SPAIN: Rex Ryan participated in the running of the bulls. No bulls were injured. | Page 3 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

SPAIN: Rex Ryan participated in the running of the bulls. No bulls were injured.

nyjunc said:
oh so you are making up your own definition b/c you have nothing. I got it.
Click to expand...

Making up my own definition. :lol:

dec·ade (dkd, d-kd)
n.
1. A period of ten years.
2. A group or series of ten.
Click to expand...
Definition of DECADE
1
: a group or set of 10: as
a : a period of 10 years
Click to expand...

dec·ade
[dek-eyd; British also duh-keyd]
noun
1.
a period of ten years: the three decades from 1776 to 1806.
2.
a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero: the decade of the 1980s.
3.
a group, set, or series of ten.
Click to expand...

A decade is a period of 10 years. A decade doesn't have to start at 1970 or 1980 unless I specified the decade of the 70's or 80's. The Jets didn't win a playoff game from 1969 through 1981. That is over a decade. The Jets didn't win a playoff game from 1986 through 1997. That is also over a decade. The Jets have gone more than 10 consecutive years without winning a playoff game TWICE in franchise history. Sorry the facts bother you. :D
 
And how many times to I have to explain why there was zero chance you could win game 15 against the Indy starters considering their scrubs didnt even worse the next week against Buffalo, their starters beat 4 of the teams the 09 pretenders lost to, the starters outscored the jest 45-27 including 24-zero to close out the game that counted most? Does your homerism really blind you that severely?

Oh yeah, it was so important to the 09 Falcons, who didn't beat a legitimate winning team that whole season - only losers like your pretenders, but the 2 times we closed out any hopes of the jest having a postseason, pride didn't matter cuz they were for you a convenient dead team walking.


 
The New Guy said:
Making up my own definition. :lol:






A decade is a period of 10 years. A decade doesn't have to start at 1970 or 1980 unless I specified the decade of the 70's or 80's. The Jets didn't win a playoff game from 1969 through 1981. That is over a decade. The Jets didn't win a playoff game from 1986 through 1997. That is also over a decade. The Jets have gone more than 10 consecutive years without winning a playoff game TWICE in franchise history. Sorry the facts bother you. :D
Click to expand...

when discussing decades in sports we don't start w/ any arbitrary year. the 60s are from 1960-1969, 70s 1970-79 and so on. The Jets have gone ONE decade w/o a playoff app or playoff win.
 
nyjunc said:
when discussing decades in sports we don't start w/ any arbitrary year. the 60s are from 1960-1969, 70s 1970-79 and so on. The Jets have gone ONE decade w/o a playoff app or playoff win.
Click to expand...

I didn't specify a particular decade. If I said the decade of the 60's or 70's, you would be correct. In this case, you are incorrect. The Jets have gone more than 10 years (A decade) without winning a playoff game on two separate occasions in franchise history. If it makes you feel better that only one of those decades covered the 70's, I'm happy for you. It doesn't change the facts.
 
The New Guy said:
I didn't specify a particular decade. If I said the decade of the 60's or 70's, you would be correct. In this case, you are incorrect. The Jets have gone more than 10 years (A decade) without winning a playoff game on two separate occasions in franchise history. If it makes you feel better that only one of those decades covered the 70's, I'm happy for you. It doesn't change the facts.
Click to expand...

if it makes you feel better to try to deceive go ahead. many are dumb enough to fall for it, I am sure it will be a sig line for certain posters soon.
 
nyjunc said:
if it makes you feel better to try to deceive go ahead. many are dumb enough to fall for it, I am sure it will be a sig line for certain posters soon.
Click to expand...

:lol: There is no deceiving going on here. Just stating the facts. I suggest you study the definition of the word before making yourself look even more foolish. :up:
 
The New Guy said:
:lol: There is no deceiving going on here. Just stating the facts. I suggest you study the definition of the word before making yourself look even more foolish. :up:
Click to expand...

I like you, you are a good poster.
 
No, seriously. You get it- more than 95% of the folks on any of these boards.
 
nyjunc said:
No, seriously. You get it- more than 95% of the folks on any of these boards.
Click to expand...

:lol: Did I say you were looking foolish before? I take it back. Your arguments have become much more compelling. :chuckle:

I like you too Junc! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom