Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC
You certainly read a lot into my response. I was not making a case of one over another, just a case that Matt is not without substance with regard to his handicapping knowledge. I did not choose to sit with one over the other and I made no comment about anybody being equally "substantial". I said that Matt has passion that I think rivals Beyer's.
If the "facts" that you might disagree with me are derived by the methodology shown in your post above then you are disagreeing with fiction.
|
All I was doing in my reply to Pandy, which you responded to, was disagreeing with his opinion that Beyer is very boring on TV. Pandy said that the televised Beyer makes paint-watching exciting...and that strongly contradicts my own opinion of him. I made no mention of Matt in my post to Pandy...nor had I mentioned Matt anywhere else in this thread. Now...if you agree with Pandy that Beyer is excruciatingly boring on TV, then argue with me on THAT! Don't argue with me about something that I never said. I never questioned Matt's "passion" for the game...nor did I refute that his passion for the game equals that of Beyer's.
I said that Beyer has SUBSTANCE...and you countered by questioning me on what I meant by that. And then you brought the Beyer/Carothers comparison into the discussion. Did that have anything to do with the "substance" that I talked about? Do you really need me to define what "substance" means, for you? When Carothers talks handicapping...does what he says have the same "substance" as when BEYER addresses the topic?
Tell me what you are disagreeing with me about...and then I'll argue with you.
