. an assembly of the people in early England exercising political, administrative, and judicial powers. 8. an argument or discussion, especially of a hypothetical legal case. 9. Obsolete. a debate, argument, or discussion. (This appears to be the only definition supporting your case, unfortunately, it's an obsolete usage.)The term "mute" is not applicable in your sentence. Your definition stating "Of no consequence" definitely refers to the word moot not mute. Mute: adjective, muter, mutest. 1. silent; refraining from speech or utterance. 2. not emitting or having sound of any kind. 3. incapable of speech; dumb. 4. (of letters) silent; not pronounced.
|
|
|
Post by kamala on Feb 22, 2016 13:21:28 GMT -6
What's my point? My point is that two schools with enrollments of 240 or so played each other. One dressed 54 kids, which is about normal for a good 2A program. Three of them eventually played college ball. The other dressed 90. And about 15 of them ended up playing college ball in the next 2 years. My point is that when one school with an enrollment of about 240 has 90 boys dressed out...approximately 75% of the male population of the school, and 20% of that 90 is good enough to play college football, there is an issue. Your comment about the second half sums up everything. Winnfield had a once in a generation team. And for a half they were able to hold their own. But once the avalanche of subs started, along with Curtis having no one playing both ways, and then a couple of turnovers at key times, the game got away in a hurry. It's virtually impossible for a traditional 2A public school to hold their own against Curtis over 4 quarters. They have too much quality depth, they are incredibly well coached, and they play everyone one way most of the time. It's just not an equitable match-up. The Curtis coaching staff and Winnfield coaching staff are all friends. But it's unrealistic to expect that a Winnfield or a Many or a Kinder playing a John Curtis is a fair situation. What other private schools did Winnfield play that year? How many did they dress out, and how many of the kids playing on those teams played in college? Here are the scores, all Winnfield victories: St Mary's 35-0 Holy Savior Menard 48-6 St Thomas Aquinas 41-0 Episcopal 27-24 OT Calvary Baptist 41-21 S always, my point is that ALL these schools got separated when most is not all are not really a problem for schools like Winnfield or Many. JC is, sure, but why are we moving all these other schools just because Curtis is dominant? Funny...without the split, Calvary couldn't make it to the Finals. With the split, they have two rings (although on the first they laughably had Class 2A State Champs, which was rightfully what Kinder was). Without the split, St Mary's couldn't make it out of the second round. With the split, they made it to the Dome. Same for St Fred's and Hannan. I fail to see what your point is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2016 13:35:04 GMT -6
Moot means debatable. Used as I have, MUTE means shhhh............silent. Of no consequence But, thanks for the effort. Learn English before you decide to try schooling someone, son. As you can see below, the first two definitions are still in use today. "Debatable" in that context, means doubtful. In the way you used the term moot, it should be considered as example #2 of little value or purely academic. Moot: adjective 1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic. (per your definition example: "of little consequence")
3. Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical. verb (used with object) 4. to present or introduce (any point, subject, project, etc.) for discussion. 5. to reduce or remove the practical significance of; make purely theoretical or academic. 6. Archaic. to argue (a case), especially in a mock court. noun 7. an assembly of the people in early England exercising political, administrative, and judicial powers. 8. an argument or discussion, especially of a hypothetical legal case. 9. Obsolete. a debate, argument, or discussion. (This appears to be the only definition supporting your case, unfortunately, it's an obsolete usage.)The term "mute" is not applicable in your sentence. Your definition stating "Of no consequence" definitely refers to the word moot not mute. Mute: adjective, muter, mutest. 1. silent; refraining from speech or utterance. 2. not emitting or having sound of any kind. 3. incapable of speech; dumb. 4. (of letters) silent; not pronounced. Quite the googler! Impressive. Here you go, straight from Websters. "BUTTHURT"- to have ones anus throbbing uncontrollably to the point of agony. Usually associated with not getting ones way, so constantly searching for other points to use as salve to ease the pain. Glad I could help.
|
|
|
Post by btown on Feb 22, 2016 13:43:16 GMT -6
Learn English before you decide to try schooling someone, son. As you can see below, the first two definitions are still in use today. "Debatable" in that context, means doubtful. In the way you used the term moot, it should be considered as example #2 of little value or purely academic. Moot: adjective 1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic. (per your definition example: "of little consequence")
3. Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical. verb (used with object) 4. to present or introduce (any point, subject, project, etc.) for discussion. 5. to reduce or remove the practical significance of; make purely theoretical or academic. 6. Archaic. to argue (a case), especially in a mock court. noun 7. an assembly of the people in early England exercising political, administrative, and judicial powers. 8. an argument or discussion, especially of a hypothetical legal case. 9. Obsolete. a debate, argument, or discussion. (This appears to be the only definition supporting your case, unfortunately, it's an obsolete usage.)The term "mute" is not applicable in your sentence. Your definition stating "Of no consequence" definitely refers to the word moot not mute. Mute: adjective, muter, mutest. 1. silent; refraining from speech or utterance. 2. not emitting or having sound of any kind. 3. incapable of speech; dumb. 4. (of letters) silent; not pronounced. Quite the googler! Impressive. Here you go, straight from Websters. "BUTTHURT"- to have ones anus throbbing uncontrollably to the point of agony. Usually associated with not getting ones way, so constantly searching for other points to use as salve to ease the pain. Glad I could help. WOW! Was going to say something, but could only say WOW!
|
|
|
Post by eag on Feb 22, 2016 13:53:54 GMT -6
What other private schools did Winnfield play that year? How many did they dress out, and how many of the kids playing on those teams played in college? Here are the scores, all Winnfield victories: St Mary's 35-0 Holy Savior Menard 48-6 St Thomas Aquinas 41-0 Episcopal 27-24 OT Calvary Baptist 41-21 S always, my point is that ALL these schools got separated when most is not all are not really a problem for schools like Winnfield or Many. JC is, sure, but why are we moving all these other schools just because Curtis is dominant? Funny...without the split, Calvary couldn't make it to the Finals. With the split, they have two rings (although on the first they laughably had Class 2A State Champs, which was rightfully what Kinder was). Without the split, St Mary's couldn't make it out of the second round. With the split, they made it to the Dome. Same for St Fred's and Hannan. I fail to see what your point is. My point is, which of those schools is a public school like Winnfield so consistently overmatched by year in and year out that they must be moved to an entire separate classification in order to protect Winnfield, etc? Yet, note that all have been moved. This is a problem of a very few schools that have had absurd success. I wish we were looking at ways to appropriately place those schools rather than celebrating how we blew up the whole system in order to get rid of the few. <<< Funny...without the split, Calvary couldn't make it to the Finals. With the split, they have two rings (although on the first they laughably had Class 2A State Champs, which was rightfully what Kinder was). Without the split, St Mary's couldn't make it out of the second round. With the split, they made it to the Dome. Same for St Fred's and Hannan >>>> Kinda makes my point.
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Feb 22, 2016 13:56:59 GMT -6
Learn English before you decide to try schooling someone, son. As you can see below, the first two definitions are still in use today. "Debatable" in that context, means doubtful. In the way you used the term moot, it should be considered as example #2 of little value or purely academic. Moot: adjective 1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic. (per your definition example: "of little consequence")
3. Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical. verb (used with object) 4. to present or introduce (any point, subject, project, etc.) for discussion. 5. to reduce or remove the practical significance of; make purely theoretical or academic. 6. Archaic. to argue (a case), especially in a mock court. noun 7. an assembly of the people in early England exercising political, administrative, and judicial powers. 8. an argument or discussion, especially of a hypothetical legal case. 9. Obsolete. a debate, argument, or discussion. (This appears to be the only definition supporting your case, unfortunately, it's an obsolete usage.)The term "mute" is not applicable in your sentence. Your definition stating "Of no consequence" definitely refers to the word moot not mute. Mute: adjective, muter, mutest. 1. silent; refraining from speech or utterance. 2. not emitting or having sound of any kind. 3. incapable of speech; dumb. 4. (of letters) silent; not pronounced. Quite the googler! Impressive. Here you go, straight from Websters. "BUTTHURT"- to have ones anus throbbing uncontrollably to the point of agony. Usually associated with not getting ones way, so constantly searching for other points to use as salve to ease the pain. Glad I could help. I expected nothing less from you in reply. Yes, I used google. Zounds, you're a genius for finding out something I wasn't even trying to hide in the first place. I would start calling you Sherlock, but I think he had a proper knowledge of English. I'm glad I could actually teach you something. You may not yet be a lost cause. Anytime you have questions just let me know. I'm only a mouse-click away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2016 16:59:54 GMT -6
Quite the googler! Impressive. Here you go, straight from Websters. "BUTTHURT"- to have ones anus throbbing uncontrollably to the point of agony. Usually associated with not getting ones way, so constantly searching for other points to use as salve to ease the pain. Glad I could help. I expected nothing less from you in reply. Yes, I used google. Zounds, you're a genius for finding out something I wasn't even trying to hide in the first place. I would start calling you Sherlock, but I think he had a proper knowledge of English. I'm glad I could actually teach you something. You may not yet be a lost cause. Anytime you have questions just let me know. I'm only a mouse-click away. "Zounds" like you could use this link......Mr. English Major www.preparationh.com/
|
|
|
Post by eagle2180 on Feb 22, 2016 20:09:14 GMT -6
what point are you trying to make? either that was a woodshed beatdown that justified the split or not... depth might have been a factor but surely Winnfield wasn't the first team in HS football history to go into halftime feeling good about themselves and then get blitzed in the second half What's my point? My point is that two schools with enrollments of 240 or so played each other. One dressed 54 kids, which is about normal for a good 2A program. Three of them eventually played college ball. The other dressed 90. And about 15 of them ended up playing college ball in the next 2 years. My point is that when one school with an enrollment of about 240 has 90 boys dressed out...approximately 75% of the male population of the school, and 20% of that 90 is good enough to play college football, there is an issue. Your comment about the second half sums up everything. Winnfield had a once in a generation team. And for a half they were able to hold their own. But once the avalanche of subs started, along with Curtis having no one playing both ways, and then a couple of turnovers at key times, the game got away in a hurry. It's virtually impossible for a traditional 2A public school to hold their own against Curtis over 4 quarters. They have too much quality depth, they are incredibly well coached, and they play everyone one way most of the time. It's just not an equitable match-up. The Curtis coaching staff and Winnfield coaching staff are all friends. But it's unrealistic to expect that a Winnfield or a Many or a Kinder playing a John Curtis is a fair situation. As far as I know, nobody expected Winnfield's to compete with JC and Evangel until the " mob rule" LHSAA passed the play in class rule.
|
|
|
Post by chalmetteowl on Feb 23, 2016 3:12:51 GMT -6
what point are you trying to make? either that was a woodshed beatdown that justified the split or not... depth might have been a factor but surely Winnfield wasn't the first team in HS football history to go into halftime feeling good about themselves and then get blitzed in the second half What's my point? My point is that two schools with enrollments of 240 or so played each other. One dressed 54 kids, which is about normal for a good 2A program. Three of them eventually played college ball. The other dressed 90. And about 15 of them ended up playing college ball in the next 2 years. My point is that when one school with an enrollment of about 240 has 90 boys dressed out...approximately 75% of the male population of the school, and 20% of that 90 is good enough to play college football, there is an issue. Your comment about the second half sums up everything. Winnfield had a once in a generation team. And for a half they were able to hold their own. But once the avalanche of subs started, along with Curtis having no one playing both ways, and then a couple of turnovers at key times, the game got away in a hurry. It's virtually impossible for a traditional 2A public school to hold their own against Curtis over 4 quarters. They have too much quality depth, they are incredibly well coached, and they play everyone one way most of the time. It's just not an equitable match-up. The Curtis coaching staff and Winnfield coaching staff are all friends. But it's unrealistic to expect that a Winnfield or a Many or a Kinder playing a John Curtis is a fair situation. so why do we have the split in other sports then? you only really need one stud to compete in basketball or one pitcher to compete in baseball... depth isn't as much a factor and it might be unrealistic for Winnfield to compete against Curtis... but they did once upon a time, and beat them in the Dome in the 80s... ya don't think if J.T. is cheating now, he was cheating then? but what happens is, when a school has stability, it becomes one (serious football players) kids want to play at. Curtis has been the head coach for 40+ years now. they put their kids into college and the NFL. Damn right kids want to play there. Haynesville has had the Franklins there for 50+ years... they don't win every year but are they ever "down"? And I rarely hear about Haynesville kids in college so they're not doing it with A+ talent...
|
|
|
Post by chalmetteowl on Feb 23, 2016 3:14:29 GMT -6
My point is, which of those schools is a public school like Winnfield so consistently overmatched by year in and year out that they must be moved to an entire separate classification in order to protect Winnfield, etc? Yet, note that all have been moved. This is a problem of a very few schools that have had absurd success. I wish we were looking at ways to appropriately place those schools rather than celebrating how we blew up the whole system in order to get rid of the few. <<< Funny...without the split, Calvary couldn't make it to the Finals. With the split, they have two rings (although on the first they laughably had Class 2A State Champs, which was rightfully what Kinder was). Without the split, St Mary's couldn't make it out of the second round. With the split, they made it to the Dome. Same for St Fred's and Hannan >>>> Kinda makes my point. why was that laughable?
|
|
|
Post by bigred4 on Feb 23, 2016 8:03:02 GMT -6
My point is, which of those schools is a public school like Winnfield so consistently overmatched by year in and year out that they must be moved to an entire separate classification in order to protect Winnfield, etc? Yet, note that all have been moved. This is a problem of a very few schools that have had absurd success. I wish we were looking at ways to appropriately place those schools rather than celebrating how we blew up the whole system in order to get rid of the few. <<< Funny...without the split, Calvary couldn't make it to the Finals. With the split, they have two rings (although on the first they laughably had Class 2A State Champs, which was rightfully what Kinder was). Without the split, St Mary's couldn't make it out of the second round. With the split, they made it to the Dome. Same for St Fred's and Hannan >>>> Kinda makes my point. Calvary's best teams just happened to be during the split era. They were beating teams like West Monroe and Parkway during that time. If you're implying that Calvary would not have won 2A, then you're a hypocrite because everyone in 2A wanted them out. You can say that Kinder and Many never won until the split too. Remember, Calvary has only been around 10+ years. I know those schools haven't won during that era until now.
|
|
|
Post by eag on Feb 23, 2016 9:47:26 GMT -6
That was Kamala who said that about Calvary, btw.
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Feb 23, 2016 9:48:05 GMT -6
I expected nothing less from you in reply. Yes, I used google. Zounds, you're a genius for finding out something I wasn't even trying to hide in the first place. I would start calling you Sherlock, but I think he had a proper knowledge of English. I'm glad I could actually teach you something. You may not yet be a lost cause. Anytime you have questions just let me know. I'm only a mouse-click away. "Zounds" like you could use this link......Mr. English Major www.preparationh.com/Save it for your own use, bigbob. I know that burn still stings a little.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2016 9:50:46 GMT -6
Save it for your own use, bigbob. I know that burn still stings a little. Shhhhhhh, (youre done here)
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Feb 23, 2016 11:05:45 GMT -6
Save it for your own use, bigbob. I know that burn still stings a little. Shhhhhhh, (youre done here) Unfortunately for you, I'm not mute.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2016 11:22:30 GMT -6
Yes you are, but only to the ears of the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Feb 23, 2016 11:48:20 GMT -6
Yes you are, but only to the ears of the truth. Oh, bob... Don't tax your faculties trying to come up with a witty response. Leave that to the professionals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 10:41:47 GMT -6
Thanks for the advice. When youre done with puberty and get your braces off, I"ll be sure an not listen then also.
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Feb 24, 2016 11:19:15 GMT -6
Thanks for the advice. When youre done with puberty and get your braces off, I"ll be sure an not listen then also. Is that some kind of insult? I guess with a limited intellect and even worse social skills, you are forced to only use references with which you are familiar. I'm sorry that you had such a difficult childhood. Maybe some therapy would help you to exercise some of those demons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 11:31:16 GMT -6
Thanks for the advice. When youre done with puberty and get your braces off, I"ll be sure an not listen then also. Is that some kind of insult? I guess with a limited intellect and even worse social skills, you are forced to only use references with which you are familiar. I'm sorry that you had such a difficult childhood. Maybe some therapy would help you to exercise some of those demons. I'm sorry, I didnt realize you were still here Johnny. You may go.
|
|
|
Post by LATigerFan on Feb 24, 2016 11:36:29 GMT -6
This is an interesting battle between Raven and Bob lol. I'm not sure its a fair fight though because Raven is a private school fan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 11:37:20 GMT -6
This is an interesting battle between Raven and Bob lol. I'm not sure its a fair fight though because Raven is a private school fan. Its not, he can select his responses, while I have to deal with the random thoughts that walk through the doors of my mind.
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Feb 24, 2016 11:45:41 GMT -6
I apologize for my unfair advantage. I guess I'll go play with the big boys. Have fun with your thread bob.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 11:53:53 GMT -6
I apologize for my unfair advantage. I guess I'll go play with the big boys. Have fun with your thread bob. I had figured you spent lots of time "playing with the big boys". Enjoy
|
|