Here's all you need to know, Bear fans.
by axthelm on Dec 23, 2009 11:55 PM CST
53 comments
Your Chicago Bears met the Indianapolis Colts in the Super Bowl after the 2006 season.
The Bears lost. No shame in that. One team always has to lose that game. It doesn't mean they suck. It's just the way it is.
Since then, however? The Colts are 39-7! (The Bears? 21-25).
How can that be? The Colts are 32 games OVER 500 since then. The Bears 4 games UNDER 500 since then.
Let the HouseCleaning begin, my friends.
(Unfortunatley) when people defend Lovie/JA as taking us to the SB in 2006, they obviously don't understand that, in NFL terms, that was light years ago. Dinosaur years.
What happened three years ago really doesn't matter anymore. Since then, teams like the Colts have prospered and teams like the Bears have severely underachieved.
Again, let the HouseCleaning begin (on January 4th, 2010)!
BTW: If the McCaskey's bring back either JA and/or Lovie in 2010, this tells us ONE of TWO things:
1. Either these are the STUPIDIST owners in NFL history.
or
2. The McCaskey's think that Bear fans are the STUPIDIST fans in NFL history.
It's either one or the other here (or, I guess, quite possibly both) But it's certainly not 'None of the Above.'
0 recs |
53 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Here's REALLY all you need to know, Bear fans...
The Indianapolis Colts have better players, a better coaching staff, better management, and MUCH better owners than the Chicago Bears. I’ve been a fan of Lovie’s since he got here, but I’m finally at that point of “Get the F*CK outta here brother”.
"The phone's for you, I think it's the Devil."
by Acreman20 on Dec 24, 2009 2:06 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I couldn't have said it better myself
The Indianapolis Colts have better players, a better coaching staff, better management, and MUCH better owners than the Chicago Bears.
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Dec 24, 2009 8:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay.....
but other than that, we’re the same…..right?
God, this is depressing!
by BearFan611 on Dec 24, 2009 10:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That was exactly my point.
Unfortunately, we are stuck with the owners.
That said, as I have referenced many times, the Rams were once owned buy a ditzy blonde former show-girl (Georgia Frontiere) who inherited the team after her husband drowned under mysterious circumstances.
She made one really smart move (she hired a great HC in Dick Vermeil).
End result? They won the Super Bowl in 1999. If Vermeil hadn’t retired they might’ve won more.
Vermeil has more coaching ability in his little finger than does Lovie Smith in his entire body.
Vermeil took over a crappy, underachieving team and imposed his considerable will on them.
he was so demanding they threatened to go out on strike before a game against the Bears. vermeilwon a SB with that (once sorry) bunch in three seasons.
The Bidwill’s have long been considered among the cheapest and worst owners in the NFL .
The Cardinals under Bidwill (Chicago, St. Louis and Arizona) have the second longest Championship draught in Pro Sports (60 + years. Second only to the Cubs)
(This is a team that used to charge it’s players for meals and for extra ‘socks & jocks.’)
They came within 2:37 seconds of winning it all last year. They now have won their division two years in a row.
Same owners. Better results.
Why? Better players (in large part to Denny Green’s drafts and to the fact that they have historically drafted top 10) and better coaching (Whisenhunt came over from the best franchise in the NFL, the Steelers).
You can be a (cheap/stupid) owner and still hire better people to run your team.
Georgia Frontiere and Bill Bidwill are two such examples.
There is NO LAW preventing the McCaskey’s from hiring great people to run/coach their team.
by axthelm on Dec 24, 2009 3:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Dinosaur years?
what, like dog years? but dino’s instead? but we dunno how long a dino’s lifetime was.. I mean i am totally with ya on the light years, and can infer the meaning with the dino years, but why?
by GtM on Dec 24, 2009 10:45 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Lot longer than dog years
"But it doesn't matter what I do, what I choose. I'm what's wrong. This is fate" - Dexter season 4....I mean Lovie season 6.
by propheteer on Dec 24, 2009 10:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
All you need to know
is the Colts have P. Manning and the Bears don’t. He makes everyone around him practically a Pro-bowler by default. There’s no need to look elsewhere, but the QB position.
"But it doesn't matter what I do, what I choose. I'm what's wrong. This is fate" - Dexter season 4....I mean Lovie season 6.
by propheteer on Dec 24, 2009 10:50 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Not exactly
Robert Irsay was long considered one of the worst owners in the NFL and his Colts usually sucked.
The day he died his son Jim took over and a few days later hired one of the best GM’s in the NFL at that time (Bill Polian).
And the rest is history. Yes, they got lucky having the #1 pick the same year Peyton Manning came out for the draft. No doubt.
But Bill Polian is head-and-shoulders above anybody the Bears have had in the front office since the days of Jim Finks and Jerry Vanisi.
One critically KEY hire (Bill Polian) has almost completely turned around a once sorry franchise.
That’s the lesson here to be learned.
by axthelm on Dec 24, 2009 4:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree to a point
but without Manning, all those other “core” players drafted by Polian don’t come close to a SB. Just look at the Bears; if they had an elite or even an above-average QB they beat these same Colts in the SB. If it weren’t for Rex- Polian, Manning, Harrison, Freeney, Wayne, and Sanders don’t have much success without that said title. I do see what you’re saying though….better ownership, better management, better coaching gives a franchise a better chance to be successful long-term.
"But it doesn't matter what I do, what I choose. I'm what's wrong. This is fate" - Dexter season 4....I mean Lovie season 6.
by propheteer on Dec 24, 2009 5:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They might not have won a SB without Manning
I agree. No doubt. In fact, overall they have underachieved (to me) in the playoffs all these years with Manning.
But they’d still be an excellent team, IMO.
Recently Polian graded out the highest as far as #1 & #2 picks being important members on his teams (and not being busts or below average players).
Besides that, I’d have faith that a guy like Polian would somehow get another top-flight QB.
Maybe not a Peyton Manning, but more than a Grossman/Orton etc.
Bill Polian built those Buffalo Bills teams that went to four straight Super Bowls
He then went on to build the expansion Panthers who were probably the most successful expansion team in NFL history They went to the NFC Championship game in only their second year of existence). He’s been the NFL executive of the year five times.
After the death of his father Jim Irsay wasted no time in going out and getting one of the best in the business, Bill Polian to turn around his team.
Contrast that with the McCaskey’s. That’s the HUGE difference between these two teams.
by axthelm on Dec 24, 2009 6:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No argument
on which ownership/gm is/are better. Another point is P. Manning allowed the Colts team to reach the playoffs year after year, which allowed them numerous opportunities to win a SB. Their defense was very mediocre for awhile, but in ’06 Manning had the supporting cast to win it all.
"But it doesn't matter what I do, what I choose. I'm what's wrong. This is fate" - Dexter season 4....I mean Lovie season 6.
by propheteer on Dec 26, 2009 10:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yay!
Another “fire Lovie and Co.” post!
-------
"Newbie, if the next two words out of your mouth aren't 'See ya' then the third word will be 'Oh my god. My crotch. You've punched me in my crotch." - Dr. Percival Ulysses Cox
by smudgers on Dec 24, 2009 11:55 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Are you for keeping Lovie and Co.?
If so what are your reasons? I am not sure what position you are taking? You want to keep the current Management team or you are sick of hearing Fire Lovie and Co. I would just like to know. Because I can tell you, the Fire Lovie sentiment will not end anytime soon. It ends when he goes.
by BigDanz2000 on Dec 26, 2009 10:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What's not to understand from...
Yay! Another "fire Lovie and Co." post!
Do we need a “fire (insert name here)” post every ten seconds? I get it, I do… but why start yet another fan post, when it could have been a comment on any one of numerous others. I know I could ignore it, but how, when there are so flippin’ many?
And I’m not trying to attack Ax, because his post are generally intelligent and well thought out, even if they are becoming redundant.
-------
"Newbie, if the next two words out of your mouth aren't 'See ya' then the third word will be 'Oh my god. My crotch. You've punched me in my crotch." - Dr. Percival Ulysses Cox
by smudgers on Dec 26, 2009 11:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I hear you smudgers.
Here’s the (really sad) issue here.
Few reasonable people want Lovie back (and JA).
Adam Shefter on ESPN a few days ago: Lovie is on the hot seat but will probably be back. Why? 11 million reasons why."
That’s pathetic.
Recently I went back and forth a little with BearFan611. He said the McCaskeys want to win. I completely disagree. Yes, they WANT to win. Nobody takes the field to lose.
But if you REALLY (and I guess that’s the key word – really) they you make the TOUGH decisions and maybe fire a guy who clearly needs to go and swallow his contract (like almost every other owner does when making a change).
Wanting is easy. Paying the price to make it happen is a whole ‘nother story. I (for example) wanted to be a doctor. I didn’t want to pay the price (10 years of schooling and tens of thousands of dollars) to make it happen.
There is NO question that Jim Zorn is being fired the minute after the NFL season ends in Washington. Based on his performance and fan sentiment, Lovie should be next in line.
It’s troubling when Shefter makes that kind of comment. It really is.
by axthelm on Dec 26, 2009 2:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to get into this again, but you've taken our exchange a little out of context.
Just to set the record straight, my point was that the McCaskey’s want to win BUT are not very good at their job, hence not making the right or tough decisions. It wasn’t any type of defense of their abilities of owners.
by BearFan611 on Dec 27, 2009 9:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You may be sick of it
But I am not. I want to continue to log onto WCG and see numerous Fire Lovie Fan posts, no matter what form they are presented and who is presenting them. You are tired of seeing the Fire Lovie and Co. posts, well there are more of us that are tired of seeing Lovie and Co. running this team. His time has come and it is time to move on from Him.
Redundant? sure, Ill agree with that. Important? 100% yes. The more fire Lovie Chants the better the chance it will happen.
by BigDanz2000 on Dec 26, 2009 4:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay,
if that’s your goal, why not start a blog where the ONLY topic is firing Lovie? Why litter this site with your repetitive garbage?
What about this… if your redundant post don’t work, try clicking your heels together three times? Jeebus, do you really think the McCaskey’s are reading WCG to see how many post are made about firings? That’s a big negative! However, you are making people grow tired of the seeing the same old thing “in different forms.”
Here’s a gift > click here to accept <. Now, get a new topic!
-------
"Newbie, if the next two words out of your mouth aren't 'See ya' then the third word will be 'Oh my god. My crotch. You've punched me in my crotch." - Dr. Percival Ulysses Cox
by smudgers on Dec 27, 2009 10:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Suggest a topic then
How about we talk about the offensive line and how great they are, ooops we cannot, why? because they are terrible. Okay lets talk about how great our offense has been, oh wait a minute, we cannot, why? because they are being led by that offensive guru, Ron Turner. Okay okay, lets talk about the Bears defensive scheme, that is definitely a good topic, what am I talking about, that scheme sucks. The Cover 2 is led by a foolish and unoriginal coach. Damn, must be something we can talk about. Okay I know, lets talk about the McCaskeys, they are great owners, they really care about winning. But, wait, if they really cared about winning, why are Lovie, Ron, and Angelo still employed by this team? I do not know, maybe they are just as clueless as those 3 stooges mentioned above.
It all comes back to coaching and the staff here, is TERRIBLE! if Your sick of hearing/seeing/writing about Fire Lovie and Co. then I would suggest possibly not visiting this blog, because realistically, I do not think they are going to stop, not until they are ousted from this organization. Now, I am not telling you to stay away, I am just saying, maybe to prevent your rise in blood pressure from acute redundantiveness, taking a break would be more manageable for you.
So I ask you smude, what shall we talk about? Bear related, that does not in any form include the workings or Lovie and Co? Because I would be ready to chat about that as well.
by BigDanz2000 on Dec 27, 2009 11:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you that un-original?
Why not just copy and paste the same comment over and over… because that is, basically, what you’re doing when you continue to re-tread the “fire Lovie & Co.” theme.
if Your sick of hearing/seeing/writing about Fire Lovie and Co. then I would suggest possibly not visiting this blog, because realistically, I do not think they are going to stop, not until they are ousted from this organization. Now, I am not telling you to stay away, I am just saying, maybe to prevent your rise in blood pressure from acute redundantiveness, taking a break would be more manageable for you.
You must really think something of yourself, don’cha?
First off, wtf is “redundantiveness”? Although, I guess I’m expecting a bit much from someone who doesn’t know what an adjective is.
Secondly, you do not and will not ever “raise my blood pressure.” Your “reduntantiveness” is annoying, that’s all. And while it appears, you’ve been a member of this blog space over a year longer. I can safely say that I’ve contributed more to WCG than you have. How, you ask…
Me:
LINK 1 … LINK 2 … LINK 3 … LINK 4 … LINK 5 … LINK 6 … LINK 7 … LINK 8
You:
LINK 1 (Anyone wanna venture a guess what it’s about?)
So, next time you tell someone to cease visiting, how ’bout you make sure you at least contribute more than that person!
And since it’s been a while, I’m guessing, let me quote block an excerpt from WCG’s community guidelines:
We’re all fans and we all get frustrated when the team doesn’t perform or has bad luck, but regurgitating the same venom over and over again doesn’t help anything or anyone.
-------
"Newbie, if the next two words out of your mouth aren't 'See ya' then the third word will be 'Oh my god. My crotch. You've punched me in my crotch." - Dr. Percival Ulysses Cox
by smudgers on Dec 27, 2009 2:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Smudge chill out brother.
I wasnt asking you to take a leave of absence, I was saying since you are sick and tired of hearing about it and I am pretty sure that this subject is going to DOMINATE for a very long time maybe it will rise your blood pressure. That is all.
You are right, I have contributed next to nothing to this blog, that is okay, I am not trying to join the staff or create a smorgasbord of fan posts. Not my goal. My goal is to be a fan of this team and when they are continually putrid I will make it know. Lovie has been Putrid for a very long time as well as Turner and Angelo. I am tired of them and i feel the need to post about it.
My use of the word reduntantiveness, I know is not a word, I was using it in jest, sort of doctor terminology. Smack me for it, go ahead.
Even in your first link you tell us to GO AT IT when talking about firing Lovie. So I am going AT IT.
by BigDanz2000 on Dec 27, 2009 8:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There are occassions on WCG
when I make post and then feel bad about it afterward. I think to myself… wow, I’m a jerk, why in the crap would I be such a flippin’ d-bag to some random person on a sports blog? It’s usually after re-reading the comments in context that I realize I may have over-reacted, taken a comment too personal or simply misinterpreted the meaning behind something.
This is not one of those times!
-------
"Newbie, if the next two words out of your mouth aren't 'See ya' then the third word will be 'Oh my god. My crotch. You've punched me in my crotch." - Dr. Percival Ulysses Cox
by smudgers on Dec 28, 2009 3:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good for you brother.
Well for your sake, I hope you live in a padded room. The fire Lovie Posts will not stop. Sorry to disappoint you and your tolerance level.
If it bothers you so much, do not post about it. I post about it because it does not bother me and it should be posted about, not ignored.
I hope you are having a bright and cheery day Smudgy.
by BigDanz2000 on Dec 28, 2009 4:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Smude, Smudge, Smudgy?!?
Is “smudgers” really that difficult… or is this “doctor terminology” speaking again?
And I’ll make an effort to ignore the re-treads if you make an effort to post something fresh, or different, every once and again. Deal?
-------
"Newbie, if the next two words out of your mouth aren't 'See ya' then the third word will be 'Oh my god. My crotch. You've punched me in my crotch." - Dr. Percival Ulysses Cox
by smudgers on Dec 28, 2009 6:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
For you my friend
I can make that happen. Because we are Bears fans and Bears fans can accomplish anything when we want to. Unless you are not really a Bears fan, which would then throw this compromise out the window! but I do believe you to be a Bears fan, which would make this valid.
Onto fresh and new ideas!
by BigDanz2000 on Dec 28, 2009 7:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like a plan!
-------
"Newbie, if the next two words out of your mouth aren't 'See ya' then the third word will be 'Oh my god. My crotch. You've punched me in my crotch." - Dr. Percival Ulysses Cox
by smudgers on Dec 28, 2009 11:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You actually anyone in Bears' management cares what
some poster like you thinks? Get over yourself.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Dec 27, 2009 10:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If it means anything...
… I agree with you! :] lol
"A lot of fans were drawn to me because they knew that whatever the score was, I was going to run as hard as I could on every play. You don't have that now, you have guys waiting for next week or even next year." - Walter Payton
by HoneyBear on Dec 26, 2009 5:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
All we need to do is fire Lovie and Turner and we will be fine.
The O-Line should be fine when Kreutz and Pace are gone. Even average replacements would be fine. We have a lot of talent on this team. All that needs to happen is fire Lovie and Turner(and Cutler needs to make better decisions).
by GouldisGold on Dec 24, 2009 5:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
It needs to be
“most stupid.” “Stupidist” is not a proper grammatical word, nor is “stupidest.”
"A lot of fans were drawn to me because they knew that whatever the score was, I was going to run as hard as I could on every play. You don't have that now, you have guys waiting for next week or even next year." - Walter Payton
by HoneyBear on Dec 25, 2009 10:07 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Actually there's no grammatical
difference between the words ‘dumbest’ and ‘stupidest.’
by axthelm on Dec 25, 2009 10:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Stupidest is a prefectly fine gramatical word. As it is an adjective of Stupid.
As is Dumbest. An adjective of Dumb.
by BigDanz2000 on Dec 26, 2009 10:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No, it's not an actual word.
Just like “funnest” and “goodest”.
"A lot of fans were drawn to me because they knew that whatever the score was, I was going to run as hard as I could on every play. You don't have that now, you have guys waiting for next week or even next year." - Walter Payton
by HoneyBear on Dec 26, 2009 11:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And an adjective of stupid
would mean that it is describing a noun “stupid.” So then, I could technically say that “He is the stupidest stupid I’ve ever seen.” Adjectives only describe nouns.
"A lot of fans were drawn to me because they knew that whatever the score was, I was going to run as hard as I could on every play. You don't have that now, you have guys waiting for next week or even next year." - Walter Payton
by HoneyBear on Dec 26, 2009 11:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry Honey (from dictionary.com)
stupidest – 4 dictionary results
stu·pid (stōō’pĭd, styōō’-)
adj. stu·pid·er,stu·pid·est
SORRY HONEY. It’s really (like I said earlier) like the word dumbest.
As in “America’s DUMBEST criminals.” Or the NFL’s “STUPIDEST” owners.
The adjectives (dumbest, stupidest) would be used to describe the nouns (Criminals, NFL Owners)
by axthelm on Dec 26, 2009 2:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, Sweetheart,
Try looking at Merriam-Webster online (a more accurate source) and look for “stupidest.” It doesn’t exist! Because it’s not a word.
So, SORRY SWEETHEART, we both might be right, but I was a teacher, and while “stupidest” may be used by some people – it’s not a word – just like “funnest” and “goodest.” You can argue all you want. But I stand by this.
"A lot of fans were drawn to me because they knew that whatever the score was, I was going to run as hard as I could on every play. You don't have that now, you have guys waiting for next week or even next year." - Walter Payton
by HoneyBear on Dec 26, 2009 3:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Plus,
I did some research and it is NOT a word, but is being added to some dictionaries because of common usage. However, that does not automatically make it legit, standard English.
I also found this article that explains why it’s not a word, pretty well.
Either way, whether someone thinks it’s a word or not, it’s still spelled incorrectly in bold twice in this post.
"A lot of fans were drawn to me because they knew that whatever the score was, I was going to run as hard as I could on every play. You don't have that now, you have guys waiting for next week or even next year." - Walter Payton
by HoneyBear on Dec 26, 2009 3:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You KILL me
It’s not a WORD (but people use it).
Use it as what . . .ummm . . . I’m guessing here . . . they use it as a WORD!
(As opposed to maybe a meal or a cleaning product).
I’m not the first or the last to use it. I’ve seen it else where. It’s essentially the same as DUMBEST.
Sorry. You might not LIKE the WORD, but it’s a word.
BTW: Try to find the word STUPIDEST is this NEW YORK TIMES article!
(You have heard of the times, now haven’t you)?
How Stupid Is Your Bike Lane?
By TARA PARKER-POPE
Controversy has hit the bike lane.
Bicycle-friendly cities like Eugene, Ore., Gainesville, Fla., and Palo Alto, Calif., have developed extensive bike lane networks since the 1970s, and bigger cities such as Chicago and Houston have begun to paint bike lanes on streets as a way of encouraging bicycle use, according to the Web site bicyclinginfo.org.
But as the site BicycleUniverse notes, bike lanes have long been a contentious topic among cyclists, drivers and city planners who debate the safety value of the lanes and whether they really encourage more cycling.
Now Slate magazine has weighed in with a funny video that claims to have found the "stupidest bike lane in America."
Slate video editor Andy Bowers dons a camera-helmet to capture the action as he pedals through the Westwood neighborhood near the University of California, Los Angeles campus. But the journey lasts only a few seconds — this bike lane, extending 275 feet, is less than a block long. Even so, Mr. Bowers is open to the notion that there might be an even sillier bike lane elsewhere, and he is seeking "stupid bike lane" submissions. Do you have a stupid bike lane story to share?
You LOSE! (I could give you a hundred more examples, but why bother. You’ve lost.
by axthelm on Dec 26, 2009 5:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, first of all,
they quoted the word, which means someone else used it, not that it’s correct. Secondly, I said that some dictionaries are adding it because of common usage, but I assure you, whether you want to keep having this stupid argument or not, it’s not a grammatically correct word. I can say “fjdailhgrelangrklea” and yes, I guess it would be a “word” but not a proper standard English word.
So we can keep fighting, or as I said, it can be one of those things where we’re both right, depending on what the context is. Your choice. Actually, no, my choice. I’m done fighting about this, there’s more important things. Besides, my main problem with it in this post is that it’s spelled wrong.
"A lot of fans were drawn to me because they knew that whatever the score was, I was going to run as hard as I could on every play. You don't have that now, you have guys waiting for next week or even next year." - Walter Payton
by HoneyBear on Dec 26, 2009 8:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No, I'm right and you're wrong
They were quoting SLATE magazine which said this:
Now Slate magazine has weighed in with a funny video that claims to have found the "stupidest bike lane in America." Slate video editor Andy Bowers
Get it? Slate magazine has found the
"stupidest bike lane in America
Who is Slate Magazine?
Slate is an English-language online current affairs and culture magazine created in 1996 by former New Republic editor Michael Kinsley, initially under the ownership of Microsoft, as part of MSN. On December 21, 2004, it was purchased by the Washington Post Company. Since June 4, 2008, Slate has been managed by The Slate Group, an online publishing entity created by the Washington Post Company to develop and manage web-only magazines.1
Do yourself a favor and google the word stupidest.
I did it one time (Stupidest NY Times) and referenced the first hit. I have no need to go further.
Common usage DOES NOT mean NONSENSE (like your ridiculous example ‘fidailhgrelangrklea’) Understand?
FYI: The word ‘stupidest’ is absolutely NO DIFFERENT in meaning and from a grammatical perspective the word DUMBEST, which again is used extensively (google dumbest . . . . (like criminals).
You may not like either word, but they exist and they are used to convey a certain meaning.
And after all, isn’t that what the English language is all about.
Now, here’s the reason why I (sometimes) use the word ‘stupidest.’
When I want to highlight or accentuate just how STUPID something or someone is, I will often use that word. It’s an attention getter.
For example, to illustrate just how STUPID I think the McCaskey’s are, I sometimes use that word.
Again, I am sorry that you don’t consider words (such as dumbest or stupidest) to be proper words even though they are used by millions. That’s your problem, not mine.
I was an English major in college a long time ago. You are not speaking to some kind of idiot here.
In fact you are speaking to someone who knows more about the English language than do you!
by axthelm on Dec 27, 2009 1:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I hesitate to get involved
but here’s my two cents.
Generally, words with more than one syllable don’t take “-er” and “-est” to create modifiers. Neither do words that have “-id” at the end. (livid, vivid, etc.) So, traditionally, stupider/est were not grammatical. Usage, however, has brought it into the mainstream, and those adjectives are in the American Heritage Dictionary, if I’m not mistaken.
Whether or not you believe that makes them grammatical depends on your philosophy about language, and whether evolutions in usage can establish themselves as proper grammar. (Similar to whether you think it’s okay to use “impact” as a verb, or to disregard the difference between less and few.) So, for me, I think you both can be right. Moving on to football topics…
by PrincetonCubs on Dec 27, 2009 10:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Moving on to football topics…
That’s the most stupid thing I’ve ever heard… errr, I mean stupidest, no… most stupiderist, what?!? ;)
-------
"Newbie, if the next two words out of your mouth aren't 'See ya' then the third word will be 'Oh my god. My crotch. You've punched me in my crotch." - Dr. Percival Ulysses Cox
by smudgers on Dec 27, 2009 10:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
STUPIDESTEST ARGUMENT EVER!
honeyb you be a hater… not necessarily a bad thing, actually a compliment coming from me, but sheesh.
by No It All on Dec 27, 2009 2:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks BigDanz2000
In all the excitement I completely missed your supportive (and intelligent) comment.
Thanks again!
by axthelm on Dec 27, 2009 1:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not a problem AX
in an effort to remain smarter than the stupidest, I will in times support the argument of those who are being called the dumbest while in the line of grammatical warfare. I support the movement for Stupidest and Dumbest as common and proper english. I will forever be in support of these words, because they are REAL words! To stupidest and dumbest, I bet these 2 words never thought they would be involved in such a heated argument. I am sure they are proud.
Now on to the FIRE LOVIE AND CO POSTS!!!!
by BigDanz2000 on Dec 27, 2009 11:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You are all gentlemen (and ladies) and good judges of cheap whiskey.
by Dane Noble on Dec 29, 2009 5:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
