Anonymous

Inactive
Post count: 21938

You can’t read or count? Victim? That’s silly. funny thing is you would respond to a comment like “the victim” with the quip “surrender noted” lol

Jesus Vincent… Considering it’s a Sunday and there’s football on, you’re probably 2 bottles deep into your fourth bucket at the local WingHouse. So, I’ll try to keep that in mind. We all know you love you some Aguayo. And that you look at Fab 1 as a feel good, heart warming, uplifting article about your favorite Buccaneer. Some of us are simply questioning SR’s football acumen after reading that ball washing fluff piece. Or perhaps Scott was simply double downing on stupidity and further cementing his stance from April that it was a glorious and genius move to trade a 3rd and 4th to move back into the 2nd round for a weak-legged, emotionally fragile kicker. Now, go get a glass of water, try not to walk out on your tab, and call an Uber.

Its okay, you two assumed something and made a mistake No Biggy (pun intended) I don’t even agree with SR’s point. Aguyao did “barely” survive his rookie season, but that is only in part due to his later performance. The other part is clearly the investment

I didn’t assume anything, you ignorant lush. So, now your stance is that you don’t agree with SR. I’d call you out for flip flopping, but it’s a well known fact that you simply like to hear yourself talk. Hence, you looking like a fucking idiot

You might want to have someone else read our conversation. Lol. And Biggs doesn’t count.

By the way, OF COURSE you (and Buggsy) assumed something. That’s why you guys made the mistake that has apparently sent you both into such a tail spin and it’s also why your comment immediately above suggests that it would be “flip flopping” to, on the one hand, suggest that a controversial article is not a bad thing for PR while, on the other hand, saying you disagree with the substance of the article. You ASSUMED that I was defending the substance of SR’s article when my comment had nothing to do with the substance. In fact, if you went back and read the conversation (hopefully with a third party) you’d see that I said I disagree with SR because the investment is part of the survival

 

Please wait…