J@son

How?

lol. You should use dictionary.com more. That's not what stereotyping means.

really? you're going to poll every bong smoker on the planet? that would give more accurate results than just going by the bong users that you know and have met in your life but seems a like a bit of overkill. Yeah I really don't believe that. Just being honest. And here's why: you said, bong users don't clean and sterilize their bongs after use because no one that you've ever met has done so. That's a stereotype no matter how you want to try to explain it. You are still arguing that it's not even though that's pretty much the exact definition of stereotyping. You could have said something like, "ok yeah I guess that is a stereotype...but in my experience, most people don't clean them every time" and this part of the discussion could have been dropped. You said you've never called anyone ignorant. I showed you that you have. You argued that I was making up my own definition of the word ignorant. I proved to you that I wasn't. You glossed right past that. A simple, "ah I didn't realize that was the actual definition of 'ignorant'" and this part of the discussion could have been dropped. I've been around weed smokers the majority of my life too and I also have never seen anyone clean out their bong or pipe after every use. So I will grant you that most probably don't. However I can also acknowledge that saying that "none do" is stereotyping. And even this is all completely irrelevant because even though most don't clean them after every use, they still COULD and then the cops/lawyers could not conclusively prove that that's what it was used for. That was the only point that was trying to be made...if there's no residue on the bong then it can't be proven that it was used. Hell I could buy a bong, put it in a Curio cabinet and never use it and I'm not breaking the law. Instead, here we are how many posts later with you still trying to argue that you didn't stereotype bong users. You can say "I'd be happy to say I was wrong" but your other posts show that to not be the case.

You said you never called anyone ignorant. I corrected you to show that you did in this thread. Question..do you know how old the other posters you're responding to are or how long they've been around the matter? If not then how do you know how much more knowledge you have on the subject than they do?

No sir, that is the official definition of the word ignorant: adjective lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned:an ignorant man. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact:ignorant of quantum physics. uninformed; unaware. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ignorant

This is calling Narcosys ignorant. Ignorance is the lack (or void) of knowledge on a particular subject. Essentially you told him he's either ignorant on the subject of bong smoking or he's just trying to instigate negativity.

unfortunately it's not. What he described pretty much all I've seen from you for quite a while now. I know you took a lot of flack for defending Pagano as much as you did and that seems to have been when it really started.

Yes

By definition, yes you are. Just because you haven't done it nor seen it done doesn't mean that represents every single pot smoker on the planet.

His post really wasn't that difficult to follow. You're stereotyping weed smokers who use bongs when you say: You're saying that those who smoke cannabis out of bongs aren't the kind of people that would clean and sanitize the bong after every use. That's a stereotype by definition, and the underestimating part is because perhaps some of those people DO clean and sanitize it after every use.

highly unlikely

I can agree with that to a point. I don't think it applies here though. Also keep in mind that Chud was only Luck's OC for a year and a half. Luck spent 3 years with Arians and Pep. With Pep it seemed like it got to the point of Luck having the same autonomy that Peyton had in that the OC would call in multiple plays and allowed Luck to choose the best among them based on what he saw from the defense. I would agree that Luck didn't have THAT level of authority at the LOS under Chud, but I don't believe that Chud ever told him he was not allowed to change plays or make adjustments at the LOS.

he had the ability to change the play but he still had to choose plays that were in the playbook. that playbook was built around 5 and 7 step drops and longer developing plays down the field. He has definitely had the authority to make adjustments and change plays...Pagano spoke to it several times as did both Pep and Chud.

I agree! I loved the playcalling and the overall look of the offense and I'm sure it will get even better as the offense gets more comfortable with the new playbook. As you said, it was true to what was promised so it was expected, but still it was great to see these things in action.

Huh? Luck has had pretty much full authority to change plays or modify plays at the LOS since his 2nd year.