META: What kind of things should we be talking about on here?

[Dolfanalyst]

Jesus dude, let it go.

I type 90 words a minute.  Throwing a quick post onto an internet forum is hardly indicative for me of "not letting it go."

[Dolfanalyst]

It isn't tyranny to move a negative post to the anti section. It isn't a punishment, it isn't a power move. It is placing a negative thought into the appropriate area.

I suspect that if you continue to move any and all negative thoughts into a different forum, your entire site will grind to a very silent halt in not too long a period of time.  Watch.

[Run Ricky Run]

Dolphins discussion. "Tackle issues with the phins".

Anti fina-don't like dolphins post here

It's clear that dolfanylst liked the dolphins. Why would he post here. Change the forum definitions if you want your dolphin circle jerk in the main forum.

[Tenshot13]

I type 90 words a minute.  Throwing a quick post onto an internet forum is hardly indicative for me of "not letting it go."

Better to have magic fingers than quick ones M I RITE!?

[Dolfanalyst]

Dolphins discussion. "Tackle issues with the phone".

Anti fina-don't like dolphins post here

It's clear that dolfanylst liked the dolphins. Why would he post here. Change the forum definitions if you want your dolphin circle jerk in the main forum.

I'll put my history of backing the team up against anyone's here.  There are probably few people on the planet who do as in-depth an investigation of the team's functioning.

[Spider-Dan]

Your primary MO since joining this site has been to attack Tannehill, and you've been banned from several other sites for doing so.  Let's not pretend that the agenda is opaque.

[Dolfanalyst]

Your primary MO since joining this site has been to attack Tannehill, and you've been banned from several other sites for doing so.  Let's not pretend that the agenda is opaque.

If you care to check in a balanced manner and not cherry-pick, you'll find that I call it like it is, and provide a balanced appraisal of Tannehill, saying exactly when he performs well, and exactly when he performs poorly.

Here's a great example of the former:  http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=24471.0

So, when someone who behaves in that manner has his posts moved and is repeatedly personally attacked in a manner similar to how you have here (i.e., the quote above), obviously the agenda lies with the people doing the attacking and the moving of posts, who apparently need for there to never be anything negative said about Tannehill!

Do you honestly believe that on fan sites devoted to the Dolphins, where people would like to remain hopeful about the team's chances of success, there won't be a bias in favor of the quarterback the fans' hopes are riding on, largely?

Such a bias constitutes an "agenda" in itself when it results in the differential treatment of some members of a forum.

[Spider-Dan]

The problem is not in criticism of Tannehill.  Many posters here have done so.

The problem is that immediately after joining the site, you have consistently twisted stat after stat into a criticism of Tannehill in nearly every thread, and that you are doing this after being banned for the exact same thing elsewhere.  Another poster (say, Run Ricky Run) might get the benefit of the doubt, but the mods were warned (by posters from other sites) that you would do exactly this thing when you signed up, and you have followed your usual script to a T since joining.

[Dolfanalyst]

The problem is not in criticism of Tannehill.  Many posters here have done so.

The problem is that immediately after joining the site, you have consistently twisted stat after stat into a criticism of Tannehill in nearly every thread, and that you are doing this after being banned for the exact same thing elsewhere.  Another poster (say, Run Ricky Run) might get the benefit of the doubt, but the mods were warned (by posters from other sites) that you would do exactly this thing when you signed up, and you have followed your usual script to a T since joining.

My usual script to a T is to say when Tannehill plays well, and say when he plays poorly.

Now, years ago, he played predominantly poorly, and so there were comparatively fewer opportunities to say when he played well.

How do you think that went over when fans desperately wanted to remain hopeful in the first, first-round draft pick since Dan Marino?

Click on the thread I linked in my post just above this one.  Please, tell me how I "twisted" (your word) the statistics in that original post to be a criticism of Tannehill.

If you can't do that, and you persist in your viewpoint above, then you have the agenda here, not me.

[Spider-Dan]

If you want to make posts criticizing Gase, or Landry, or Wake, I'm sure you'll find a more open-minded audience.  But your continued bashing of Tannehill is clearly based on an agenda that you have expressed repeatedly before joining this site.  It is more appropriately located in Anti-Fins Chat, so as not to bog down actual discussion with an opinion with roughly the same level of predetermined bias as "the dolphins suck and always will!"

[Dolfanalyst]

If you want to make posts criticizing Gase, or Landry, or Wake, I'm sure you'll find a more open-minded audience.  But your continued bashing of Tannehill is clearly based on an agenda that you have expressed repeatedly before joining this site.  It is more appropriately located in Anti-Fins Chat, so as not to bog down actual discussion with an opinion with roughly the same level of predetermined bias as "the dolphins suck and always will!"

Like I said, if you can't do that (and you didn't), and you persist in your viewpoint (and you did), then you have the agenda here, not me.

I'm surprised you made that so easy to ascertain!

[Run Ricky Run]

No people are pretty convinced Landry is good even though he isn't. He's great in ppr leagues. Not so good in actual football.

[pondwater]

Do any of you have ideas for how to spruce this section us?

No need, you just did it Dave. This thread is epically fucking glorious, bwahaha

[Baba Booey]

The problem is not in criticism of Tannehill.  Many posters here have done so.

The problem is that immediately after joining the site, you have consistently twisted stat after stat into a criticism of Tannehill in nearly every thread, and that you are doing this after being banned for the exact same thing elsewhere.  Another poster (say, Run Ricky Run) might get the benefit of the doubt, but the mods were warned (by posters from other sites) that you would do exactly this thing when you signed up, and you have followed your usual script to a T since joining.

My lord this guy has a history of acting this way on other sites who have banned him? LOL. And he has brought his act over here to continue it?  I am shocked at the amount of free time people have in their every day lives I really am.

[Dolfanalyst]

My lord this guy has a history of acting this way on other sites who have banned him? LOL. And he has brought his act over here to continue it?  I am shocked at the amount of free time people have in their every day lives I really am.

What's ironic about this statement is that "acting this way," when applied to me, involves not a single post in which I've ever been disrespectful or attacking of another individual here, over the course of nearly a thousand posts.

What exactly are your all's priorities here?  Frequently divergent viewpoints offered in a respectful manner, or widespread agreement with frequent personal attacks such as these above?