RE: RE:The Packers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk



Message

djskillz -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 2:24:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske

DJ............ I understand what your saying but don't know if I can concure 100%.  I don't think we can fault the champion of a league because the rest of the league may be sub par.  Not really fair to that champion IMO.  The 1985 (?) Detroit Tigers came out the gate absolutly smokin hot and went 35-5 in their 1st 40 games.  They dominated that season.  I can't see that just because Detroit assembled an absolute dominating team that they should be chastised saying the rest of baseball had a bad year.

I will say this much though.....Sports like anything has evolved over the years.  To compare Bob Cousey with Kobe Bryant is foolish. The era's are completley different and since the time of Cousey the NBA is completely differnt.  Players are bigger and faster and more athletic.  Thats not Cousey's fault and I don't think he should be pealized for it.  The same can be said for football.  Players today would crush teams of the 50's and 60's based on size and athletic abilty alone.  The Miami Dolphins from this year would give the Packers a run for their money in SB 1 & 2.  Okay, maybe not the Dolphins...but you get the idea.

I just think we should keep era's out of the debate.  Champions are champions no matter what.  Era and player talent shouldn't be ridiculed IMO.


Actually, I think this years' Dolphins would crush those Packer teams.  I really do.  Heck, LSU would probably crush them. 

I totally get what you're saying though.  And I agree.  As I said, I would never throw those titles out. 

I'm simply saying that to compare those titles to titles now is a bit much.  Just a HUGE disparity to me.  And again, this isn't a Packers thing.  It's a sports thing in general for me.  I'm a Michigan fan, but those 50's and earlier titles don't do a whole lot for me.  Nor do the Minneapolis Laker titles.  Etc, etc.  

It's one thing to tout something from recent history about a team, but going back before a lot of our lifetimes' just doesn't get me going I guess.  And that's not meant against you, "Lane".  Just a general feeling in sports for me personally.



MarkWren -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 9:01:47 AM)

Someday, you'll figure differently. In about 15-20 years some punk on a keyboard will be posting about how lame and small LT was, or about how primitive the graphics look on video footage of the 2008 Super Bowl...how the 2030 Southern Methodist Big 16 Champ would clobber the Indianapolis Colts of 2007...how fat and slow Shaquille O'Neal was.

When Lane asked your age, my first instinct was "he's gotta be between 20 and 30". Yep.

It's gonna suck for you to grow older, with as little heed as you seem to pay to those who've gone before you. It'll come around, ya know.   [image]http://talkvikes.gorge.net/image/s4.gif[/image]



thebigo -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 10:17:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lane Meyer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lane Meyer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danimal

stone age titles in the 50's dont count for squat



It was actually 5 titles in 7 years during the '60's...and, yes they do count.

If you are going to post insults, factually incorrect posts diminish credibility.


Geez Ed, maybe you're being just a tad overwrought? 

What kind of accountability are you looking for from Packer fans? What does that refer to?

You hate the Packers and their fans, and that's fine by me. Wake up every morning and take a good long swig from that cup. It will do you about as much good as complaining about "fan accountablility" or believing that Packer fans are just plain horrible folks.

Take a good long look through some of the threads and the amount of unhinged complaining that goes on here. Vike's fans are just better people though, right??

Frankly, I love that you hate the team I cheer for. It's a game and nothing more but when guys like yourself make claims about what terrible fans/people we Packer backers are, you've lost perspective.  Go ahead and despise us, although you may be just a little biased yourself as well.  While you're busying yourself hating the Pack, be sure to watch them in the playoffs.

Again, what are we Packer fans supposed to be held accountable for?



See Lane, you speak of what you truly do not know.  Don't pretend to understand me.  I grew up most of my life in Wisconsin.  I lived less than a mile from Milwaukee County Stadium and I used to watch the Packers play on Channel 4 WTMJ with my grandfather every Sunday.  I probably know just as much about the 70's and 80's version of the Packers as most Packer fans......My grandfather though and some of the guys he used to have over to the house were the ones who taugh me the intricasies of the game.  I liked the Packers and even cheered for them whenever they wern't playing the Vikings.  I have even gone out of my way to "back" Bett Favre on these threads (Just ask the likes of Lynn and JC) Its only now that I have grown to dislike the Packers with the passion that I have and I attribute this to their fan base.   Packer fans are the self proclaimed "best fans in the NFL" yet they choose to only be accountable for themselves and their team when it suits them.  Packer fans are arrogant and spiteful.  I have attempted on many occasions to hold civil conversations with them only to be blasted because my opinions differ in some areas.  Best fans in the NFL shouldn't have to throw their legacy in the faces of fans of other teams......Lest you forget my good friend from Wisconsin, this is a Vikings board and you should take that into account when you post here.  Spew your opinions...its free, but you can't possibly think that you being in the minority here on these boards are going to win over any fans.  We can be friendly...hell we'd probably be friends.....but when it comes to Vikes and Packers, there is no common ground.


Ed,

What have I posted that is untoward or otherwise in bad taste? I've been chastised simply for being a Packer fan on, gasp, another team's forum.

Yes, it's a Viking's board, but it's titled "The Packers".  And apparently, you really do hate everything Packer, cool. I've posted with integrity and respect, however, and if that is spewing, fine.

Is this just a place to trash the Packers or is it a open forum?


Agian...Arrogance....like we should bow down because of your presence.......Oh almighty Packer Backer!  [&o]


Ed what's with the animosity? I've found Lane's post's to be pretty reasoned and not rube like at all. Probably more reasoned and less rube like than plenty of the "respected" Viking backers on these boards.



David Moufang -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 11:31:08 AM)

To me, the game that matters the most is today's.  Coaches and players try to acheive greatness each season.  Resting on the laurels of what happened 40 years ago doesn't get you a win today.  I'm glad the Packers won the 1997 Super Bowl (their only title in my lifetime), but it doesn't mean they'll ever win another.  I want them to go and win the SB this season; it'll prove to the world that they're a great team.  Then I want them to do it again next year.

However, the accomplishments of those 60s and 90s teams give rise to the team's rich history and tradition, something the Vikings (and most teams) will NEVER have.  Giant figures like Lombardi and Starr, plus legendary games like the Ice Bowl (whose 40th anniversary was a couple weeks ago) are part of football lore and American culture in general.

There is something to be said for that.



Lane Meyer -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 12:12:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske

Ed,

What have I posted that is untoward or otherwise in bad taste? I've been chastised simply for being a Packer fan on, gasp, another team's forum.

Yes, it's a Viking's board, but it's titled "The Packers".  And apparently, you really do hate everything Packer, cool. I've posted with integrity and respect, however, and if that is spewing, fine.

Is this just a place to trash the Packers or is it a open forum?



In the opinions of most, I would say that anything posted positively about the Packers is in bad taste. 

As far as me hating the Packers?  Again, all you have to do is go to your own forums (X4 Specifically) and see the arrogance and why some people do not appreciate Packer fans. 

You have been chastised here because you are a Packer fan.  Your opinions go against everything Viking.....I ask you this...Do you expect anything else???  The Packers are the Vikings biggest rivalry.....there will bevery little sympathy here for you by anyone.

Lane, your absolutly correct about this being a Packer "Thread" on a Viking board.  For you Packer fans who come here who choose to talk Packers thats fine....I have no problem with it.  I do however think that you should expect that you will get quite a bit of negativity thrown back in your direction.

Its very likely you will be acceppted here...Craig has been as he's pretty much a regular.  In time Im sure you will also be accepted to that level but that sure doesn't mean that the trend of negativity stops coming your way.  I respect Craig....that doesn't mean I agree with much he posts on here.

I'll give you this much......The Packers are a better team this year....it's a given.  Im getting up to watch the games in the morning.....my allegiance however is far from hoping they win. 


If any positive Packer post on a board titled "the Packers" is considered in bad taste, why have a Packer board at all? Just call it the Packer Fan Hatred Forum and be done with it. If not, one might think that posting in support of the Packers is acceptable and not in bad taste or offensive to the forum community here.

As far as you having no problem with Packer fans being here, you've stated that anything positive about the Pack is in bad taste and that you hate or despise Packer fans, and feel they arent' "accountable".( I still have no idea what they are supposed to be accountable for, however. I'm also not familiar with X4 Packer forum and I'm not affiliated.)

It is rather apparent that you DO have a problem with Packer fans, whether they post here or not. Whether they post and act respectfully or not. Negativity is one thing, but you've called me arrogant and pretty much insinuated that all Packer fans are terrible folks, all as a result of factual postings on a silly public forum.

I don't need sympathy or empathy from anyone here, I post responsibly and refrain from personal attacks and generalizations about groups of fans. As I've stated, I'm not that sensitive, but when you start making claims like "Packer fans are arrogant and spiteful" it's both myopic and wrong, and deserves to be challenged. (The great parents that took me to games as a kid and taught me to support my team are not arrogant or spiteful people.)
If the challenges that result from posting such insults anger you, I'd say "welcome to the world of public forums". Because I'll challenge insults of that type every time I read them, but I'll, do it with facts and respect. Very much the way my arrogant and spiteful Packer fan parents taught me.






Lane Meyer -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 12:23:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske

DJ............ I understand what your saying but don't know if I can concure 100%.  I don't think we can fault the champion of a league because the rest of the league may be sub par.  Not really fair to that champion IMO.  The 1985 (?) Detroit Tigers came out the gate absolutly smokin hot and went 35-5 in their 1st 40 games.  They dominated that season.  I can't see that just because Detroit assembled an absolute dominating team that they should be chastised saying the rest of baseball had a bad year.

I will say this much though.....Sports like anything has evolved over the years.  To compare Bob Cousey with Kobe Bryant is foolish. The era's are completley different and since the time of Cousey the NBA is completely differnt.  Players are bigger and faster and more athletic.  Thats not Cousey's fault and I don't think he should be pealized for it.  The same can be said for football.  Players today would crush teams of the 50's and 60's based on size and athletic abilty alone.  The Miami Dolphins from this year would give the Packers a run for their money in SB 1 & 2.  Okay, maybe not the Dolphins...but you get the idea.

I just think we should keep era's out of the debate.  Champions are champions no matter what.  Era and player talent shouldn't be ridiculed IMO.


Actually, I think this years' Dolphins would crush those Packer teams.  I really do.  Heck, LSU would probably crush them. 

I totally get what you're saying though.  And I agree.  As I said, I would never throw those titles out. 

I'm simply saying that to compare those titles to titles now is a bit much.  Just a HUGE disparity to me.  And again, this isn't a Packers thing.  It's a sports thing in general for me.  I'm a Michigan fan, but those 50's and earlier titles don't do a whole lot for me.  Nor do the Minneapolis Laker titles.  Etc, etc.  

It's one thing to tout something from recent history about a team, but going back before a lot of our lifetimes' just doesn't get me going I guess.  And that's not meant against you, "Lane".  Just a general feeling in sports for me personally.


djskillz;

I realize that you really do see the issue as you state, and we simply disagree in entirety. I respect your opinion sir.

I asked about your age for much the same reason that Mark Wren stated. I figured you to be under 30 as well. I don't intend it as an indictment of your skills at assessing talent or eras.
I think Mark's post is a fair representation of my view of things. Wisdom does not necessarily come with age, but one's perspective sure changes.

No worries, djskillz. I meant no offense.



thebigo -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 12:32:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Moufang

To me, the game that matters the most is today's.  Coaches and players try to acheive greatness each season.  Resting on the laurels of what happened 40 years ago doesn't get you a win today.  I'm glad the Packers won the 1997 Super Bowl (their only title in my lifetime), but it doesn't mean they'll ever win another.  I want them to go and win the SB this season; it'll prove to the world that they're a great team.  Then I want them to do it again next year.

However, the accomplishments of those 60s and 90s teams give rise to the team's rich history and tradition, something the Vikings (and most teams) will NEVER have.  Giant figures like Lombardi and Starr, plus legendary games like the Ice Bowl (whose 40th anniversary was a couple weeks ago) are part of football lore and American culture in general.

There is something to be said for that.


Best post on the subject.



Duane Sampson -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 1:10:55 PM)

quote:

when it comes to Vikes and Packers, there is no common ground.


Not for all of us. I'm as anti-Bears as it comes and I have Packer fan friends that feel the same way.

quote:

Is this just a place to trash the Packers or is it a open forum?


Both. We blast away at teams and opinions.

quote:

When Lane asked your age, my first instinct was "he's gotta be between 20 and 30". Yep.

It's gonna suck for you to grow older, with as little heed as you seem to pay to those who've gone before you. It'll come around, ya know.


That's just a silly concept. Some of the most knowledgeable fans I've met are in that age group. They're wired to information technology that some of us didn't have access to when we were "lads."

And... nice post, David. Everything counts. I love debate on past era vs. modern sports. It's great because you just can't prove your opinion with the ultimate fact - head to head. [;)]



djskillz -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 1:23:06 PM)

Lane/Mark, actually, I already think that way about "my" teams.  My favorite sports teams of all-time are the 80's Lakers and the '87/'91 Twins.  And I think today's Twins teams would kill them. 

The same wouldn't be true of the Lakers because they were super deep in HOF's (and I'd say the same for the C's), but the league as a whole, yes, players from today would kills those.

This really isn't about age at all.  And while I don't "know" how I'll feel in 20 years, I'd really be shocked if I don't feel the same that I do now on that subject.  It's science.  Bart Starr might not make the league today.  As I said, Bob Cousy would  be fighting for a roster spot.  Half of the Vikes' purple people eater defense would be backups, if that.

I would say the one exception to this would be college basketball teams.  But that's only because the game has been greatly effected in a negative way.  Older teams (at least teams from 20 years ago or so) would kill teams today, but not because of a talent disparity, but because they were real teams that had played together for 2-3-4 years.  Today, the best players leave after 1.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 1:45:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske

DJ............ I understand what your saying but don't know if I can concure 100%.  I don't think we can fault the champion of a league because the rest of the league may be sub par.  Not really fair to that champion IMO.  The 1985 (?) Detroit Tigers came out the gate absolutly smokin hot and went 35-5 in their 1st 40 games.  They dominated that season.  I can't see that just because Detroit assembled an absolute dominating team that they should be chastised saying the rest of baseball had a bad year.

I will say this much though.....Sports like anything has evolved over the years.  To compare Bob Cousey with Kobe Bryant is foolish. The era's are completley different and since the time of Cousey the NBA is completely differnt.  Players are bigger and faster and more athletic.  Thats not Cousey's fault and I don't think he should be pealized for it.  The same can be said for football.  Players today would crush teams of the 50's and 60's based on size and athletic abilty alone.  The Miami Dolphins from this year would give the Packers a run for their money in SB 1 & 2.  Okay, maybe not the Dolphins...but you get the idea.

I just think we should keep era's out of the debate.  Champions are champions no matter what.  Era and player talent shouldn't be ridiculed IMO.

Excellent post Ed.



Lane Meyer -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 2:08:25 PM)

I understand your point djskillz, I just don't agree. I think I've worked the point over enough for today, however. PLease don't take my asking how old you are, or my perspective with regard to the same, as a lack of respect for your position on the subject or your knowledge.

The availability of games via the  Sunday ticket has more to do with dissemination of "football knowledge" than any access the net affords to website "experts" IMHO. I believe most of us can understand what we're seeing, and that is not age specific.


I'd second your post Craig, regarding Ed's point. Well said.



Lane Meyer -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 2:16:08 PM)

This is a off topic, but I was wondering what the significance of the "score" rating under my avatar is. Yesterday I was at 0, today I find myself rated -6.

Why would this be? What are the criteria for these ratings?




djskillz -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 2:32:47 PM)

No worries, man.

Everyone can vote on anyone else's individual posts, and assign them a score for each post of anywhere from -2 to +2.  Apparently someone didn't like your posts.  That's all.  Not a big deal; we really should just scrap the stupid ratings system.



Lane Meyer -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 3:16:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

No worries, man.

Everyone can vote on anyone else's individual posts, and assign them a score for each post of anywhere from -2 to +2.  Apparently someone didn't like your posts.  That's all.  Not a big deal; we really should just scrap the stupid ratings system.


I assumed as much.

I'd apologize, but I'd not know for what, though i'm pretty sure I'd  know to whom. [;)]

It's all good though, and thanks for the info and your willingness to debate reasonably.



djskillz -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 3:26:33 PM)

Definitely man.  Same to you.

I hope I never come across as "knowing" anything.  None of us do as far as I'm concerned.  We all bring different things to the table in these forums and obviously have different opinions.  That's what makes it fun!

Alright, later man.  And good luck to the Packers.  I will have to avoid that game I think as all I could root for in a Seahawks/Packers matchup is injuries or death.  [;)]

"Two Dollars!  I want my Two Dollars!"  [8|]



Lynn G. -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 6:00:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Moufang

However, the accomplishments of those 60s and 90s teams give rise to the team's rich history and tradition, something the Vikings (and most teams) will NEVER have. 


Gotta disagree vehemently with that.  The Vikings have an extremely rich history and tradition.  You may not embrace it, but we've got it.  So far we only have one NFL Championship, but we've got an amazing history, and Viking fans are all about the tradition.



Lynn G. -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 6:07:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lane Meyer

If any positive Packer post on a board titled "the Packers" is considered in bad taste, why have a Packer board at all?



Just to clarify, this isn't a Packer "board."  This is a Viking board, and on this Viking board we have one thread dedicated to discussion about the Packers.  We have one set up for each of the other NFC teams.

I realize this is just semantics, but make it clear that this is NOT a Packer board.

On this Packer thread, I believe the original purpose was never intended to be a place for Packer fans to come and tout their wins after a weekend.  That's what Packer boards are for.   As an example, when I used to participate at a Packer board, I would have been drawn and quartered if I had made HALF of the comments you guys make here.



David Moufang -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 6:39:05 PM)

WOW!  What a game!  42 points!!!!



John Childress -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 6:52:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Moufang

WOW!  What a game!  42 points!!!!


I thought the Packers would win easily.  Seattle doesn't even belong in the playoffs.  They would have been 3rd place in the North and 4th place in the East.

Next week I see them losing a close one in Dallas or winning by 10 at home against the G Men

But Favre also has the ability to lose in a blowout in Dallas if he gets down early



Mondaymorningqb -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 7:14:52 PM)

Let's see how The Pack does in Dallas...Farve will complain about the heat[&:]



Lane Meyer -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 11:11:15 PM)

Coming back after being down 14, dominating play after the first few minutes, scoring 42 points...

I could not have enjoyed this victory more. Way to go, great team win.



Guest -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 11:43:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lane Meyer

If any positive Packer post on a board titled "the Packers" is considered in bad taste, why have a Packer board at all?



Just to clarify, this isn't a Packer "board."  This is a Viking board, and on this Viking board we have one thread dedicated to discussion about the Packers.  We have one set up for each of the other NFC teams.

I realize this is just semantics, but make it clear that this is NOT a Packer board.

On this Packer thread, I believe the original purpose was never intended to be a place for Packer fans to come and tout their wins after a weekend.  That's what Packer boards are for.   As an example, when I used to participate at a Packer board, I would have been drawn and quartered if I had made HALF of the comments you guys make here.


You are absolutly 100% correct Lynn!!!



Guest -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 11:45:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lane Meyer

Coming back after being down 14, dominating play after the first few minutes, scoring 42 points...

I could not have enjoyed this victory more. Way to go, great team win.


[&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o]



Guest -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 11:47:21 PM)

So we have a Packer Thread and somehow people are surprised that Packer fans are going to post on it?
Toughen up.

I HATE the Packers and if it were up to me I wouldn't have a Packer Thread, but since we do, live with the results. 



Guest -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/12/2008 11:48:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lane Meyer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lane Meyer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danimal

stone age titles in the 50's dont count for squat



It was actually 5 titles in 7 years during the '60's...and, yes they do count.

If you are going to post insults, factually incorrect posts diminish credibility.


Geez Ed, maybe you're being just a tad overwrought? 

What kind of accountability are you looking for from Packer fans? What does that refer to?

You hate the Packers and their fans, and that's fine by me. Wake up every morning and take a good long swig from that cup. It will do you about as much good as complaining about "fan accountablility" or believing that Packer fans are just plain horrible folks.

Take a good long look through some of the threads and the amount of unhinged complaining that goes on here. Vike's fans are just better people though, right??

Frankly, I love that you hate the team I cheer for. It's a game and nothing more but when guys like yourself make claims about what terrible fans/people we Packer backers are, you've lost perspective.  Go ahead and despise us, although you may be just a little biased yourself as well.  While you're busying yourself hating the Pack, be sure to watch them in the playoffs.

Again, what are we Packer fans supposed to be held accountable for?



See Lane, you speak of what you truly do not know.  Don't pretend to understand me.  I grew up most of my life in Wisconsin.  I lived less than a mile from Milwaukee County Stadium and I used to watch the Packers play on Channel 4 WTMJ with my grandfather every Sunday.  I probably know just as much about the 70's and 80's version of the Packers as most Packer fans......My grandfather though and some of the guys he used to have over to the house were the ones who taugh me the intricasies of the game.  I liked the Packers and even cheered for them whenever they wern't playing the Vikings.  I have even gone out of my way to "back" Bett Favre on these threads (Just ask the likes of Lynn and JC) Its only now that I have grown to dislike the Packers with the passion that I have and I attribute this to their fan base.   Packer fans are the self proclaimed "best fans in the NFL" yet they choose to only be accountable for themselves and their team when it suits them.  Packer fans are arrogant and spiteful.  I have attempted on many occasions to hold civil conversations with them only to be blasted because my opinions differ in some areas.  Best fans in the NFL shouldn't have to throw their legacy in the faces of fans of other teams......Lest you forget my good friend from Wisconsin, this is a Vikings board and you should take that into account when you post here.  Spew your opinions...its free, but you can't possibly think that you being in the minority here on these boards are going to win over any fans.  We can be friendly...hell we'd probably be friends.....but when it comes to Vikes and Packers, there is no common ground.


Ed,

What have I posted that is untoward or otherwise in bad taste? I've been chastised simply for being a Packer fan on, gasp, another team's forum.

Yes, it's a Viking's board, but it's titled "The Packers".  And apparently, you really do hate everything Packer, cool. I've posted with integrity and respect, however, and if that is spewing, fine.

Is this just a place to trash the Packers or is it a open forum?


Agian...Arrogance....like we should bow down because of your presence.......Oh almighty Packer Backer!  [&o]


Ed what's with the animosity? I've found Lane's post's to be pretty reasoned and not rube like at all. Probably more reasoned and less rube like than plenty of the "respected" Viking backers on these boards.


I have no problems with Lane personally......He can however take his Packer fandom to a Packer board IMO.  I don't need to hear from Packer fans how great a team win was today.....Its just these kinds of posts that irritate me.....again, its nothing personal.....I liken my feelings to what Lynn posted above.....



Page: <<   < prev  36 37 [38] 39 40   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode