Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Eric Crouch was a bad mother fucker.  He ran a 10.4 100 meters and was a perfect option QB.

Career highlights and awards
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Replies 27.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
7 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You illiterate twat, I didn't walk into shit. For starters, lets get to the illiterate part; this thread is literally about Quinn Ewers. My derailing conversation was about evaluating Chris Simms, objectively, which it's pretty obvious a lot of people can't do even when they say they're evaluating him objectively.

You literally said Simms had the career of an "average 3 star." You think cherry picking Major Applewhite, or any 3 star who's gone on to be a STAR QB even, is some kind of gotcha? YOU HAVE TO PICK THE AVERAGE GUY. I gave you a list of 100 players from a single class that were 3 stars, find me the ONE that has a career equal to simms, much less the average of them together. 

Major Applewhite is completely irrelevant. Hell I'm pretty sure Colt McCoy was a 2 star, if not that he was certainly a 3 star. Josh Allen wasn't rated. Sam Bradford was a 3 star. Pat Mahomes, 3 star. 

Exceptions PROVE the rule, you doofus. 

Who the fuck over the last few pages is talking about Ewers.  It's devolved into another Simms/AW comparison and Simms under/overperforming.  Simms had a decent, but no great career.  very 3*-esq.  Then you shit down your leg with 3* star comparisons over modern recruiting rankings when you had a fucking three star outplaying him while he was on campus.

Modern rankings would have Simms rated as a high 4*, low 5*.  A rating he clearly never came close to fulfilling.

you-ignorant-slut-slut.gif

  • Haha 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

He ran the option and was damn good at it.  He was a fantastic college QB.  59 rushing touchdowns.  3500 rushing yards.  Top 10 scoring offense each of the three years he was a starter.  Yes you fucking imbecile, he was a great college quarterback.

And yet, when we discuss Simms, you conveniently ignore his two rushing TDs in a single game against OU.

Double standard much?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Look at his stats and tell me to my face he was a great college QB. 

“say that to my face bitch…that’s what I thought!”   SMH the good ol days jr high 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Who the fuck over the last few pages is talking about Ewers.  It's devolved into another Simms/AW comparison and Simms under/overperforming.  Simms had a decent, but no great career.  very 3*-esq.  Then you shit down your leg with 3* star comparisons over modern recruiting rankings when you had a fucking three star outplaying him while he was on campus.

Modern rankings would have Simms rated as a high 4*, low 5*.  A rating he clearly never came close to fulfilling.

you-ignorant-slut-slut.gif

There's lots of conversations going on. 

Again, I know you're struggling here, but exceptions PROVE the rule. I gave you a list of 100 3 stars from 2022. Which one has even started, much less outplayed Simms? Anywhere. You can't go through the exercise, you just go "Hurr durr here's a 3 star that was better than Simms."

I'd argue Chis Simms gave us 4 star production while he was here. Maybe mid to high. Lets take a look at the mid to high 4 stars from the 2022 class:

Devin Brown
Walker Howard
Gunner Stockton
Nick Evers
Maalik Murphy
Brady Allen
Katin Houser
Tayven Jackson
AJ Duffy
Holden Geriner
Sam Horn
Jacurri Brown
Justyn Martin

By the way, the 5 stars for this class were:

Drew Allar
Cade Klubnick
Connor Weigman
Ty Simpson

How many of any of those above are going to have a better college career than Simms? Klubnick, who played all 4 years? Maybe Allar. 

Definitely he had the career of your average 3 star. If your average 3 Star is Cade Clubnick, who was a 5 star. 

Edited by SydneyCarton
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

There's lots of conversations going on. 

Again, I know you're struggling here, but exceptions PROVE the rule. I gave you a list of 100 3 stars from 2022. Which one has even started, much less outplayed Simms? Anywhere. You can't go through the exercise, you just go "Hurr durr here's a 3 star that was better than Simms."

I'd argue Chis Simms gave us 4 star production while he was here. Maybe mid to high. Lets take a look at the mid to high 4 stars from the 2022 class:

Devin Brown
Walker Howard
Gunner Stockton
Nick Evers
Maalik Murphy
Brady Allen
Katin Houser
Tayven Jackson
AJ Duffy
Holden Geriner
Sam Horn
Jacurri Brown
Justyn Martin

By the way, the 5 stars for this class were:

Drew Allar
Cade Klubnick
Connor Weigman
Ty Simpson

How many of any of those above are going to have a better college career than Simms? Klubnick, who played all 4 years? Maybe Allar. 

Definitely he had the career of your average 3 star. If your average 3 Star is Cade Clubnick, who was a 5 star. 

If only we had, I don't know - a fucking three star on his own team to compare his production to.....

Posted
28 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You illiterate twat, I didn't walk into shit. For starters, lets get to the illiterate part; this thread is literally about Quinn Ewers. My derailing conversation was about evaluating Chris Simms, objectively, which it's pretty obvious a lot of people can't do even when they say they're evaluating him objectively.

You literally said Simms had the career of an "average 3 star." You think cherry picking Major Applewhite, or any 3 star who's gone on to be a STAR QB even, is some kind of gotcha? YOU HAVE TO PICK THE AVERAGE GUY. I gave you a list of 100 players from a single class that were 3 stars, find me the ONE that has a career equal to simms, much less the average of them together. 

Major Applewhite is completely irrelevant. Hell I'm pretty sure Colt McCoy was a 2 star, if not that he was certainly a 3 star. Josh Allen wasn't rated. Sam Bradford was a 3 star. Pat Mahomes, 3 star. 

Exceptions PROVE the rule, you doofus. 

I appreciate that you've used this phrase correctly. People get it wrong a lot today, and in they get it wrong in a way that is completely illogical, yet people just seem to accept the nonsense meaning. 

25 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Look at his stats and tell me to my face he was a great college QB. 

This was a great joke and I'm disappointed how many people missed it. There's a lot of low-rent trolling on this board, but when you bring your A-game, you're one of the best. I tip my hat. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

If only we had, I don't know - a fucking three star on his own team to compare his production to.....

I think I understand where the disconnect is. I'll take a shot - 

Comparing Simms to Applewhite, in comparison with their relative star ratings, shows that Applewhite was underrated and not that Simms was overrated. The fact that Simms and Applewhite were evenly matched on the same team shows that Applewhite was much better than a 3-star rating and should have been rated as a blue chip. Instead of comparing Simms to Applewhite, Sydney is saying you need to compare Simms to a guy who was correctly rated as a 3-star. 

Posted
10 minutes ago, Park Gothic said:

I think I understand where the disconnect is. I'll take a shot - 

Comparing Simms to Applewhite, in comparison with their relative star ratings, shows that Applewhite was underrated and not that Simms was overrated. The fact that Simms and Applewhite were evenly matched on the same team shows that Applewhite was much better than a 3-star rating and should have been rated as a blue chip. Instead of comparing Simms to Applewhite, Sydney is saying you need to compare Simms to a guy who was correctly rated as a 3-star. 

07f7c88c-aa7a-4b81-82f9-5b68279236cb_text.gif.bfbe0a085eafe941596c665385d0127e.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
30 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

And yet, when we discuss Simms, you conveniently ignore his two rushing TDs in a single game against OU.

Double standard much?

Two 1 yard QB sneak TDs.  One when the game was way over.

Those are his only two touchdowns in 3 games against OU.  To go along with 8 interceptions. One fucking touchdown when the game was in doubt.

Here are his complete stats against OU:

47 for 91 passing (51%) for 421 yards (4.63 yards per attempt).  0 passing touchdowns, 8 interceptions, including a pick 6.

21 rushes for -57 yards (-2.7 yards per carry) and two one yard rushing touchdowns.

Posted (edited)

Thank God none of you watched the ‘99 KSU game. 
 
We had an OC trying run an offense that he understood as well as Jimbo Fisher understood what he was trying to do, and you’re blaming the QBs. 

Edited by statsman
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
22 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

If only we had, I don't know - a fucking three star on his own team to compare his production to.....

You can’t actually respond with anything other then hurr durr Major. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, statsman said:

Thank God none of you watched the ‘99 KSU game. 
 
We had an OC trying run an offense that he understood as well as Jimbo Fisher understood what he was trying to do, and you’re blaming the QBs. 

The Apple Turnover game. One of the shittiest games of that period. 

I cannot believe there is still this kind of energy around the Simms/MA period.  What boring shit. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, Park Gothic said:

This was a great joke and I'm disappointed how many people missed it. There's a lot of low-rent trolling on this board, but when you bring your A-game, you're one of the best. I tip my hat. 

100%. One of many reasons I will never put him on ignore. :) 

Posted
2 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I cannot believe there is still this kind of energy around the Simms/MA period.  What boring shit. 

I'm enjoying some of the better jokes in here and refining my block list. It's been a win for me.

Posted
2 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I cannot believe there is still this kind of energy around the Simms/MA period.  What boring shit. 

If you view this thread as performance art, then it's actually quite enjoyable. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You can’t actually respond with anything other then hurr durr Major. 

I don't fucking need to.  We all saw it.  Simms was one of, if not the top rated QB in the country for his class.  He had a good, but not great career.  He feasted on shitty teams, put up lots of yards, and had ONE quality win.  He was arguably worse than the incumbent that he only beat out because he had his knees shredded in a bowl game.  

He's just anther overrated HS player that underperformed.  There are many more of these than lower rater players that overperformed.  Some Like Manziel went on to win the Heisman.  Or Mayfield and Bradford.  Many others put up good numbers, won the games they should have, and never took their team over the top.  That was Simms.  

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I don't fucking need to.  We all saw it.  Simms was one of, if not the top rated QB in the country for his class.  He had a good, but not great career.  He feasted on shitty teams, put up lots of yards, and had ONE quality win.  He was arguably worse than the incumbent that he only beat out because he had his knees shredded in a bowl game.  

He's just anther overrated HS player that underperformed.  There are many more of these than lower rater players that overperformed.  Some Like Manziel went on to win the Heisman.  Or Mayfield and Bradford.  Many others put up good numbers, won the games they should have, and never took their team over the top.  That was Simms.  

You can’t get past your own words. “THE AVERAGE 3 STAR qb.” Is your take that major applewhite is the median or even average 3 star qb? They’re all as good as him?  

You’re saying you think most 3 star qbs have good, but not great careers? Because I’ve posted over 100 of them and I don’t think most of them ever even started games for their teams. 

I’ve given up explaining the concept that exceptions prove the rule. 

Edited by SydneyCarton
Posted
1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

I’ve given up explaining the concept that exceptions prove the rule. 

Then I will. 

When a person provides a rule (e.g., "Sark always recruits great QBs") and another person points out an example of where the rule was untrue, the first person sometimes responds "well that's the exception that proves the rule." That response is 100% retarded. Showing that rule is not always true does not, in any way, shape, or form, prove a rule. It does the opposite. This modern usage of that phrase is maddening

The phrase "the exception that proves the rule" is meant to refer to a situation where stating an exception shows that all other situations are the rule. For example, if the sign on the door to a bar says "Closed on Sundays" you can infer that the "rule" is that the bar is open every other day of the week. Instead of saying the days that the bar is open, the sign proves the rule by saying the one day it isn't. 

So in this instance, the "rule" is that Chris Simms was an above average QB. The "exception" is that he was comparable to Major. Because both Simms and Major were far better than other 3-star QBs, this proves that Chris Simms (and Major) were both above average QBs. It's not quite as clean-cut as the sign on the bar door example, but it works. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
35 minutes ago, Park Gothic said:

Then I will. 

When a person provides a rule (e.g., "Sark always recruits great QBs") and another person points out an example of where the rule was untrue, the first person sometimes responds "well that's the exception that proves the rule." That response is 100% retarded. Showing that rule is not always true does not, in any way, shape, or form, prove a rule. It does the opposite. This modern usage of that phrase is maddening

The phrase "the exception that proves the rule" is meant to refer to a situation where stating an exception shows that all other situations are the rule. For example, if the sign on the door to a bar says "Closed on Sundays" you can infer that the "rule" is that the bar is open every other day of the week. Instead of saying the days that the bar is open, the sign proves the rule by saying the one day it isn't. 

So in this instance, the "rule" is that Chris Simms was an above average QB. The "exception" is that he was comparable to Major. Because both Simms and Major were far better than other 3-star QBs, this proves that Chris Simms (and Major) were both above average QBs. It's not quite as clean-cut as the sign on the bar door example, but it works. 

 

I consider myself a moderately intelligent person and I have no fucking clue what this means. I read it three times and still got nothing. It’s similar to when someone goes on a rant about misusing the term “begs the question”. They do it with conviction and so I feel like “man, they must be right, but I have no fucking clue what they’re trying to teach me here. “

I do know one thing though, if this level of pedantry doesn’t bring this thread to a screeching halt, nothing will. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I consider myself a moderately intelligent person and I have no fucking clue what this means. I read it three times and still got nothing. It’s similar to when someone goes on a rant about misusing the term “begs the question”. They do it with conviction and so I feel like “man, they must be right, but I have no fucking clue what they’re trying to teach me here. “

I do know one thing though, if this level of pedantry doesn’t bring this thread to a screeching halt, nothing will. 

And I was really proud of that sign on the bar door analogy. 

  • Haha 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I consider myself a moderately intelligent person and I have no fucking clue what this means. I read it three times and still got nothing. It’s similar to when someone goes on a rant about misusing the term “begs the question”. They do it with conviction and so I feel like “man, they must be right, but I have no fucking clue what they’re trying to teach me here. “

I do know one thing though, if this level of pedantry doesn’t bring this thread to a screeching halt, nothing will. 

Don't even get me started on the usage of EDGE.

Posted
2 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Don't even get me started on the usage of EDGE.

I saw one of the rants on that a year or two ago and have been purposely fucking with all of ways in which DE/OLB/Edge can be termed ever since. I’ve also taken to capitalizing positions across the board and I can almost see certain posters’ eyes twitching. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
54 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Can we all agree that Major is a piece of shit as a human being and teammate? And that should be held against him?

It has to be a mind twist for the Major acolytes who bought into the Richie Cunningham vs Eddie Haskell myth only to find out that Major was by far the shittier human being.

Well, probably not.  Those kind of people don't self-reflect, ever.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
57 minutes ago, Park Gothic said:

So in this instance, the "rule" is that Chris Simms was an above average QB. The "exception" is that he was comparable to Major. Because both Simms and Major were far better than other 3-star QBs, this proves that Chris Simms (and Major) were both above average QBs. It's not quite as clean-cut as the sign on the bar door example, but it works. 

Thinking Think GIF by Rodney Dangerfield

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
58 minutes ago, BigHornedLurker said:

is it time to officially rename this the 'Texas QB Hot Takes thread' ? maybe then we can quarantine all the dipshit in one place ? 

              spacer.png

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, BigHornedLurker said:

is it time to officially rename this the 'Texas QB Hot Takes thread' ? maybe then we can quarantine all the dipshit in one place ? 

Just empty your computer's cache or clear your cookies and hopefully you won't be taken directly to the thread. If that doesn't work, try not reading it.   

Posted
7 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

"Maybe" - if he doesn't shit the bed against CU in the championship and Texas goes to the MNC, he's idolized.  Then Major orchestrates a hell of a comeback, then balls out again in the bowl game and his reputation is set.

It was the bowl game at the Cotton Bowl when AR shredded his knees that things changed.  He rehabbed all summer, so Simms got the nod to practice with the 1st team and why Simms was the started going into his season.  

Maybe Greg Davis should’ve kept handing off the ball to fucking Cedric Benson who was averaging about 9 yards a carry

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Doc Daneeka said:

2001 conference championship game

Someone brought up that game in the fucking Hawaii/Stanford game thread on Saturday. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
7 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Congrats beat John Blake, the second worst coach for OU behind Venables and a 1st year bob stoops!

image.thumb.jpeg.b6d7c139df6ef092a875cfcf8ed1006b.jpeg
 

this motherfucker actually caused player who had sickle cell trait to go into sickle cell crisis during fall camp 

Posted

We know how to beat a topic to death. There is not much difference between the two (except that the ball spins the other way for Simms). Here is all the games each has played. The passing stats are about the same and neither one is a runner except that Simms was decent at QB sneak at the goal line.

image.thumb.png.f68880b7611fba97e8f0eb223bec680d.png

Here is a breakdown of Applewhite's career, not just as a starter. Pretty mixed record.

 image.thumb.png.7a06f120eece0219c0f3ff0f12e8fc7e.png

And the same for Simms. Similar mixed performance. Not much to distinguish between the two, and certainly not enough difference to form two rival camps.

image.thumb.png.172b856285c9712da0f17ef0caf17a47.png

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Park Gothic said:

Then I will. 

When a person provides a rule (e.g., "Sark always recruits great QBs") and another person points out an example of where the rule was untrue, the first person sometimes responds "well that's the exception that proves the rule." That response is 100% retarded. Showing that rule is not always true does not, in any way, shape, or form, prove a rule. It does the opposite. This modern usage of that phrase is maddening

The phrase "the exception that proves the rule" is meant to refer to a situation where stating an exception shows that all other situations are the rule. For example, if the sign on the door to a bar says "Closed on Sundays" you can infer that the "rule" is that the bar is open every other day of the week. Instead of saying the days that the bar is open, the sign proves the rule by saying the one day it isn't. 

So in this instance, the "rule" is that Chris Simms was an above average QB. The "exception" is that he was comparable to Major. Because both Simms and Major were far better than other 3-star QBs, this proves that Chris Simms (and Major) were both above average QBs. It's not quite as clean-cut as the sign on the bar door example, but it works. 

 

Confused The Big Lebowski GIF by The Good Films

Posted
3 hours ago, Park Gothic said:

Then I will. 

When a person provides a rule (e.g., "Sark always recruits great QBs") and another person points out an example of where the rule was untrue, the first person sometimes responds "well that's the exception that proves the rule." That response is 100% retarded. Showing that rule is not always true does not, in any way, shape, or form, prove a rule. It does the opposite. This modern usage of that phrase is maddening

The phrase "the exception that proves the rule" is meant to refer to a situation where stating an exception shows that all other situations are the rule. For example, if the sign on the door to a bar says "Closed on Sundays" you can infer that the "rule" is that the bar is open every other day of the week. Instead of saying the days that the bar is open, the sign proves the rule by saying the one day it isn't. 

So in this instance, the "rule" is that Chris Simms was an above average QB. The "exception" is that he was comparable to Major. Because both Simms and Major were far better than other 3-star QBs, this proves that Chris Simms (and Major) were both above average QBs. It's not quite as clean-cut as the sign on the bar door example, but it works. 

 

I legit never knew about this improper modern usage, which is so rampant I can't recall ever seeing it used other than the wrong way. Nor have I ever encountered someone attempt to correct said misuse. And I could care less about this kinda stuff.  ChatGPT backed you up:

 

Quote

 

That phrase is one of those old expressions that gets misunderstood a lot.

What it doesn’t mean

It does not mean: “If there’s an exception, it somehow magically proves the rule is correct.” That’s a common misreading.

What it actually means

It comes from the older legal phrase in Latin: “exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis” — literally: “the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted.”

So when you see an exception written down, it implies that there’s a general rule everywhere else.

Example:

  • A sign says: “No parking on Sundays.”

    • That exception proves (i.e., shows there must be) a general rule that parking is allowed on other days.

In plain English

“The exception proves the rule” really means:

If a rule makes a special exception, that’s evidence the rule applies generally outside the exception.

 

 

I still can't wrap my head around the Simms Applewhite mindfuck, but the restaurant one makes sense.

Nobody can ever say this thread was a waste of time. I've found the exception that, uh,  disproves their rule or something. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, CurlyDumps said:

I legit never knew about this improper modern usage, which is so rampant I can't recall ever seeing it used other than the wrong way. Nor have I ever encountered someone attempt to correct said misuse. And I could care less about this kinda stuff.  ChatGPT backed you up:

 

 

I still can't wrap my head around the Simms Applewhite mindfuck, but the restaurant one makes sense.

Nobody can ever say this thread was a waste of time. I've found the exception that, uh,  disproves their rule or something. 

As long as I can reach one person, then I’ve made a difference. Also, congrats on having written confirmation that you’re smarter than CTJ. 

Posted (edited)

This thread the last 48 hours is peak— and I mean PEAK offseason morass. 3 days before the season starts. proving the rule “never peak too early”?

either way, 3 more days 

Edited by Vegas64
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, closetojumping said:

It’s similar to when someone goes on a rant about misusing the term “begs the question”. They do it with conviction and so I feel like “man, they must be right, but I have no fucking clue what they’re trying to teach me here. “

Yeah, well, they're like wrong, man. The phrase is a mistranslation from Latin and our predecessors kept it because they were stubborn and couldn't admit they were wrong. In modern vernacular, "begs the question" can also mean "prompts the question." People who argue otherwise are just willfully ignorant of the fact that language evolves and some long-dead dude who probably got a D- in Latin translated the original phrase incorrectly.

I had Con Law with Professor Bobbitt in the early 2000s and he dressed me down in class for using it "incorrectly." Derailed the entire lecture for about half an hour. If you didn't do the reading for class that day, you're welcome. Jesus, he was such an arrogant prick.

Good for Quinn making the active roster, by the way. He may not have met expectations here, and may end up being a career back-up or out of the league early, but he definitely improved over the preseason after that rocky start. Good on him, and good reflection on the Longhorns.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Park Gothic said:

Then I will. 

When a person provides a rule (e.g., "Sark always recruits great QBs") and another person points out an example of where the rule was untrue, the first person sometimes responds "well that's the exception that proves the rule." That response is 100% retarded. Showing that rule is not always true does not, in any way, shape, or form, prove a rule. It does the opposite. This modern usage of that phrase is maddening

The phrase "the exception that proves the rule" is meant to refer to a situation where stating an exception shows that all other situations are the rule. For example, if the sign on the door to a bar says "Closed on Sundays" you can infer that the "rule" is that the bar is open every other day of the week. Instead of saying the days that the bar is open, the sign proves the rule by saying the one day it isn't. 

So in this instance, the "rule" is that Chris Simms was an above average QB. The "exception" is that he was comparable to Major. Because both Simms and Major were far better than other 3-star QBs, this proves that Chris Simms (and Major) were both above average QBs. It's not quite as clean-cut as the sign on the bar door example, but it works. 

 

Begs the question of how not correcting a type of mistakes effects them.

edit dang, someone beat me to the punch

Edited by Magus Ossis
Posted
1 minute ago, AnotherLawyer said:

Yeah, well, they're like wrong, man. The phrase is a mistranslation from Latin and our predecessors kept it because they were stubborn and couldn't admit they were wrong. In modern vernacular, "begs the question" can also mean "prompts the question." People who argue otherwise are just willfully ignorant of the fact that language evolves and some long-dead dude who probably got a D- in Latin translated the original phrase incorrectly.

I had Con Law with Professor Bobbitt in the early 2000s and he dressed me down in class for using it "incorrectly." Derailed the entire lecture for about half an hour. If you didn't do the reading for class that day, you're welcome. Jesus, he was such an arrogant prick.

Good for Quinn making the active roster, by the way. He may not have met expectations here, and may end up being a career back-up or out of the league early, but he definitely improved over the preseason after that rocky start. Good on him, and good reflection on the Longhorns.

Are you sure? I’ve always heard begs the question is a logical fallacy of sorts which is necessarily self-referential, and the correct term MOST of the time people want is “raises the question”

now do compel vs impel and how that’s used wrong.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, AnotherLawyer said:

Yeah, well, they're like wrong, man. The phrase is a mistranslation from Latin and our predecessors kept it because they were stubborn and couldn't admit they were wrong. In modern vernacular, "begs the question" can also mean "prompts the question." People who argue otherwise are just willfully ignorant of the fact that language evolves and some long-dead dude who probably got a D- in Latin translated the original phrase incorrectly.

I had Con Law with Professor Bobbitt in the early 2000s and he dressed me down in class for using it "incorrectly." Derailed the entire lecture for about half an hour. If you didn't do the reading for class that day, you're welcome. Jesus, he was such an arrogant prick.

Good for Quinn making the active roster, by the way. He may not have met expectations here, and may end up being a career back-up or out of the league early, but he definitely improved over the preseason after that rocky start. Good on him, and good reflection on the Longhorns.

 

9 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Are you sure? I’ve always heard begs the question is a logical fallacy of sorts which is necessarily self-referential, and the correct term MOST of the time people want is “raises the question”

now do compel vs impel and how that’s used wrong.

Using "beg the question" to mean "assume the truth of the conclusion" is both the result of a poor translation and the generally recognized meaning of the expression. Aristotle's phrasing τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ αἰτεῖσθαι was (fairly well) rendered in Latin as petitio principii. The intended (not quite literal) meaning was "assuming the truth of the conclusion." The Latin was artlessly translated into English as "begging the question," when a better wording would have been "question at the beginning." The other meaning of the English version is in widespread enough use now that, while grammar/usage Nazis loathe it, the expression has clearly developed a second widely accepted sense.

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Are you sure? I’ve always heard begs the question is a logical fallacy of sorts which is necessarily self-referential, and the correct term MOST of the time people want is “raises the question”

now do compel vs impel and how that’s used wrong.

Yeah, I'm sure. When a phrase is widely used to mean something different, that becomes the meaning. Language evolves. "The customer is always right" is an example of language evolving. It was originally a marketing phrase meaning the market determines the viability of a marketing strategy. Now the meaning has to do with customer service, not marketing strategy.

The original Latin phrase that was mistranslated to "begging the question" meant "to assume the original premise"--basically that the conclusion is not based on reason. It's simply a conclusion or, like you said, a logical fallacy. An example would be "broccoli is good for you because it contains sulphurophane." This assumes sulphurophane is good. It lacks reason. It's a logical fallacy, even if true. It's been so often misused that it's evolved to mean "raises the question."

But why trust me? I'm just that lawyer guy.

Edited by AnotherLawyer
The guy before me said it better than I did.
  • Hook 'Em 2

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.



×
×
  • Create New...