 
        sheeeit
- 
                Posts792
- 
                Joined
- 
                Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by sheeeit
- 
		
- 
		
- 
		
- 
		On 9/18/2025 at 6:41 PM, sheeeit said:I like some sports radio. Listening to some Stones. This sounds blasphemous but fuck Keith Richards for shitting on Mick. Dude was a fantastic lyricist and top 10 all time vocal/frontman. 
 I’m sure Mick was pretentious but you just can not deny his talent. Overall, Mick is more of a savant in his lane than Richard’s is in his. Pains me. But maybe not. - 
					
						
					
							
								 1 1
 
- 
					
						
					
							
								
- 
		On 9/22/2025 at 8:26 PM, RDCanecutter said:Fooled. Pantsed. Suckered. I am used to flushing out the run of the mill Calcutta boiler room flunky. Guys who claim they're from my credit union but don't know which state it's in. But like Bama playing a year of Chattanoogas, I got punched in the gut coming up against real competition. They had texted me a couple of days ago from my credit union's number, as my credit union does any time I do an unusual transaction. Something about somebody trying to log in fron a second phone #. Type "No" if it's not you. "No." Forget about it. They'd laid the groundwork that they and I were working together, against crime. I shoulda called back to talk to a person, but I get this stuff a fair amount as I roam the land. Tonight I get a call about the same "infiltration" attempt. Person on the phone, vague American accent, slightly huffy. No doubt AI looking back. When I ask them where my credit union is, they misdirect and answer something else. Happens twice. Third time they tell me the town, Obvious now that they stalled and googled it. This is where I fumbled the ball, shoulda just hung up. At the very least, say bye and then call my credit union's number on my own. But for some reason thinking I just had a snitty employee on the phone that I had offended, I kept talking. After all, they were just trying to help me. For the rest of it I was a sheep led to slaughter. They texted me a log in to my account, me, brain turned off, signed in. Then (to howling laughter now) they explained how they'd be contacting the Feds as well as state authorities, so maybe don't log in for a day or two as they'd be looking for pings to hunt down the suspect and they didn't want me to muddy the trail. Even in my brain-washed state my instincts said "Wut th'FUCK" at that, while my rational brain said "No, stop that, they're trying to HELP us..." About 5 minutes later I get a call back from a very human, slightly frazzled person who says she's credit union security. She knows where my credit union is, she sounds like she lives there, and she knows how to pronounce the weird street name it's on, I'm still burnt but I wave her into the compound. Turns out the bastards were running transactions through my credit card into my checking, about 2,000 at a time, she put a hold on it before it got astronomical. Now my bank account is locked up. In the morning I'll call the credit union and we'll do the good ol' police report/start a new account thing. Got got gotdammit. I had a simple trick for sussing out scammers, they failed the test, and I let em in the door anyway. I thought for sure this was a bit. Lost a little respect you fell for this. - 
					
						
					
							
								 1 1
 
- 
					
						
					
							
								
- 
		16 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:So... what point did you think I missed? I simply pointed out that even if they cleared it with the refs, those refs would have been incorrect. That is a hideout play and has been against the rules for like 70 years. Regardless of whatever those specific refs said that play was against the rules and should have been flagged. I don't think we disagree. All I said was that the rule is subjective and if a team asks for clarification on a specific play and the refs ok it, then I do not fault the team for running it. 
- 
		11 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:Myself I doubt that's what happened in this game unless the officials on that particular crew are retarded. Well that was the whole point of the hypothetical. The OU play by play guys said OU specifically told the refs pregame what they intended to do. I said to pretend it was some other team because OU doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. The refs said ok. They ran the play. I have no idea if they really did ask the refs pregame. I just posited that if they did ask them pregame, it would change my opinion on whether it was cheating or not. If you tell a coach something is not against the rules, you would be pretty hypocritical to then blame the coach when the play worked and the other team was pissed. I have a hard time believing that if a coach asked you personally about a particular play before a game and you told the coach it was not a penalty, and then the coach ran the play, that you would call them dirty. It didn't happen in game speed. You as the ref had no distractions when explained what the play would be. You had time to talk about it with your other refs. If you would still say the play was dirty then we just disagree. - 
					
						
					
							
								 1 1
 
- 
					
						
					
							
								
- 
		13 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:LET THIS DUMB ASS RETARD KNOW! LOL. Take your ritalin. I assume you guys know that it is routine for teams to talk to officials before the game and tell them about potential trick plays they intend to use (reverses, double passes, fake field goals etc) so the refs know it is coming and know what to look for from a rules standpoint. I already said it seemed shady at first. I guess I am having a hard time blaming the team when they told the refs before it happened. The refs knew the rules. Blame them or blame Auburn for being stupid. If the conversation with the refs was that they noticed the Auburn DB talks a lot of shit and that they were going to have their slot receiver try and bait the DB into losing focus, is that a penalty? 28 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:As officials, we were instructed that if a player runs out wide past the numbers, chances are he's "simulating being taken out or substituted". That's exactly what OU did. Intentionally trying to deceive the defense (and the officials). Solid point. So if a team came to you as an official before the game and explained exactly what they were going to do and you said it was not a penalty, who do you blame? - 
					
						
					
							
								 5 5
 
- 
					
						
					
							
								
- 
		8 minutes ago, Codaxx said:"If properly officiated, the second down play should have resulted in an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty of 15 yards assessed from the previous spot," the conference said. "Appropriate accountability will be applied without additional comment." The statement referred to NCAA football rule G-2, Article 2, related to "unfair tactics." "No simulated replacements or substitutions may be used to confuse opponents," the rule states. "No tactic associated with substitutions or the substitutions process may be used to confuse the opponent. This includes any hideout tactic with or without a substitution." SEC is pretty clear on how they feel the play should have been officiated and how they expect it to be officiated in the future. I underlined the important aspect of the rule. OK. I read that. The dude walked right in front of the defender. In a no huddle situation. No gesture to the sideline. No taking off his chin strap. Not running. It was pretty deep in OU territory and he wasn't angling toward the bench area. Just walking out to his spot. If he stopped 3 yards further from the sideline would it have been a penalty? What does "hideout" mean? He literally walked right in front of the defender and took his spot. OU had a wide receiver outside of the slot guy in virtually every play. Why would the defender think there was no one out there? Why would the defense think he was substituting when the QB and OL and everyone else on the field were lining up for the next play? I have watched it many times now. The DB was too busy jawing. I think there is a fine line between using the substitution penalty and just baiting a defender into an emotional mistake. - 
					
						
					
							
								 5 5
 
- 
					
						
					
							
								
- 
		1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:So Arch and Mateer have almost identical stats right now. I understand Mateer has 2 more "good" wins, so I guess that's why he's getting more hype right now (plus Arch shitting the bed for 2 out of 4 games), but just found it surprising. LMAO. Thanks. I needed that. 
- 
		9 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:Yes it's still cheating and still dirty. The rulebook specifically states that it is every coach's responsibility to know the rules and coach their team with integrity. In fact it says gaining an advantage by circumvention or disregard for the rules brands a coach as unfit to be associated with football. That's in the rules governing the sport, so I'd say that answers your question. Probably just have to disagree. There is no question that they hoped to fool Auburn. But what is the definition of substitution? After the play, there was no huddle. No one ran on the field (yes I know they do not have to). Guy just walked to his position. He didn't wave his hand like he needed to come out. Didn't limp towards the sideline. Does the offense have to tell the defense to cover them? Watch Texas or any game. Often receivers walk to their position during no huddle. The OU slot guy distracted the Auburn DB. I think the Auburn DB just messed up. He was too busy jawing with the OU guy and forgot to see who was out there. But again, unless you think there is no subjectivity in the rule, the only way to be sure is to ask the refs. If they say its clean then run it. I am fairly certain it wont work against Texas - 
					
						
					
							
								 1 1
 
- 
					
						
					
							
								
- 
		2 minutes ago, NorthLoop said:have those refs said that OU "cleared" it with them? No. And likely never will. I have no idea if it is true or not. Just a hypothetical. - 
					
						
					
							
								 1 1
 
- 
					
						
					
							
								
- 
		6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:What was your point? I thought you concluded that if they addressed it with the officials, it was ok. The question was do you think it is cheating or bush league by a team to run a play that they cleared with the refs? If they had not cleared it beforehand it would almost certainly be bush league and possibly against the rules. It certainly would be pushing the rules. - 
					
						
					
							
								 1 1
 
- 
					
						
					
							
								
- 
		6 minutes ago, statsman said:“Hideout” plays were a point of emphasis for SEC officials this past offseason. 
 
 so, one of these apply:1. OU described what they would do in a way that really didn’t communicate to the SEC officials. 
 2. OU is lying about coordinating with the officials.
 3. Those officials slept through their offseason training.Possibly. 1) If they communicated it differently to the same refs that were on the field then the refs would have called it if they did something different. 2) Very possible. 3) Unlikely. But it is obviously a subjective call. They didn't huddle. The player did not fake any type of injury. Walking versus jogging to your spot is not a penalty. I actually think the OU player talking trash to the DB is what caused Auburn to miss it. But, again, the question was not the technical intent of the rule. The question was that if a team clears a play beforehand with the refs is it cheating or even bush league if they then run it in the game? I guess I do not think so. - 
					
						
					
							
								 1 1
 
- 
					
						
					
							
								
- 
		20 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:If the refs said that, they were wrong. It is directly addressed in the rule book. And the SEC has confirmed it should have been penalty. Well, I think you missed the point. - 
					
						
					
							
								 1 1
 
- 
					
						
					
							
								
- 
		27 minutes ago, Cairn Horn88 said:That was an illegal play by OU….its in the rule book. SEC has come out and said as such. Heard’m talking about it on “Full Ride” this morning. Yea, Auburn shoulda caught, but so should have the refs. In this case, Auburn got screwed. It was intentional by Venables. Just for arguments sake, the OU play by play guy is saying the OU coaches asked the refs before the game if the play was illegal and they were told it was not. Likely we will never know if this is the truth or not. So, lets say some other team not OU, because OU, saw a tendency from Auburn and wanted to exploit it. They came up with a play (funnily the slot receiver was talking trash to the DB to distract him) and asked the refs about it before the game and were told is was not a penalty. Is that cheating? My initial reaction was it was a bush league play by OU that certainly skirted the rules. However, if they did address it before the game with the refs then I think it is ok. - 
					
						
					
							
								 1 1
- 
					
						
					
							
								 1 1
 
- 
					
						
					
							
								
- 
		Watched a lot of the OSU/Tulsa game last night. Andre Ware is awful. - 
					
						
					
							
								 3 3
- 
					
						
					
							
								 1 1
 
- 
					
						
					
							
								
- 
		
- 
		
- 
		1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:FFS, he fired the head of the BLS because the BLS reported numbers using the exact same data and methodology it has used for decades, he just didn't like those numbers....so he's going to appoint toadies who will only produce the false info that pleases him. But, you know...."both sides." Agree. Trump does knee jerk, childish things and I wish he wasn't POTUS. I notice you neglected to comment on Biden firing Robb as general counsel of the NLRB which ended 70 plus years of precedent. This was so much worse for the country and for the things you seem to be suggesting regarding bending to party and squashing dissent and hurting the country. Robb was going after some union shops for workplace violations. During the campain the Communications Workers of America union actively complained about Robb and called for his firing. Biden fired him day 1 and replaced him with a senior lawyer for....the Communications Workers of America union who promptly closed the investigations. Which is worse and more reflective of an authoritarian/fascist regime? 1 hour ago, skeeter said:If I am being totally honest, I actually have a bit of respect for the guy that comes right out on national TV and says he is going to primary someone. I think it is a totally wrong thing to do, but at a bare minimum he is being transparent. You don't think every admin since the beginning of the USA doesn't use the same tactic? Of course they do. They just don't advertise it. Biden spurned Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman because they did not vote for his infrastructure bill. They both lost primaries. This happens all the time. Again, I don't like it and think it is one of the shittier aspects of politics but it is common. - 
					
						
					
							
								 3 3
 
- 
					
						
					
							
								
- 
		1 hour ago, Js1 said:At no point would I trust the data coming directly from ICE. No siree, this administration will lie, make stuff up and fudge whatever they have to Agree completely. Did you believe Mayorkas when asked about border policy and actions? 
- 
		1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:I'm not twisting anything. You said artic ice extent isn't an issue anymore and there weren't stories or articles on it. I posted two sources directly on point saying Artic ice extent is very much an issue and very much still decreasing. 2012 isn't a baseline. It was a record low. The fact that ice recovered partially from a record low doesn't mean the record low, substantially beyond historical mean, wasn't concerning. 2024 wasn't within a few percentage points of "baseline." It was within a few percentage points of a record fucking low. I'm going to post this again because apparently you didn't get it: The redline is the 2012 record minimum. The greenish/blue line is 2024. That big think gray area? That's the fucking historical baseline. 2025 is tracking very closely with 2012 and 2024. If you have a 500-year event every 5-years, it is fair to say you're dealing with a changing system. That's what happening. Your facts were wrong. Your understanding of what you're looking at is non-existent. You're doing exactly what I accused you of doing, being an ignorant slut. And you're doubling down on it. Talk about stupid. From your link and my link: 1/5/2024 (my wife's birthday and certainly "when 2024 started" arctic ice extent 13.4 M sq km, 1/5/24 of historical baseline 13.9 M sq km. That is 3.6%. Exactly what I said. You are showing your ass when I said that the network news and CNN and Fox and late night TV and morning talk shows were talking about the decline in 2012 and you countered that it is still being talked about with links from nsidc.org and climate.gov. True bastions of mainstream information sources. And you and brisket still miss the point or choose to ignore it. If the ice extent was a massive story when it was at low points then it had to be a massive story when it rebounded. I watched Scott Bessent (one of the Trump guys I like) on nbc or cbs. He pointed out that after the tariffs were announced the network ran with headlines of major stock market crash. Then a few weeks later when the market recovered to historics levels the network ignored it. And of course Fox and OAN do the opposite. It is shocking that reasonably intelligent people actually think one side is more virtuous than the other. - 
					
						
					
							
								 3 3
 
- 
					
						
					
							
								
- 
		38 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:The bogeyman you love -- immigrants are disproportionately rapists and murderers and such -- has been proven wrong so many times it's not worth fucking going over it again. Trying to keep it civil but this is just blatant bullshit. You are a fucking attorney? I have laid out my plan for immigration control on here for years. I am likely more pro legal immigration than most on here. I think the vast, vast total of immigrants in the country are good people and we are a better country because of it. You really have just become exactly what you claim to hate. What you will not admit, what the previous admin will not admit, what this whole "squash the lies of repubs like germany bullshit" talk will not admit when it comes to immigration is that under Biden, on purpose, the controls we had on who was allowed into the country were completely removed. We let in a massive number of really horrible people, we allowed immigrant children to go virtually unchecked to "host" families that we can not even find anymore, we let massive amounts of fentanyl into the country etc. Yet Mayorkas and Kamala and a large percentage of the media just lied about it and ignored it. Of course the number of really bad people was a small percentage but a small percentage of 10 million is a shitload of people. Remind me when any ranking dem member of congress criticized Biden when literally thousands of hispanic gang members entered the country illegally. I think Trump firing the BLS guy is stupid and wrong. But not any more stupid and wrong than Biden firing the general counsel of the NLRB because the unions wanted him too. But both are legal. - 
					
						
					
							
								 10 10
 
- 
					
						
					
							
								
- 
		On 8/4/2025 at 12:12 PM, Brisketexan said:If we as a Republic -- governed by a REPRESENTATIVE government (including the executive) -- believe that "bias is bad, and truth is good," you'd see SOME action by this government to rein in the insane and obvious lies promulgated by the conservative media sphere. You see....zero. Instead, you see only active coordination between the government and those sources to promulgate objectively false information. LOL. Define government? Last time I checked, Schumer, AOC, Warren, Booker are all part of the government. If you are suggesting that whichever party holds the executive will rally around their leader, then I will agree. What you can not seem to realize is that it is possible to not like most aspects of either party. There are a few people in Trump's exec that I like and there were a few people in Biden's exec that I liked. Off the top of my head I can think of: Hiding Bidens mental decline, Janet Yellen telling the world in the summer of 2024 before the election that the debt was in a "reasonable place", Mayorkas continually telling us the border was secure etc. The dems rallied around Biden and swallowed those lies just like is happening now. - 
					
						
					
							
								 6 6
 
- 
					
						
					
							
								
- 
		On 8/4/2025 at 12:21 PM, Dahobbs said:As per usual, your facts are wrong. The cause of global warming isn't debatable from a scientific standpoint. It is greenhouse emissions from human activity. The arguments you've heard the contrary aren't from folks that actually know what they are talking about, but political bullshit artists. End of story. Artic ice extent is very much still an issue and very much still decreasing: https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph If you're not seeing articles on this issue, it is because your chosen new sources are ignoring them or actively lying to you. On 8/4/2025 at 12:21 PM, Dahobbs said:As per usual, your facts are wrong. The cause of global warming isn't debatable from a scientific standpoint. It is greenhouse emissions from human activity. The arguments you've heard the contrary aren't from folks that actually know what they are talking about, but political bullshit artists. End of story. Artic ice extent is very much still an issue and very much still decreasing: https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph If you're not seeing articles on this issue, it is because your chosen new sources are ignoring them or actively lying to you. Wow. Nowhere did I say the earth is not warming or that emissions are not part of the force. Nowhere. I do not deny it at all. I also said 2024 (it was the graph I used as 2025 is not over yet). https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph When 2024 started, the arctic ice extent was approximately 3.4% under the baseline used to track it. Exactly what I posted. I do not remember but I am guessing the old post was from 2012. There were stories almost nightly on network news, Fox, CNN, MSNBC etc. Late night talk shows, morning shows, newspapers etc. We were told that this was a catastrophic sign. Yet in 2024 the issue gets not a peep. That is my point. You are doing exactly what Brisket wrongly accused me of doing. You can not argue the fact that in 2024 the Arctic ice extent was within percentage points of the historical mean. Of course it could still go down and it could still be catastrophic. But if anyone suggested in 2012 that by 2024 the ice extent would be almost all the way back to the historical mean, they would have been ostracized and laughed out of the building. But it is true. - 
					
						
					
							
								 3 3
 
- 
					
						
					
							
								



Gotdammit I Just Got Scammed
in Business and Markets
Posted
Obviously joking.