Jump to content
The Furry

Will The Patriots Lose?

With The Patriots Lose This Season?  

147 members have voted

  1. 1. With The Patriots Lose This Season?



Recommended Posts

The attempt to look smarter by adding an accent mark is negated by putting it in the wrong direction.
Actually, if EITHER of you had a lick of sense you'd know that NEITHER the acute accent NOR the grave accent is correct... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i can not tell the difference between the two (lack of contacts/glasses while typing this)...your spelling of the word still looks incorrect (potentially not, still not wearing glasses). moreover your attempt to belittle me looks all the more pathetic when your diction consists of using the word "smarter." get out of the third grade jr. (you disgrace a noteworthy school/education)

 

 

and what's this about an asterisk? you honestly think that video recordings of practices/games in the nfl dont happen by all teams. this was only a big deal 1. because the patriots organization denied taping in the manner in which it was alleged that they were and 2. because they're an amazing team with a target on their back.

Eric Mangini and the Jets organization do the same kind of taping specifically during pre and regular season games over the past couple of years at both end zones (which for some reason is permitted by the nfl...complete bullshit). This shit about acknowledging a so called spygate in record books is ridiculous.

Faggot.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, if EITHER of you had a lick of sense you'd know that NEITHER the acute accent NOR the grave accent is correct... ;)

 

Actually, that's a result of English bastardization of French (and the resulting incorrect pronounciation).

 

The acute accent is used to denote the "ay" sound of "e" at the end of words. "Forte" should be pronounced like "fort", unless we shout "TOOSH!" in ackowledgement of a hit in fencing...

 

Okay, maybe I got caught by an exception to the rule, but all the same, the acute accent is significantly more etymologically correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, that's a result of English bastardization of French (and the resulting incorrect pronounciation).
I love it when you go all pedantic on me...and mess it up! ;)

 

The word "fort" (which is the correct French spelling of the English "forte") does not take either an acute accent or a grave accent, even when rendered in French. The word "forte" meaning "strength," as in "something at which one excels" comes to us initially from the Latin fortis; spelled that way in French, it has nothing to do with someone's abilities, and is also not accented in any way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love it when you go all pedantic on me...and mess it up! ;)

 

So sayeth the master of "going all pedantic".

 

The word "fort" (which is the correct French spelling of the English "forte") does not take either an acute accent or a grave accent, even when rendered in French.

 

Actually, the feminine form of the adjective is "forte" (Elle est forte, elle est forte en francais). But yes, you're correct, there's no acute accent there. However....

 

My point is: A word that ends in "e" but is pronounced "ay" should have an acute accent (as per touché).

Apparently, somewhere along the line, the English language speakers collectively decided they wanted to sound French without having to go through the work of adding accent marks to the language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So sayeth the master of "going all pedantic".
Yeah, but when I do it I'm right... :D
Actually, the feminine form of the adjective is "forte"
You make my point for me. The noun form (which is what we should be discussing here, since we're talking about the English forte) does not end in "e" and therefore CANNOT take either an acute accent OR a grave accent on the non-existent vowel. As for the English version, the OED (it doesn't get any more definitive than this) indicates that the "ay" sound is necessary for correct pronunciation. The AHD, in a fit of libertinism, allows either pronunciation. Neither source thinks that an acute accent is warranted, however...
My point is: A word that ends in "e" but is pronounced "ay" should have an acute accent (as per touché).

Well, that does appear to be the point you're trying to defend now that I busted you on your ORIGINAL argument... ;)
Apparently, somewhere along the line, the English language speakers collectively decided they wanted to sound French without having to go through the work of adding accent marks to the language.
With regard to touché, English speakers have no need to "add accent marks to the language." When they speak THAT word, they are speaking French. And, in fact, if you consult any decent dictionary (try OED, AHD, and/or Cambridge), you will find that they all render the word WITH the acute accent, as they should. None of them do that with "forte"...

 

Shouldn't someone be saying touché to someone right about now? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm still sticking with my packers prediction, and anyone that doubts me can go fuck a duck, unless you're cool in which case, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're still wrong.

 

The colts just suck, peyton manning is waaayy overrated (he's good, but still overrated) and the giants suck major dick, Eli Manning is terrible.

 

The Redskins will lose to the packers in the championship game and the pack narrowly defeats the Patriots in the superbowl.

 

you are one hard headed packers fan.

though you're entitled to your own opinion, calm the hell down.

they're good, but the packers ain't so beastin either.

 

and what's this about an asterisk? you honestly think that video recordings of practices/games in the nfl dont happen by all teams. this was only a big deal 1. because the patriots organization denied taping in the manner in which it was alleged that they were and 2. because they're an amazing team with a target on their back.

Eric Mangini and the Jets organization do the same kind of taping specifically during pre and regular season games over the past couple of years at both end zones (which for some reason is permitted by the nfl...complete bullshit). This shit about acknowledging a so called spygate in record books is ridiculous.

 

bullshit.

the type of taping they did was illegal and i will have to agree with burns here.

but there is no doubt in my mind that what the patriots did was foolish and they did NOT need to do that to win any of the games this season.

 

It doesn't matter how many teams do it, the other teams weren't caught in violation of league rules and policies. Be a man and own up to something for the first time in your life, you brat.

 

Or, uh, they got straight up caught with their hands in the cookie jar and the league had no choice but to punish them. But, yeah, that was a funny denial considering they had been caught doing the same exact thing several times before and were informed by the league the exact rule and continued to break it.

 

And that still isn't the same as taping on the sidelines with a camera zoomed in on the defensive coordinator to steal defensive signals. The Jets were taping the game, it's not even the same ballpark. The league even said the Jets didn't violate any policies. This whole non-story 'point the finger' at the Jets is utterly pathetic and shows just what a classless organization and how sophomoric fans of the Patriots are.

 

yup.

 

The best thing about that post was that you called him a brat.

 

haha.

 

Burns, (and I guess those that agree with him,) why would cheating in this one instance actually help them achieve a perfect season? Assuming this was the last instance that they were able to tape the opposing team's coordinators, especially since many were in the press boxes, how did this help them go 16-0?

 

I guess my line of questioning is based off of my belief that the asterisk should be there only if it actually helped them go 16-0 the whole season. I understand the immorality of the action and possible justification for the asterisk...but I mean...give 'em a break. They're a good team.

 

exactly. that's why i asked the question in the first place.

(no offense to burns and any other jets fans as i say this), but why would ANYONE need to tape the jets signals to beat them, ESPECIALLY the patriots?

they won with skill, that game and every other game this season.

 

Their violation of the rules and league policy was one more than the Miami Dolphins of 1972 ever had. And I don't like the Dolphins either, but it's not fair to that team. One violation of the substance abuse policy tarnishes an entire career, regardless of the fact that we have no idea the extent of their use or when they were using other than when they got caught. Same thing applies here. I don't see why we should have a double standard when teams violate league policies just because "they're a good team."

 

i concur.

 

Faggot.

 

haha stan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you are one hard headed packers fan.

though you're entitled to your own opinion, calm the hell down.

they're good, but the packers ain't so beastin either.

 

you obviously have no clue who i am, thus i am ignoring you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you obviously have no clue who i am, thus i am ignoring you.

 

that works too.

but i didn't say that with any offense directed at you.

i hope none was taken.

the packers were rated the #3 teams according to a poll on fox sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm still sticking with my packers prediction, and anyone that doubts me can go fuck a duck, unless you're cool in which case, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're still wrong.

 

The colts just suck, peyton manning is waaayy overrated (he's good, but still overrated) and the giants suck major dick, Eli Manning is terrible.

 

The Redskins will lose to the packers in the championship game and the pack narrowly defeats the Patriots in the superbowl.

 

you give the redskins to much credit, their wildcard into the playoffs was bullshit, the only reason the cowboys lost was because they had nothing to lose, rested players, and had no motivation. the game was over before the vikings overtime with the broncs, the vikes could of gave less of shit after they knew they were done, that last overtime would of went diffrently had the redskins lost. anyways, cowboys will step up in the playoffs not the redskins. the redskins offense is horrible and their defense has seemed to weaken during the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brett Favre will throw 5 interceptions against the Patriots in the Super Bowl in one of the most embarrassing, pathetic performances in NFL Super Bowl history. He will break down and cry and retire on the spot in his post-game interview like the drama queen that he is.

Burns, you're cool and all, but if my coach sees this and sees you in real life, she will tear you in half. NO LIE, ask anyone from Newburgh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think that the Giants will be pretty hard to beat.

 

1: In the last two weeks they have beat 2 of the best teams in the NFL.

2: THey had a really close game against the Pats during the Season.

 

It will be a good game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

burns.

my man, why are you beastin on the giants?

the g-men are a different team straight out of week 16.

they've changed, and indeed for the better.

and i would say that most of it has to do with the fact that eli manning has stepped up to lead his team, and look where its gotten them.

parcels says that defense wins championships.

during the giants-patriots game, brady was on the ground more than any other time during the season. the giants know how to play, and that's why they have the perfectly good chance to win.

the patriots are amazing too, but now the critics have been muted about eli, the real fun is going to be watching how close this is going to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Giants deserved every bit of that win. It really shouldn't have went to overtime.

 

Really shows how bad the NFC was this year that a flukey Giants team could beat the top 2 seeds and go to the Super Bowl.

The NFC has been terrible ever since I was old enough to know the difference between NFC and AFC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Giants deserved every bit of that win. It really shouldn't have went to overtime.

 

Really shows how bad the NFC was this year that a flukey Giants team could beat the top 2 seeds and go to the Super Bowl.

Hmmm. I don't disagree that the Giants earned their win, but I would quarrel with the "flukey" adjective. Remember, the G-men opened the season playing the two teams who would wind up getting first-round playoff byes in the NFC. Beginning in Week 3 they've gone 13-4, including a perfect record in ten road games (three of them playoff road games). Ain't nothing "flukey" about that, my brother... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey cool, a Pats-Giants rematch.

Don't be so sure Giants will lose... 38 (Pats)-35 (Giants) in their last meeting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...