[Boon[_2_]]

When I was back in LA, a couple of radio talk show hosts would play a
game called "What Did Jesse Jackson Say?" The hosts would play a clip
from one of Jesse's speeches featuring a mumbled phrase from Jackson,
and call-in guests would try to figure out the quote verbatim.

Watching Scott struggle to communicate over on the Chargers group, I
though we could play a similar game..."What Does Scott Mean?"

Here's this week's quote from Scott:

"If I was GM he'd be my safety valve, injury insurance spending most
of the games inactive ala Michael Bennett."

So...what did Scott mean?

[Boon[_2_]]

Here's this week's gem:

When guys come up to just a few yards off a receiver and don't bother
to try and jam and basically just say I can run with you step for step
no matter what you do, you're slow.

So...what does Scott mean?

[GeoSynch]

Chim Chimpsky chimed in:

When guys come up to just ... say ... you're slow.

So...what does Scott mean?

That the Buffoon is a retard or, if you will, a Buffoontard?

[Harry Lavo]

"Boon" wrote in message
...
Here's this week's gem:

When guys come up to just a few yards off a receiver and don't bother
to try and jam and basically just say I can run with you step for step
no matter what you do, you're slow.

So...what does Scott mean?

Actually, this one isn't too difficult to follow, if you are a football fan.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Boon" wrote in message
...
Here's this week's gem:

When guys come up to just a few yards off a receiver and don't bother
to try and jam and basically just say I can run with you step for step
no matter what you do, you're slow.

So...what does Scott mean?

Actually, this one isn't too difficult to follow, if you are a football fan.

I thought he was talking about short people playing Rock Band in his
living room.

Stephen

[Boon[_2_]]

On Mar 13, 10:01*am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
*"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Boon" wrote in message
...
Here's this week's gem:

When guys come up to just a few yards off a receiver and don't bother
to try and jam and basically just say I can run with you step for step
no matter what you do, you're slow.

So...what does Scott mean?

Actually, this one isn't too difficult to follow, if you are a football fan.

I thought he was talking about short people playing Rock Band in his
living room.

Almost. Scott wants the song "Short People" to appear on the next
version of Rock Band.

Of course, Randy Newman is bubblegum pop music.

[Glanbrok[_2_]]

On Mar 13, 2:40*pm, Boon wrote:

I thought he was talking about short people playing Rock Band in his
living room.

Almost. Scott wants the song "Short People" to appear on the next
version of Rock Band.
Of course, Randy Newman is bubblegum pop music.

Some might say Newman is a wry and insightful observer of hypocrisy
and double standards. I can see where that description could overload
duh-Scottie's meager brain power and instigate yet another repetition
of the "bubblegum" slur.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Mar 13, 9:46*am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message

...

Here's this week's gem:

When guys come up to just a few yards off a receiver and don't bother
to try and jam and basically just say I can run with you step for step
no matter what you do, you're slow.

So...what does Scott mean?

Actually, this one isn't too difficult to follow, if you are a football fan.

I am a football fan, and it's still endlessly amusing to me.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 13, 9:46*am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message

...

Here's this week's gem:

When guys come up to just a few yards off a receiver and don't bother
to try and jam and basically just say I can run with you step for step
no matter what you do, you're slow.

So...what does Scott mean?

Actually, this one isn't too difficult to follow, if you are a football fan.

I would think that somebody who can run with a receiver "step for step
no matter what you do" isn't "slow". I would think the slow corners
would tend to jam in an attempt to remove the receiver's speed
advantage.

I'm a football fan. Can you enlighten me on 2pid's deeper meaning?

[Clyde Slick]

On Mar 14, 12:38*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Mar 13, 9:46*am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Boon" wrote in message

...

Here's this week's gem:

When guys come up to just a few yards off a receiver and don't bother
to try and jam and basically just say I can run with you step for step
no matter what you do, you're slow.

So...what does Scott mean?

Actually, this one isn't too difficult to follow, if you are a football fan.

I would think that somebody who can run with a receiver "step for step
no matter what you do" isn't "slow". I would think the slow corners
would tend to jam in an attempt to remove the receiver's speed
advantage.

I'm a football fan. Can you enlighten me on 2pid's deeper meaning?

to me, he is saying that the receiver is slow.his problem is that his
pronouns don't match

[Boon[_2_]]

Here's today's gem:

"I don't know why we would make it easy for a team in OT to burn all
the clock and not let the D get the ball back and I don't want some
bonehead official to change the game with no challenge (and the the
booth is way to prolific in reviews IMO)."

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 16, 3:19*pm, Boon wrote:
Here's today's gem:

"I don't know why we would make it easy for a team in OT to burn all
the clock and not let the D get the ball back and I don't want some
bonehead official to change the game with no challenge (and the the
booth is way to prolific in reviews IMO)."

Too easy: 2pid wants the "D" to get the ball back with enough time to
score so that the booth can't challenge how much of the clock was to
easily ;-) burned in "OT" before the boneheaded official changes the
game to something else like Jai Alai. If the game is changed to
something else 2pid simply wants the ability to challenge this but to
not have the booth review his challenge because the booth is too
"prolific" ;-) in the things they review in 2pid's imbecilic opinion.

If you're going to pick 2pid gems make them harder than this. This one
actually almost made 2pid sound smart.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

On Mar 16, 3:19*pm, Boon wrote:
Here's today's gem:

"I don't know why we would make it easy for a team in OT to burn all
the clock and not let the D get the ball back and I don't want some
bonehead official to change the game with no challenge (and the the
booth is way to prolific in reviews IMO)."

Too easy: 2pid wants the "D" to get the ball back with enough time to
score so that the booth can't challenge how much of the clock was to
easily ;-) burned in "OT" before the boneheaded official changes the
game to something else like Jai Alai. If the game is changed to
something else 2pid simply wants the ability to challenge this but to
not have the booth review his challenge because the booth is too
"prolific" ;-) in the things they review in 2pid's imbecilic opinion.

If you're going to pick 2pid gems make them harder than this. This one
actually almost made 2pid sound smart.

Isn't baseball the only game in which the defense has the ball?

Stephen

[Boon[_2_]]

On Mar 16, 8:45*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:





On Mar 16, 3:19*pm, Boon wrote:
Here's today's gem:

"I don't know why we would make it easy for a team in OT to burn all
the clock and not let the D get the ball back and I don't want some
bonehead official to change the game with no challenge (and the the
booth is way to prolific in reviews IMO)."

Too easy: 2pid wants the "D" to get the ball back with enough time to
score so that the booth can't challenge how much of the clock was to
easily ;-) burned in "OT" before the boneheaded official changes the
game to something else like Jai Alai. If the game is changed to
something else 2pid simply wants the ability to challenge this but to
not have the booth review his challenge because the booth is too
"prolific" ;-) in the things they review in 2pid's imbecilic opinion.

If you're going to pick 2pid gems make them harder than this. This one
actually almost made 2pid sound smart.

Isn't baseball the only game in which the defense has the ball?

Not if there's a turnover.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Boon wrote:

On Mar 16, 8:45*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:





On Mar 16, 3:19*pm, Boon wrote:
Here's today's gem:

"I don't know why we would make it easy for a team in OT to burn all
the clock and not let the D get the ball back and I don't want some
bonehead official to change the game with no challenge (and the the
booth is way to prolific in reviews IMO)."

Too easy: 2pid wants the "D" to get the ball back with enough time to
score so that the booth can't challenge how much of the clock was to
easily ;-) burned in "OT" before the boneheaded official changes the
game to something else like Jai Alai. If the game is changed to
something else 2pid simply wants the ability to challenge this but to
not have the booth review his challenge because the booth is too
"prolific" ;-) in the things they review in 2pid's imbecilic opinion.

If you're going to pick 2pid gems make them harder than this. This one
actually almost made 2pid sound smart.

Isn't baseball the only game in which the defense has the ball?

Not if there's a turnover.

Must be "defense puts the ball into play" or something, but I'd think
cricket does, too.

This gets dumber the more I think about it, so good enough for now.

Stephen

[Glanbrok[_2_]]

On Mar 16, 11:58*pm, Boon wrote:

Isn't baseball the only game in which the defense has the ball?

Not if there's a turnover.

mmmmm....Pastry!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 16, 8:45*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:





On Mar 16, 3:19*pm, Boon wrote:
Here's today's gem:

"I don't know why we would make it easy for a team in OT to burn all
the clock and not let the D get the ball back and I don't want some
bonehead official to change the game with no challenge (and the the
booth is way to prolific in reviews IMO)."

Too easy: 2pid wants the "D" to get the ball back with enough time to
score so that the booth can't challenge how much of the clock was to
easily ;-) burned in "OT" before the boneheaded official changes the
game to something else like Jai Alai. If the game is changed to
something else 2pid simply wants the ability to challenge this but to
not have the booth review his challenge because the booth is too
"prolific" ;-) in the things they review in 2pid's imbecilic opinion.

If you're going to pick 2pid gems make them harder than this. This one
actually almost made 2pid sound smart.

Isn't baseball the only game in which the defense has the ball?

STFU. This is 2pid's scenario and he doesn't very well suffer his
"differing POV" being "oppressed".

You liberal POS. Next you'll claim that there's a health care crisis
in the US.

Next! LoL.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Mar 16, 6:06*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Mar 16, 3:19*pm, Boon wrote:

Here's today's gem:

"I don't know why we would make it easy for a team in OT to burn all
the clock and not let the D get the ball back and I don't want some
bonehead official to change the game with no challenge (and the the
booth is way to prolific in reviews IMO)."

Too easy: 2pid wants the "D" to get the ball back with enough time to
score so that the booth can't challenge how much of the clock was to
easily ;-) burned in "OT" before the boneheaded official changes the
game to something else like Jai Alai. If the game is changed to
something else 2pid simply wants the ability to challenge this but to
not have the booth review his challenge because the booth is too
"prolific" ;-) in the things they review in 2pid's imbecilic opinion.

If you're going to pick 2pid gems make them harder than this. This one
actually almost made 2pid sound smart.

It's okay. He's to prolific so there will be more.

[Glanbrok[_2_]]

On Mar 16, 7:06*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

"I don't know why we would make it easy for a team in OT to burn all
the clock and not let the D get the ball back and I don't want some
bonehead official to change the game with no challenge (and the the
booth is way to prolific in reviews IMO)."

If you're going to pick 2pid gems make them harder than this. This one
actually almost made 2pid sound smart.

Witless looooves "Heidi", you know.

[Glanbrok[_2_]]

On Mar 16, 4:19*pm, Boon wrote:

Here's today's gem:

"I don't know why we would make it easy for a team in OT to burn all
the clock and not let the D get the ball back and I don't want some
bonehead official to change the game with no challenge (and the the
booth is way to prolific in reviews IMO)."

Witless needs to cut back on the caffeine before his 'motor' burns
itself out.

[Boon[_2_]]

Shhh! has already tagged this one on the Chargers group, but I thought
I'd include it anyway:

"Only question is how much guaranteed money do they have locked up."

What does Scott mean?

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Boon wrote:

Shhh! has already tagged this one on the Chargers group, but I thought
I'd include it anyway:

"Only question is how much guaranteed money do they have locked up."

What does Scott mean?

Seems superfluous.

Stephen

[Boon[_2_]]

On Mar 19, 1:32*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,

*Boon wrote:
Shhh! has already tagged this one on the Chargers group, but I thought
I'd include it anyway:

"Only question is how much guaranteed money do they have locked up."

What does Scott mean?

Seems superfluous.

As is Scott's general existence on this planet. His wife does make
pretty flower arrangements, though.

[Boon[_2_]]

This week's entry:

I used to drink Lowenbrau when it was available for a reasonable
price (usually the swiss variety was more available than the German
(Munich if I recall) until Miller licensed US brewing rights and
killed all the other licensees imports by flooding the market with a
crappy version.

Here Scott tries to be ambitious by placing a parenthetical phrase
inside another parenthetical phrase, something I've only seen John
Kennedy O'Toole pull off successfully. If he just knew what the
bracket button on his keyboard was for, he might have matched O'Toole
(sadly, he doesn't [but then again the world would have been knocked
off its axis if he had]).

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 26, 9:07*pm, Boon wrote:
This week's entry:

I used to drink Lowenbrau when it was available for a reasonable
price (usually the swiss variety was more available than the German
(Munich if I recall) until Miller licensed US brewing rights and
killed all the other licensees imports by flooding the market with a
crappy version.

Here Scott tries to be ambitious by placing a parenthetical phrase
inside another parenthetical phrase, something I've only seen John
Kennedy O'Toole pull off successfully. If he just knew what the
bracket button on his keyboard was for, he might have matched O'Toole
(sadly, he doesn't [but then again the world would have been knocked
off its axis if he had]).

I recall the first time I thought to myself he was an idiot (about
2pid, that is, because he had written another asinine post (it took me
several asinine posts by 2pid to realize that's how he WAS, not that
he'd made a couple of simple mistakes in his reasoning (I always give
people the benefit of the doubt (at least at first)))).

Pure art, I say!

[GeoSynch]

Jilly beamed:

I recall the first time ...

Pure art, I say!

More like sackmanure as recursive cursives just ain't your bag. old girl ... so
to speak.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Mar 26, 9:42*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Mar 26, 9:07*pm, Boon wrote:

This week's entry:

I used to drink Lowenbrau when it was available for a reasonable
price (usually the swiss variety was more available than the German
(Munich if I recall) until Miller licensed US brewing rights and
killed all the other licensees imports by flooding the market with a
crappy version.

Here Scott tries to be ambitious by placing a parenthetical phrase
inside another parenthetical phrase, something I've only seen John
Kennedy O'Toole pull off successfully. If he just knew what the
bracket button on his keyboard was for, he might have matched O'Toole
(sadly, he doesn't [but then again the world would have been knocked
off its axis if he had]).

I recall the first time I thought to myself he was an idiot (about
2pid, that is, because he had written another asinine post (it took me
several asinine posts by 2pid to realize that's how he WAS, not that
he'd made a couple of simple mistakes in his reasoning (I always give
people the benefit of the doubt (at least at first)))).

Pure art, I say!

I would agree (although somewhat reluctantly [since RAO is full of
people {Scott, PLF, Bret, Lionel} who wouldn't otherwise has an active
audience for their nonsense.]) I was able to endure Scott's RAO posts
for a long time (by simply ignoring them [which wasn't easy since I
had so many people emailing me {such as George |who couldn't believe I
went to his house and hung out with him|}]), but after a while it
bothered me that the majority of the activity on RAO was good people
trying to deal with his bad behavior.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Boon wrote:

This week's entry:

I used to drink Lowenbrau when it was available for a reasonable
price (usually the swiss variety was more available than the German
(Munich if I recall) until Miller licensed US brewing rights and
killed all the other licensees imports by flooding the market with a
crappy version.

Here Scott tries to be ambitious by placing a parenthetical phrase
inside another parenthetical phrase, something I've only seen John
Kennedy O'Toole pull off successfully. If he just knew what the
bracket button on his keyboard was for, he might have matched O'Toole
(sadly, he doesn't [but then again the world would have been knocked
off its axis if he had]).

Keep your pants on! File clerks don't need brackets.

Stephen