Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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 

  • Replies 27.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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
Posted
4 minutes ago, AnotherLawyer said:

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 it 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.

Okay sure I’ll trust you. Thanks.

Are we having fun yet?

Posted
36 minutes ago, Had Enough said:

I’m curious about opinions on “the law of averages.”

That depends.  Is the phrase being used by some over the hill jock wearing a $5K suit and a $10K watch (and tennis shoes), waving a pen and trying to opine about the likelihood of a given upcoming game's outcome?

Posted
10 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

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 

You say peak more ass off season and there are zero pics. I would have really liked a peak, and it's never too early for more ass.

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

I just want it noted for the record that I did not intend to start this line of discourse and that I think Quinn Ewers was a neat QB at Texas. 

I really liked Ewers, Major, Simms, Colt and Sam. I absolutely loved Vince Young. Does that make me racist? Or is that the exception that proves the rule? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
11 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

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 

I don’t mean to be the grammer police but I think you meant “more ass” just trying to keep you honest. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
43 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

You say peak more ass off season and there are zero pics. I would have really liked a peak, and it's never too early for more ass.

Shit you beat me to it. Happy Adam Scott GIF by Sky

  • Haha 1
Posted

I think we next leveled the offseason discourse with Greek and Latin lessons, so I mean at least we continue to prove we are the smarties of the mouth breather conference. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, troph said:

I think we next leveled the offseason discourse with Greek and Latin lessons, so I mean at least we continue to prove we are the smarties of the mouth breather conference. 

Hey, now. We were the smarties of the last mouth breather conference, as well.

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

I just want it noted for the record that I did not intend to start this line of discourse and that I think Quinn Ewers was a neat QB at Texas. 

You're just biding time until you can creep back and defend Major Applewhite.

43 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

You could go the English route and call them tennys 

I thought they just called them "trainers." 

Posted
57 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

You could go the English route and call them tennys 

Mexican people pop out of the womb calling them tennies

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 8/26/2025 at 8:07 PM, cabowabo said:

Good Luck Quinn.
 

Seriously

Now that he's not losing games for us with an amazing defense, I no longer want him benched. I hope he does great in the NFL and makes a shit load of money holding a clip board. Tua is going to go down, Zach Wilson will probably stink, and he will get a chance in the next couple years. 

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

Most of these schlubs can't afford to shop at Brooks Brothers, and the ones that can still probably wouldn't because I don't think they sell cargo shorts and old T shirts. 

Or they don't go to XXXL

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
38 minutes ago, Zeus said:

Seriously

Now that he's not losing games for us with an amazing defense, I no longer want him benched. I hope he does great in the NFL and makes a shit load of money holding a clip board. Tua is going to go down, Zach Wilson will probably stink, and he will get a chance in the next couple years. 

i keep seeing this posted- the inevitably of quinn ewers becoming the starter for the dolphins. one question though: how? he’s had his entire life to get good at qb and yet a few months ago, after years working closely under the best qb coach in football, quinn still wasn’t even the best qb on his own college roster, and again, was ranked 12th out of 14 sec qbs, and 200th out of qbs nationally. on what planet does he go from “plateaued in college where he was one of the weak links on his team” to “ready to play the toughest position in all of sports”? he couldn’t even move the ball against uga, tosu, arkansas, texas a&m, or arizona freaking state, but he’s about to be master an nfl offense, develop pocket presence, strengthen his arm, and wildly improve in composure, accuracy, and decision making, all while the game gets 10x faster and more complex? you sure about that?

i mean do y’all hear yourselves? tua and zach wilson are objectively better qbs than the oft-injured quinn ewers, and yet half this thread hasn’t shut up since april about how those two guys are so shitty and injury prone that the much shittier and also injury prone quinn ewers is destined to pass them and become the starter. literally just because he came to texas, and based zero percent in how good of a qb he is. weird how nobody ever predicts that the perennially underperforming tight end or safety or running back is on the verge of nfl stardom. always the qb.

if quinn ewers was the exact same qb with the exact same college career but he went to a&m he’d be this board’s favorite punching bag. but because he wore burnt orange he’s some sort of footballing hero who is destined to become the dolphins starter. fanatical. totally fanatical.

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...