(March, 2011) Hey, Mike. You're Losing Me, Man.

[pimpumd]

If you wrote a new post and hit submit at 6:15 PM EST, my browser will show the original post time as 6:15 PM. If you add a post exactly 20 minutes later, my browser will show that you added the post at 6:35 PM EST. The time stamp on your browser will show you a different time than it shows me, but it has no effect on the posted times on my end.

No, you are wrong. If I post at 6:15 pm est, your browser will show the original post time as 6:15 pm (it will show 10:15 pm on my browser). If I add a post to that exactly 20 minutes later, my ES software will edit the post and use the time stamp from my ES software or browser. You will see the original post on your ES software written at 6:15 pm, and the additional post added at 10:35 pm (as edited by my software on my browser). Take a screen shot of my post #628--it will confirm what I've just said.

You are flat out wrong OF--I did not lie but you will keep insisting despite the truth because that's the kind of person you are.

Here's more evidence against you.

This is your very first paragraph in Post #628 at 6:22 EST

So, you claimed that you had already countered my argument, then you added two more posts to 628. The second one at 10:35 EST contained your counter that you claimed you had already made.

I didn't add two more posts, one at 10:35 EST. Those posts have a 10:35 EST as stamped by my ES software/browser--not yours--which has already been established as being 4 hours behind yours. You are dead wrong here, OF. This isn't debatable. You're coming off as desperate and pathetic now.

[Oldfan]

No, you are wrong. If I post at 6:15 pm est, your browser will show the original post time as 6:15 pm (it will show 10:15 pm on my browser).

What is shows on your browser has no effect on my end.

If I add a post to that exactly 20 minutes later, my ES software will edit the post and use the time stamp from my ES software or browser. You will see the original post on your ES software written at 6:15 pm, and the additional post added at 10:35 pm (as edited by my software on my browser).

That does not happen. If it did, I would see additions showing times later than the current time when I'm on line.

Take a screen shot of my post #628--it will confirm what I've just said.

Of course 628's addition will show 10:35, I've told you that's what it shows five or six times.

[chipwhich]

Wow you know you have jumped the shark when the basis of the argument turns into message board time stamps.

Carry on boys.

[pimpumd]

Wow you know you have jumped the shark when the basis of the argument turns into message board time stamps.

Carry on boys.

I agree with you, 100%. I just have a problem being called a liar.

[Oldfan]

I agree with you, 100%. I just have a problem being called a liar.

Then I'd advise you to stop lying.

[pimpumd]

What is hows on your browser has no effect on my end.

I guess you never look what happens when you add a post to an existing post. The ES software puts a line after the original post and inserts a new time stamp to show the addition of the new post. The new time stamp is determined by the user's software who is editing his/her post--it is not based on your software's current time. That new time stamp is stored within the post once the submit button is pressed.

It is a different function than the original time stamp you see on the left hand side of the original post. You can't change that original time. The software inputs the new time stamp within the edited post as follows:

[-SIZE=1]---------- Post added Month-day-2011 at xx:xx AM ----------[-/SIZE]

What you see above is determined by the user's software time stamp, not yours. Once that is posted in the newly edited post, you get exactly what is written above and not an adjusted time as you see under the user's screen name in the original post. This isn't difficult.

That does not happen. If it did, I would see additions showing times later than the current time when I'm on line.

Yes, it does happen. I can't help that you can't see it.

Of course 628's addition will show 10:35, I've told you that's what it shows five or six times.

You are foolish. I can't help that you don't understand how forum software and computers operate.[COLOR="Gold"]

Then I'd advise you to stop lying.

I'm not lying. You are lying and don't understand computers and forum software. That doesn't make me a liar. That makes you a senile fool.

Example:

Wow, that's weird, how did OF add posts at 8:44 am when he made the original post at 12:26 pm? That's weird.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/ofpost2.jpg/

[Chants]

It seems that Shanny is thinking long term. There is a "get paid" culture within the NFL regarding the Redskins. Shanny just added a ton of new blood in this last draft. Seems like the right move for a team trying to clean house. Shanny's not losing me.

[Oldfan]

...Wow, that's weird, how did OF add posts at 8:44 am when he made the original post at 12:26 pm? That's weird.

That is weird. I'd fix that if I were you.

Can you explain this?

This is your very first paragraph in Post #628 at 6:22 EST

I did in fact debate your claim that we shouldn't trust the defensive yards-per-play stats. That's exactly what I've been doing in the last few posts.

So, you claimed that you had already countered my argument, then you added two more posts to 628. The second one at 10:35 EST contained your counter that you claimed you had already made.

This is faulty logic. If a team is susceptible against the run, do you think they are going to be giving up the league average against running plays (4 ypc)? Giving up 4 yards per carry against the rush doesn't really make a team susceptible to the run. It makes that team average against the run. I think a team that is susceptible against the run will give up a lot of carries over 4 yards and a significant amount of 10+ yard carries.

[pimpumd]

That is weird. I'd fix that if I were you.

It's not just my problem. This what I've been saying the entire time. It's how the software time stamps new posts to existing posts.

When this goes in a post:

[-SIZE=1]---------- Post added Month-day-2011 at xx:xx AM ----------[-/SIZE]

the xx:xx AM is determined by the individual time stamp on the editing users' software. Everyone then reads the xx:xx AM when they see that post. It doesn't get changed to fit the reading user's software time.

So, in other words, you were completely wrong in calling me a liar and now you're glossing over again without admitting you were wrong. That's fine with me, I don't need anything from you. I just want other posters to see how stubborn a person you are. You can't even acknowledge you were wrong.

Can you explain this?

This is your very first paragraph in Post #628 at 6:22 EST


So, you claimed that you had already countered my argument, then you added two more posts to 628. The second one at 10:35 EST contained your counter that you claimed you had already made.

All of this is dependent on your incorrect notion that I didn't post at 6:35 EST. I have already proved that I did. You are wrong.

[Chants]

It seems that Shanny is thinking long term. There is a "get paid" culture within the NFL regarding the Redskins. Shanny just added a ton of new blood in this last draft. Seems like the right move for a team trying to clean house. Shanny's not losing me.

Aye Chants. Makes Sense.

But what do you have say about Shanny passing on Gabbert? Were the extra picks worth it?

[pimpumd]

Aye Chants. Makes Sense.

But what do you have say about Shanny passing on Gabbert? Were the extra picks worth it?

LOL. I agree with your post about Shanny thinking long term. He's not losing me either.

I personally think the extra picks were worth passing on Gabbert. However, that might only be because I wasn't that high on Gabbert. I know some other posters were high on Gabbert so obviously they might disagree. I personally liked Locker. Since he wasn't there, I am glad we got the extra picks and if there's no miraculous QB emergence this year (whether it's Beck, Young, whoever), then I am hopeful Mike will grab one of the top QB's in next year's draft. We all know we're not winning the super bowl any time soon, so I don't think this potentially shortened season is that big of a deal to pass on our QB. Just my opinion though.

[Oldfan]

... I just want other posters to see how stubborn a person you are. You can't even acknowledge you were wrong...

I love it when debate opponents accuse me of their faults. You got into this mess because you couldn't even manage to admit you were wrong about a trivial point. You made this claim in the first paragraph of Post 628

I did in fact debate your claim that we shouldn't trust the defensive yards-per-play stats. That's exactly what I've been doing in the last few posts.

When I replied questioning you about your claim, and you realized you were wrong, you tried to cover-up by adding another post to 628.

Post 628 contains three posts and 11 paragraphs in all. In the 11th paragraph, you add the counter to my argument that you claimed to have made in paragraph one.

This is faulty logic. If a team is susceptible against the run, do you think they are going to be giving up the league average against running plays (4 ypc)? Giving up 4 yards per carry against the rush doesn't really make a team susceptible to the run. It makes that team average against the run. I think a team that is susceptible against the run will give up a lot of carries over 4 yards and a significant amount of 10+ yard carries.

So, the counter you claimed you made in paragraph one of 628 appears in paragraph 11 of the third post in 628.

You couldn't just say,"I was mistaken-- here's the counter to your argument?"

[pimpumd]

I love it when debate opponents accuse me of their faults. You got into this mess because you couldn't even manage to admit you were wrong about a trivial point. You made this claim in the first paragraph of Post 628

When I replied questioning you about your claim, and you realized you were wrong, you tried to cover-up by adding another post to 628.

Post 628 contains three posts and 11 paragraphs in all. In the 11th paragraph, you add the counter to my argument that you claimed to have made in paragraph one.

So, the counter you claimed you made in paragraph one of 628 appears in paragraph 11 of the third post in 628.

You couldn't just say,"I was mistaken. Here's the counter to your argument?"

This entire post is nothing but regurgitated bull****.

OF, I did not add that last post in #628 when you say I did. You are ignoring the fact that the third paragraph of post #628 was in fact written at 6:35 pm EST due to the ES software using my personal time settings when it stamped the time on that paragraph--it did not use your time settings (and my settings have already been shown to be 4 hours ahead of yours).

That is why you did not quote any part of my last post regarding your misunderstanding of how the time stamp works when an existing post is added to. You can't deny it, so you don't. You just keep saying that the last post in #628 was added at 10:35 EST when it has been demonstrated without question not to be the case. There was no cover up to Post #628 because it was all written in the span of 13 minutes.

I even showed you one of your own posts which clearly demonstrates that the ES software uses the editing poster's time settings when issuing a time stamp to a post added into an initial post. You didn't have a response to that so you claimed there was some sort of problem on my end. There clearly wasn't. I showed you a post of yours that I could not edit that clearly demonstrates this time stamping issue.

Look, this back-and-forth has gone on long enough. I'm comfortable that anyone who reads this thread will see that you incorrectly called me a liar and you're too stubborn to admit your mistake. You can keep arguing this all you want but I will no longer respond to this matter. Good day

[chipwhich]

Look, this back-and-forth has gone on long enough. I'm comfortable that anyone who reads this thread will see that you incorrectly called me a liar and you're too stubborn to admit your mistake. You can keep arguing this all you want but I will no longer respond to this matter. Good day

Pimp. Oldfan will NEVER admit defeat. Even in this case when he got schooled by the time stamp on a message board. His favorite word is strawman.

I told him earlier in this thread, he needs to take a couple days off to breath and relax.

This thread has turned into a circus of silliness instead of factual information. He wont let silliness die. It's not in his DNA.

Don't take it personal.

[Oldfan]

Pimp. Oldfan will NEVER admit defeat. Even in this case when he got schooled by the time stamp on a message board. His favorite word is strawman.

I told him earlier in this thread, he needs to take a couple days off to breath and relax.

This thread has turned into a circus of silliness instead of factual information. He wont let silliness die. It's not in his DNA.

Don't take it personal.

Pimpund had to bail out without answering the question posed in my Post 753 because that post nails him. Even a dimwit should be able to figure it out. If you think I'm wrong, then how about YOU answering for him?

How can the claim he made in paragraph one of 628 -- that he had previously countered an argument I made in Post 617 -- be true if the counter to 617 doesn't show up until two added posts later in paragraph 11 of 628?

The answer to the question is that pimpund added the 11th paragraph in a new post to 628 after I posted 631 to tell him I couldn't find his counter to 617.

The time stamp crap was a smokescreen. Pimpund's a lawyer. Lawyers do that kind of stuff when the facts won't support them. He can screw with his browser settings to change the time shown on his browser on the original posts only. The additions are unaffected.

Now, are you going to bail out without answering the question also?