Vikings Message Board.Com

PurpleMustReign wrote:It was mildly ammusing at first, but now ur 'negativity' is bordering on trolling. You don't have to disagree with everything just because you can.

If I'm only mildly amusing then you're taking me too seriously. But what's ironic is, you're completely aware of how often I disagree with everything, but apparently oblivious to how much there is to disagree with. It's simple, if you don't like all my disagreeing then stop saying so much to disagree with. This is a public message board, not a private we better censor everything outside of Pb's comfort zone board. Just because you consider the things I say negative, doesn't make it so, it's just your perspective.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Travis Henry (old RB for the Bills) has like 11 kids with 10 different women!

Hahaha yeah I forgot about him. There was a website out there that was keeping track of this stuff but I don't think even they could keep up. But I'm not sure if that's meant to be some sort of defense of AD or not. Like hey he doesn't have the most bastard children out there (that we know of) so cut him some slack. Yeah, no, it's not.

I do wonder why thatguy isn't here to tell us how Adrian Peterson is contributing to the demise of his beloved America. I mean all those bastard children and all those single mothers can't possibly fit into his ideal America of yesteryear on the road to doomsday scenario. I would hate for him to look like a hypocrite.

dead_poet wrote:Is he perfect? No. Last I checked, he never claimed to be. But he does an awful lot of good in addition to being one of the best football players on the planet (that also happens to be on "our" team). He could easily be a Percy Harvin, Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, but he's as professional and straight-laced as they come (from an NFL prospective anyway).

I guess I touched a nerve there eh? Let's see if I can help you untwist those panties of yours. Although fair warning, I'm not exactly sure how they're twisted so there's a good chance I could make the problem worse xD.

Yeah AD could very easily be just like PH, TO, or Moss ... how many bastard children did those guys bring into the world that are going to grow up without a father again? But you're right, when I said he was good at knocking up women, what I really meant was he was selfish with his time/money and really bad at football. I'm glad you read my mind and called out my super secret hidden agenda.

But anyway, did it hurt? When you pulled that straw man argument out of your back side? So lets see, start off with a straw man ... check. Write a long post that only addresses said straw man ... check. Throw in a red herring by listing a whole bunch of positive things that have nothing to do with the fact that Adrian Peterson is a man whore thereby making said man whoring seem more tolerable ... check. Get greedy and go with another red herring by comparing him to other players with less desirable personality traits as some sort of weird justification for his man whoring ... check. Yeah I fail to see anywhere in your argument where you actually addressed the only point I made, which was AD has knocked up a whole lot of women. But that's because it was rock solid, so you had to construct this elaborate straw man you could tear down in it's place. Now what's all this about high horses and stone throwing? Oh wait, I'm getting ahead of myself.

dead_poet wrote:The phrase, " "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone" comes to mind.

There we are ... ummm yeah, that means about as much to me as the phrase, "he's making a list and checking it twice". Call me sane, but I'm just not one of those people who puts a whole lot of stock in imaginary phrases from imaginary entities regarding imaginary devices conceived only to control people. But that's beside the point, I never threw a stone anyway, just stated a fact.

dead_poet wrote:You must have a very good view way up there on your high horse. I imagine it's quite easy to judge all us lesser peasants who scurry about beneath you.

You mean that imaginary high horse you yourself just put me on? Makes it easier to knock someone down when you yourself prop them up high, am I right xD? And when you say easy to judge, do you really mean easy to state facts? Then yes, it is quite easy. Fact: Adrian Peterson has knocked up a lot of women. Later he'll be judged by his god the same way he believes his god is going to judge all the gays. Holy hypocrisy dipped in irony sauce Batman.

I'm not the one out there making sure a bunch of children grow up without a father. I mean isn't that one of the big arguments all these anti marriage equality wind bags like to spew forth? Children need a mother AND a father. Oh except when big football stars want to create a lot of single mothers by making them pump out a lot of bastard children. I guess according to christian logic that's somehow not as important of an issue as a child growing up with 2 loving mothers or 2 loving fathers. But yeah, I guess I missed where Jesus said, oh unless you're a big football star, then do as you please. Oh wait, here it is, Genesis 1:1 ... And the lord said, if you're a big football star, none of this BS applies to you, just remember to point to the sky and give me thanks when you score a TD, and all is good, amen.

dead_poet wrote:he's as professional and straight-laced as they come (from an NFL prospective anyway)

And look at that, it was right in front of us the whole time. After you sift through all the straw man bloat, it turns out you agree with me after all. Silly you, your panties weren't twisted, you were just wearing a thong.

Reignman wrote:There we are ... ummm yeah, that means about as much to me as the phrase, "he's making a list and checking it twice". Call me sane, but I'm just not one of those people who puts a whole lot of stock in imaginary phrases from imaginary entities regarding imaginary devices conceived only to control people. But that's beside the point, I never threw a stone anyway, just stated a fact.

So was this vast conspiracy to control people contrived in the 1st Century? Why did they want to 'control everyone' anyway? The martyrs that actually (or allegedly if you prefer) witnessed the death/ascension of Jesus, they decided to just die for a lie when they knew the truth? I get the fact that some people believe things that are wrong and sometimes die for that incorrect belief, but in the case of the first Christian martyrs, they had first hand knowledge of the truth (or falseness) of Jesus. So they willingly died to 'preserve a myth' when they knew Jesus was 'false' (allegedly)?

Reignman wrote:Let's see if I can help you untwist those panties of yours.

Please. They make me feel sexy, so I put up with the discomfort.

Reignman wrote:Yeah AD could very easily be just like PH, TO, or Moss ... how many bastard children did those guys bring into the world that are going to grow up without a father again? But you're right, when I said he was good at knocking up women, what I really meant was he was selfish with his time/money and really bad at football. I'm glad you read my mind and called out my super secret hidden agenda.

No, I thought I'd balance out this ridiculous, random, off-topic attack on Peterson's character with some of the good he's done. I'm not even sure how we got so far off topic. And I shouldn't get so much credit. It wasn't all that secret.

Reignman wrote:But anyway, did it hurt? When you pulled that straw man argument out of your back side? So lets see, start off with a straw man ... check. Write a long post that only addresses said straw man ... check. Throw in a red herring by listing a whole bunch of positive things that have nothing to do with the fact that Adrian Peterson is a man whore thereby making said man whoring seem more tolerable ... check.

That's rich! Somehow we got on the topic of Peterson's $12 million paycheck and you pulled "he sure has knocked up a lot of women across the country" out of your own. So instead of debating that point, you divert the topic even further? Well done!

I fail to see anywhere in your argument where you actually addressed the only point I made, which was AD has knocked up a whole lot of women.

This is a point? To what topic? Sure, I guess you got me. Adrian Peterson has allegedly knocked up a whole lot of women. I still fail to see how this is at all relevant. If it's to prove that he's not a good guy and hasn't accomplished anything (or has "accomplishments" that are less-than-noble), then the argument is about the character of Adrian Peterson. If that's the case, me bringing up his philanthropic work is relevant.

There we are ... ummm yeah, that means about as much to me as the phrase, "he's making a list and checking it twice". Call me sane, but I'm just not one of those people who puts a whole lot of stock in imaginary phrases from imaginary entities regarding imaginary devices conceived only to control people.

You must explain to me what an imaginary phrase is. I find that concept as hilarious as "imaginary entities." Pretty sure that phrase was written by someone that existed, not some nebulous spectral phantasm. I think I understand what you were getting at (the "word of God" and so on). But regardless, I'm not upset you stated a fact. I'm perplexed why that fact was brought into this topic to begin with. It reeks of "Hurrumph...Adrian Peterson isn't so great. Here's a thing that proves it. So there!"



Might I suggest...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2NUzaQrzCI

But that's beside the point, I never threw a stone anyway, just stated a fact.

Apparently the two aren't mutually exclusive. Clearly it was a judgement nestled in a fact wrapper.

You mean that imaginary high horse you yourself just put me on?

Nope. The one you clearly were atop when I found you, silly!

And when you say easy to judge, do you really mean easy to state facts? Then yes, it is quite easy. Fact: Adrian Peterson has knocked up a lot of women.

Again, if we're debating his character (which we clearly are), the points about his philanthropic work are relevant and, hey, your favorite things...facts! You should love them.

I'm not the one out there making sure a bunch of children grow up without a father.

No, and that's really irresponsible. But you're also probably not donating millions of dollars to charity, establishing funds, handing out hearing aides, volunteering for causes and the like. Of course, maybe you do. If so, great!

I mean isn't that one of the big arguments all these anti marriage equality wind bags like to spew forth? Children need a mother AND a father. Oh except when big football stars want to create a lot of single mothers by making them pump out a lot of bastard children. I guess according to christian logic that's somehow not as important of an issue as a child growing up with 2 loving mothers or 2 loving fathers. But yeah, I guess I missed where Jesus said, oh unless you're a big football star, then do as you please. Oh wait, here it is, Genesis 1:1 ... And the lord said, if you're a big football star, none of this BS applies to you, just remember to point to the sky and give me thanks when you score a TD, and all is good, amen.

Wow. You really don't like Adrian Peterson, do you? But are we somehow getting back on topic? I'm starting to get all tingly in my panties!

Silly you, your panties weren't twisted, you were just wearing a thong.

Another classy move by a classy organization.

let's keep distractions around. that's the ticket!

Demi wrote:Another classy move by a classy organization.

let's keep distractions around. that's the ticket!

The very reason they're being targeted by Kluwe is because they got rid of a distraction. Kudos to the Vikings for keeping Mike Priefer. I don't even give a damn whether or not Priefer is a good coach. Just as a matter of principle.

Ok so keeping one distraction now after getting rid of one before is good policy because of...principle.

Here's an idea. Get rid of both of them. Why should we put up with any of either of their crap.

How's that for principle?

Demi wrote:Ok so keeping one distraction now after getting rid of one before is good policy because of...principle.

Here's an idea. Get rid of both of them. Why should we put up with any of either of their crap.

How's that for principle?

That's not what a "classy organization" (your words) would do. No matter. You have no clue what you want.

Demi wrote:Ok so keeping one distraction now after getting rid of one before is good policy because of...principle.

Here's an idea. Get rid of both of them. Why should we put up with any of either of their crap.

How's that for principle?

Makes sense!

It doesn't make sense to use the "distraction" nonsense for Kluwe, and, now, ignore that with Priefer. He definitely is a "distraction", and in much more of a negative way than Kluwe was.

I'm actually surprised dude got to stick around. It seemed like the perfect time to get rid of him. No one would have questioned it, but I think keeping him allows for more questioning, especially if this fight from Kluwe continues.

Forget all this, can't we fire him for getting burned by a fake field goal shortly after a fake punt? How stupid can you be? And how about our coverage units? He's not that great. As some said with Kluwe, "He's not good enough to keep around; we shouldn't have to deal with his "distractions" on top of his average performance. Let him go!" Give me Harvin and Patterson, I could appear decent, too. We all could.

F****** hilarious that Mike Priefer is being labeled a distraction over something that he PROBABLY didn't even say. Despite all of these stories, we have heard little from Priefer. But what we do hear is constant blabber from Kluwe and his attorneys. I'm happy that we kept Priefer, f*** Kluwe and his attorneys. He's just salty because his garbage #### isn't on the team anymore. I'm 100% on Priefer's side and I hope he stays here for a long time. To hell with Kluwe and his allegations.

King James wrote:I'm 100% on Priefer's side...

Clearly.

Eli wrote: That's not what a "classy organization" (your words) would do. No matter. You have no clue what you want.

That's EXACTLY what a classy organization would do. No clue what I want? I want the nonsense to stop. And that means getting rid of the source of that nonsense. Let an ex-viking sue an ex-viking. Why is this so hard to understand? Neither of these clowns is good enough to warrant keeping around with the extra baggage they have.

Funkytown wrote:Makes sense!

It doesn't make sense to use the "distraction" nonsense for Kluwe, and, now, ignore that with Priefer. He definitely is a "distraction", and in much more of a negative way than Kluwe was.

I'm actually surprised dude got to stick around. It seemed like the perfect time to get rid of him. No one would have questioned it, but I think keeping him allows for more questioning, especially if this fight from Kluwe continues.

Forget all this, can't we fire him for getting burned by a fake field goal shortly after a fake punt? How stupid can you be? And how about our coverage units? He's not that great. As some said with Kluwe, "He's not good enough to keep around; we shouldn't have to deal with his "distractions" on top of his average performance. Let him go!" Give me Harvin and Patterson, I could appear decent, too. We all could.

I actually think Priefer has done a great job with our special teams units. They have improved greatly since he became special teams coach. The rest of the NFL seems to think so as well:

Was named the 2012 Special Teams Coach of the Year as voted on by his NFL counterparts. As a unit, the Vikings committed the fewest turnovers (0), made the most FGs (35) and allowed the fewest points (0) in the NFL on special teams.

http://www.vikings.com/team/coaches/mik ... 57e0c3e853

Maybe you think that's all due to the players he's had. I believe players and coaches together make up solid units, whether it is offense, defense, or special teams. To each his own, I guess. I respect your opinion, but me personally? I think highly of Mike Priefer as a coach.

Where is this "Priefer is not a good enough coach" coming from? Before these allegation many fans saw him as one of the best if not the best assistant coach on the team. Many said he would be the one coach to get a HC job next. Now all of a sudden he's a distraction and not good enough to keep?

What drugs are you guys taking? I want some.

Demi wrote:That's EXACTLY what a classy organization would do. No clue what I want? I want the nonsense to stop. And that means getting rid of the source of that nonsense. Let an ex-viking sue an ex-viking. Why is this so hard to understand? Neither of these clowns is good enough to warrant keeping around with the extra baggage they have.

The thing I find interesting is that everyone seems to have concluded that Priefer is engineering this distraction train. What if Kluwe's accusations aren't true? Not saying they aren't true, they very well could be. But if they are not, is Priefer really at fault here?

Hypothetical -

What if Ponder comes out this summer in the media, butt-hurt because he's saying Zimmer yelled at him during OTA's and said some insensitive comments to him (allegedly). Let's say Ponder just got cut and he is really salty about it. Are you going to call for Zimmer to be fired? Is Zimmer a distraction if this happens? What if we don't know if it's true or not? Does that change your perspective of Zim as a "distraction" in this case? What if it's Robert Blanton, not Ponder? Or instead of Zimmer, it's George Edwards? Still a distraction? Would you wait until you knew all the facts before passing judgement on ANY of the involved parties? Or just the player? Or just the coach if the player was one you liked? Or maybe both, if you didn't particularly care for either of them? Just curious.

The thing I find interesting is that everyone seems to have concluded that Priefer is engineering this distraction train.

I don't care WHO the engineer is. Why should we put up with it now that it is a distraction?

Hypothetical

Comparing a special teams coach with one year left on his deal who's done a solid but unspectacular job to a recently hired head coach? Whose comments apparently wouldn't even be enough to warrant a slap on the wrist, much less a team wide investigation?...
There isn't a possible hypothetical because this wouldn't happen with 99% of coaches, 99% of players, and 99% of teams. But it's happened here. And instead of nipping it in the bud and trying to end it. They decide to keep him on and continue this garbage longer than they needed to!