Quote:Interesting and laughable.  Point by point:

 

"Right now there's no guarantee any of these rookies would fill that role."   Can you please point out what positions on our roster for which we do have current guarantees of role performance for in the coming seasons?   I hope it is for some of the good players...  Can you at least guarantee us that Cecil plays 10 games this year? You mentioned TMD needing a dictionary a few posts back - you may want to crack open one yourself and check the definition of guarantee.  We have zero guarantees for the performance of any player on the roster, by definition.

 

"It's only a personal insult if it's false."  Really?  Please grab your dictionary and look up both slander and libel.  The argument that you are making would be correct, if you were making a defense for either slander or libel.  The old saying, "the truth is the pure defense" is a defense for slander and libel, but has absolutely nothing to do with making personal insults.  Quick example to make your poor logic a little clearer:  Let's say that a member of the message board has AIDS.  If I make fun of them after each post for having AIDS, under your logic this would not be a personal insult, because it would be true.  Sounds silly right?  A personal insult has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.  Some of the most painful insults are painful just because they are true.   Again, please grab the dictionary that you ask others to grab.  It would help you sound a lot more intelligent, which I am sure that you are.  Maybe just getting a little lazy or you are tired after making so many posts.

 

"You say I stalk posts but blah blah blah but you are the stalker."  If your definition of stalker is the guy who clicks on your Archie Bunker picture to see how you described yourself, in your own words, to the board - then you are correct I am a stalker.   My definition must be wrong then - because I think it has something more to do with you making literally thousands of posts within minutes of another poster because you have an agenda against that poster.  But what do I know?  You must be correct so I heartfully beg for your forgiveness.

 

"Finally, A shorts for Boone trade would be appealing to Jaguars fans...Not so much to the 49ers"  I pretty much agree with that - my point had nothing to do with Boone's value vs Cecil.  Not having watched many San Fran games, I really do not have an opinion of Boone - my point was simply that any player (Cecil included) is expendable and could be easily replaced.  In the words of Vic Ketchman... receivers are just a dime a dozen.   Reading comprehension my friend - it's really cool and can sometimes be helpful when making arguments.

 

As an aside, I am really curious to know what you do for a living since you spend so much time making fun of other people's careers.  Heart Surgeon for premature infants?  President of some impressive country?  Fortune 500 CEO?  I am sure that it is pretty awesome, I just want to know what it is so that I can give proper respect to you on your future posts.  

 

I'll take your response off the air.  Go Jags!

 

Thanks for making my point about the rookies.  That's why if you have a veteran who is proven to be able to produce for you, and all you have behind him is a bunch of inexperience, he has more value to this team than he does in trade, especially when he's not a top tier receiver to begin with.  Thanks for the lecture on my comment about no guarantees.  Thanks for confirming that what I said was correct.  It sure is helpful to have stalkers having my back. 

 

TMD is a fry cook.  He's not an NFL GM.  He wants people to believe he is better informed and more qualified to make personnel decisions for an NFL franchise based on nothing more than what he catches on ESPN or NFL Network before he starts his shift behind a grill.  If that's libel, so be it.  It's also libelous to say he's not an NFL GM, and not as qualified as the people actually being paid to make decisions for the franchise, right?  Convict me. 

 

If you're checking out my profile, and evidently memorizing what's on there, that's pretty creepy.  Stalkerish?  Absolutely.  You're not really helping your case here.  I don't consider it stalkerish to respond to posts on a message board, and FYI, I respond to A LOT of people on this board besides the damsel you feel is in distress here. 

 

Thanks for reiterating that any player is expendable.  I'm pretty sure I agreed with that sentiment.  But it's always good to see someone reinforcing a point despite the fact that they agree with me on it.  There's no value for SF in a Shorts for Boone trade.  They've got ample WR talent, and if the reports are correct, they're commanding a first day draft pick for any team looking to trade for his services.  That tells me they have ZERO interest in trading him unless some front office is idiotic enough to pony up a 1st or 2nd rounder for a guard.  Not Cecil Shorts. 

 

As far as what I do for a living, I'm fortunate enough to work in an industry where I can spend lots of time on the interwebs while I'm doing my job.  It doesn't require me to put on an apron or a hair net, and it affords me the ability to live a pretty comfortable lifestyle.  It is a pretty awesome job actually. 

 

I need to go update my profile in order to give you something fresh to add to your shrine. 

---