Pittsburgh Steelers Football Team News
alt.sports.football.pro.pitt-steelers description here...
-
the season is at hand... time to make predictions
altanta - the defense refuses to allow a home crowd to be disappointed - W
@ titians - dixon makes a few mistakes and the titties take advantage - L
@ tampa - good young team, not ready for the STEELERS - W
Brafhens - on the way to the superbowl Jose Flaccid gets pounded by Harrison and
company - W
we are 3 and 1 at the break and everybody is loving life...
Ben's back and he's in shape
Brownies - revenge for last season - W
@fins - running game falls apart everyone is looking ahead to the saints -L
@ NewOrleans - prime time game and Ben has something to prove - W
5-2
@bungles - TO has turned the locker room into a disaster zone another prime-time
game - W
pattycakes - brady is hot but it is another primetime game - 3 in a row wow - W
Raiders - they must pay for last year, only we forget to show up - L
7-3
@Bills - easy win - W
@Baltimore - goes to overtime and the rafhens pull it out - L
bungles - TO has been benched and the bungles have established a solid running
game - L
Jets - Jets only need one win out of last three games to secure home field
through playoffs - rex is looking ahead and the stumble - W
9-5
Panthers - we need to win to stay ahead of the brafhens and the resurging
bungles - W
10-5
@cleveland - its cold we're in the playoff one way or another with a win we take
the division if we lose and the brafhens win then we're a wild card - Ben sits
-L
10-6
--
Going for 7
-
On 9/7/2010 9:33 PM, Brian Allen wrote:
>> contacts are not comparable to anabolic steroids.
>
> Would you not agree that they are performance enhancers?
they correct vision.
they don't enhance unnatural muscle growth with
a plethora of ill health effects.
> Gatorade should be illegal also
it's sugar water.
no different than eating an orange at halftime.
> wide receiver gloves?
they're apparel, like socks or jock straps.
>> multiple teams weren't using them.
>> the Squealers overwhelmingly used them.
>
> Simply put, you're wrong.
your declaration is unsupported.
>>> ... football is a sport designed to grind up its players
>>
>> hardly.
>> but if it were, then your following it makes you what?
>
> You're arguing that football isn't a sport inately
> designed to use up and throw out its players?
you have reading comprehension problems.
> So why do big hit videos sell so well? Why do we
> cheer when somebody delivers a bone-crushing hit?
> Why are there so many players in the Hall of Fame
> whose sole purpose was to maim opponents? It's
> a core element of the game.
none of those things were contemplated when the game
originated with Walter Camp and evolved with Eddie
Cochems, Amos Alonzo Stagg, Knute Rockne, and Glenn
Pop Warner.
>> the same as someone who smokes tobacco regularly but
>> doesn't get lung cancer until 30 years later.
>
> That doesn't make sense considering the players didn't
> play for 30 seasons.
you're ignorant.
physicians have known about the resulting ill health
effects of anabolic steroids since at least the 1960's.
>> you're the one asserting 'everyone used them' as
>> justification for the Squealers gaining no competitive
>> advantage from them. the burden of proof is yours.
>
> No, you're asserting that the Steelers over-used to gain
> a competitive advantage, and I disagree. Prove me wrong.
been there, done that.
see the links posted earlier in this thread.
you're in hardcore denial.
the burden of proof that 'everyone' used
steroids remains yours.
>> no go pout some more, you big baby.
>
> Pout? Hell, I relish your replies.
relish is that pickle condiment for hot dogs.
Heinz makes a version of it.
you've got it all over your face and shirt.
get yourself cleaned up.
you've become an embarrassment.
-
On 9/7/2010 9:33 PM, Brian Allen wrote:
>> contacts are not comparable to anabolic steroids.
>
> Would you not agree that they are performance enhancers?
they correct vision.
they don't enhance unnatural muscle growth with
a plethora of ill health effects.
> Gatorade should be illegal also
it's sugar water.
no different than eating an orange at halftime.
> wide receiver gloves?
they're apparel, like socks or jock straps.
>> multiple teams weren't using them.
>> the Squealers overwhelmingly used them.
>
> Simply put, you're wrong.
your declaration is unsupported.
>>> ... football is a sport designed to grind up its players
>>
>> hardly.
>> but if it were, then your following it makes you what?
>
> You're arguing that football isn't a sport inately
> designed to use up and throw out its players?
you have reading comprehension problems.
> So why do big hit videos sell so well? Why do we
> cheer when somebody delivers a bone-crushing hit?
> Why are there so many players in the Hall of Fame
> whose sole purpose was to maim opponents? It's
> a core element of the game.
none of those things were contemplated when the game
originated with Walter Camp and evolved with Eddie
Cochems, Amos Alonzo Stagg, Knute Rockne, and Glenn
Pop Warner.
>> the same as someone who smokes tobacco regularly but
>> doesn't get lung cancer until 30 years later.
>
> That doesn't make sense considering the players didn't
> play for 30 seasons.
you're ignorant.
physicians have known about the resulting ill health
effects of anabolic steroids since at least the 1960's.
>> you're the one asserting 'everyone used them' as
>> justification for the Squealers gaining no competitive
>> advantage from them. the burden of proof is yours.
>
> No, you're asserting that the Steelers over-used to gain
> a competitive advantage, and I disagree. Prove me wrong.
been there, done that.
see the links posted earlier in this thread.
you're in hardcore denial.
the burden of proof that 'everyone' used
steroids remains yours.
>> no go pout some more, you big baby.
>
> Pout? Hell, I relish your replies.
relish is that pickle condiment for hot dogs.
Heinz makes a version of it.
you've got it all over your face and shirt.
get yourself cleaned up.
you've become an embarrassment.
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
-
> contacts are not comparable to anabolic steroids.
Would you not agree that they are performance enhancers? Gatorade should be
illegal also, I figure. And those wide receiver gloves? BLASPHEMY
> multiple teams weren't using them.
> the Squealers overwhelmingly used them.
Simply put, you're wrong.
>> ... football is a sport designed to grind up its players.
>
> hardly.
> but if it were, then your following it makes you what?
You're arguing that football isn't a sport inately designed to use up and
throw out its players? So why do big hit videos sell so well? Why do we
cheer when somebody delivers a bone-crushing hit? Why are there so many
players in the Hall of Fame whose sole purpose was to maim opponents? It's
a core element of the game.
> the same as someone who smokes tobacco regularly but
> doesn't get lung cancer until 30 years later.
That doesn't make sense considering the players didn't play for 30 seasons.
Dumb argument. Par for the course for you.
> you're the one asserting 'everyone used them' as
> justification for the Squealers gaining no competitive
> advantage from them. the burden of proof is yours.
No, you're asserting that the Steelers overrused to gain a competitive
advantage, and I disagree. Prove me wrong.
> no go pout some more, you big baby.
Pout? Hell, I relish your replies. You're the best unintentional comedy on
this NG!
-
On 9/6/2010 7:37 PM, Brian Allen wrote:
> So where do we draw the line?
> Are contact lens against the ethos of true sportsmanship?
contacts are not comparable to anabolic steroids.
> if multiple teams were using them, how was it a
> competitive advantage?
multiple teams weren't using them.
the Squealers overwhelmingly used them.
> Your argument is wrong.
the Squealers were wrong to use steroids.
and you're squarely in denial.
> ... football is a sport designed to grind up its players.
hardly.
but if it were, then your following it makes you what?
> So why didn't players start dying of steroid-related
> illnesses until the early 80's?
the same as someone who smokes tobacco regularly but
doesn't get lung cancer until 30 years later.
> ...you're admitting that other teams were using steroids
> at the time, and I named players that fit the argument.
i never admitted 'other teams.'
and you never named any players other than Alzado.
> I have no burden of proof here.
you do.
you're the one asserting 'everyone used them' as
justification for the Squealers gaining no competitive
advantage from them.
> Prove that they used more than any other NFL team.
revisit the links i posted earlier in this thread.
> I don't live in Pittspuke.
the ill-gotten trophies enhanced your miserable life,
no matter where you lived.
> You still haven't proven anything.
and no one ever can to a blind enthusiast of a brutal
'sport' like you, someone in denial about price the
Squealers paid for their ill-gotten trophies.
> I could show you a thousand cases of players using
> steroids
you haven't because you can't.
> Pathetic attempt to dodge the question.
you can't deal with the answers and the truth.
> steroids were a common problem around the league
> throughout the 70's.
only the Squealers have seen at least 18 former
players bite the dust since 2000.
deal with it, Bwian.
-
On 9/6/2010 7:37 PM, Brian Allen wrote:
>
> I don't live in Pittspuke.
>
translation:
oh puleaze don't take my trophies away!
i won't feel good about myself!
BBWWWAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
-
On 9/6/2010 7:37 PM, Brian Allen wrote:
> So where do we draw the line?
> Are contact lens against the ethos of true sportsmanship?
contacts are not comparable to anabolic steroids.
> if multiple teams were using them, how was it a
> competitive advantage?
multiple teams weren't using them.
the Squealers overwhelmingly used them.
> Your argument is wrong.
the Squealers were wrong to use steroids.
and you're squarely in denial.
> ... football is a sport designed to grind up its players.
hardly.
but if it were, then your following it makes you what?
> So why didn't players start dying of steroid-related
> illnesses until the early 80's?
the same as someone who smokes tobacco regularly but
doesn't get lung cancer until 30 years later.
> ...you're admitting that other teams were using steroids
> at the time, and I named players that fit the argument.
i never admitted 'other teams.'
and you never named any players other than Alzado.
> I have no burden of proof here.
you're the one asserting 'everyone used them' as
justification for the Squealers gaining no competitive
advantage from them. the burden of proof is yours.
again, it's 'no cite - no proof' time for Bwian.
> Prove that they used more than any other NFL team.
revisit the links i posted earlier in this thread.
> I don't live in Pittspuke.
the ill-gotten trophies enhanced your miserable life,
no matter where you lived.
> You still haven't proven anything.
and no one ever can to a blind enthusiast of a brutal
'sport' like you, someone in denial about price the
Squealers paid for their ill-gotten trophies.
> I could show you a thousand cases of players using
> steroids
you haven't because you can't.
> Pathetic attempt to dodge the question.
you can't deal with the answers or the truth.
> steroids were a common problem around the league
> throughout the 70's.
only the Squealers have seen at least 18 former
players bite the dust since 2000.
no go pout some more, you big baby.
-
> and you're very ignorant and amoral, Bwian, very unlike the
> pseudo-intellectual beacon of justice you'd like to project
> in this ng.
>
> anabolic steroids have been around since the late 1930's
> and their ill health effects were known by the 1970's.
>
> their use runs counter to the ethos of true sportsmanship
> and fair play.
So where do we draw the line? Are contact lens against the ethos of true
sportsmanship? Again, if multiple teams were using them, how was it a
competitive advantage? Also, people weren't developing cancers and dropping
dead of heart attacks by using steroids until the early 80's, so your
agument is bunk.
> and okay with you, because it allowed you to enhance
> your otherwise miserable life.
Nice strawman. Your argument was that the Steelers "cheated" to get their 4
Super Bowls by using steroids to give themselves a competitive advantage.
Your argument is wrong. So now you're arguing that we should feel bad for
those successes because it harmed players. If so, you must also make the
argument that rooting for players in any competitive physical activity is
wrong simply because people get hurt. The fact is that football is a sport
designed to grind up its players. Always has been, always will be. This
generation's players are dealing with concussions. It'll always be
something else. So twenty years from now will you be bitching that the
Steelers won these last Super Bowls because they had less effective helmets?
> the medical ill health effects from anabolic steroids
> have been known since at least the 1960's.
So why didn't players start dying of steroid-related illnesses until the
early 80's? You aren't making sense here. Oh, and why did you jump from
saying the 70's at the beginning of the post to the 60's now? I'll tell you
why: the first statement didn't fit your argument. You're bullshitting and
you aren't even smart enough to hide it!
> the reality is you're an ignoramus and amoral to boot.
You can't even keep your story straight. But yeah, name-calling really
enhances your argument here. What's next, putting a finger in each ear and
yelling, "I can't hear you!"
> the only point you have is the one at the top of your head,
> dunce.
Again, you're admitting that other teams were using steroids at the time,
and I named players that fit the argument. Just because the truth pisses
you off doesn't mean it isn't true.
> let me explain it to you, moron.
> the Squealers overwhelming used more steroids than any
> other NFL team. it brought them more SB trophies
> than any other NFL team. those SB winnings should
> be disqualified.
Prove that they used more than any other NFL team. Prove that they used
more than the Raiders and Cowboys and Eagles and Redskins. You can't do it
and that is the flaw in your argument. They were a common problem around
the league throughout the 70's and a simple glance around the internet would
show you that.
> no, Bwian.
> that burden of proof is yours.
> you didn't carry it by merely citing the case of Alzado.
I have no burden of proof here. You're the person that is making the
disqualification argument. The burden of proof falls entirely on you. I've
not worried simply because I know you'd rather rant and rave like a lunatic
than find any actual proof of anything.
> who else, Bwian, other than at least 18 Squealers plus
> Alzado, used steroids?
Better get crackin' if you're going to get anywhere with your
disqualification claim! I'll be here waiting.
> because athletic achievement through the use of performance
> enhancers is really no achievement at all. the only thing
> those Squealer SB victories did was give an amoral ignoramus
> like you an opportunity to blow a horn in an otherwise
> meaningless drone's life in pittspuke.
First of all, I don't live in Pittsburgh. You're assuming again. And I
still ask the question that if multiple teams were using steroids throughout
the decade, how can the Steelers be accused of having a competitive
advantage?
> and the other 2 were bought and paid for by Dan Rooney.
> all 6 mean nothing. do i need to elaborate further?
Yes, you do. You still haven't proven anything. You're angry and jealous
and it shows through in every comment you make. Show proof that those two
games were bought. Hell, at the beginning of this thread, you talked about
how Levy's guilt over missed calls "proved" that the Steelers cheated. Why
would he admit to missed calls if he had been bought off? Wouldn't that
defeat the purpose of... you know... buying him off?
> because you can't.
> the Squealers overwhelming used steroids, not only during
> the 1970's, but beyond. their ill-gotten gains (read
> SB trophies) should be disqualified.
I'm not going to do your work for you. The info is out there and I can't be
blamed for your lack of desire to know what's really up. It wouldn't matter
anyways. I could show you a thousand cases of players using steroids and
you would make some other assinine leap of logic. That's what trolls do.
> funny how all those other teams used 'roids, but
> no team other than the squealers has seen 18 former
> players bite the dust since 2000.
All of those teams had players die at young ages. It's the major dirty
secret the ex-players are all fighting right now! Do you live under a rock?
>> I don't know, do they?
>
> we'll see in a few years, Bwian.
Typical troll tactic. "You just wait, man! I'm right and you'll see in a
few years!" Color me unconvinced.
> for you, an enhancer is a pic of those 6 ill-gotten
> SB trophies.
Pathetic attempt to dodge the question. What's new? At the end of the day,
you argue things that don't make sense, and you refuse to accept the fact
that steroids were a common problem around the league throughout the 70's.
Cry more!
-
Discussalt.sports.football.pro.pitt-steelersHelp
Group
Previous
Next
Next New
Forward
Respond
Re: Vindication for XL
Group: alt.sports.football.pro.pitt-steelers
Date: Mon, Sep 6, 2010, 7:46pm (PDT+9)
From: Anne Onime
On 9/6/2010 10:12 AM, sTanky McGoofus wrote:
Anonymous wrote...
3Rivers Writer wrote:
Chuck Noll's comment after Super Bowl XIII, when Tom Landry and the
Cowboys were crying about the officiating:
"You have to play better than the officials officiate".
Says it all.
what Noll really meant was, "you have to use 'roids better than the
officials officiate."
the squealers have seen the last of the NFL's gifts. they're in for a
very long decline.
benji's gonna get stomped when he comes back. and the squealers are
gonna stink.
enjoy, moron.
Sort of like what you said before they won their last two Super Bowls.
< one of those last two SB's was FIXED.
Prove it.
THANKS!
-
On 9/6/2010 1:45 PM, Brian Allen wrote:
>> using the 'everyone did it' argument as justification
>> for wrong doing and the ill-gotten gains from it (read
>> SB trophies) doesn't work, Bwian.
>
> And I disagree. If multiple teams were doing it, and it
> wasn't illegal, how did it give them a competitive
> advantage or break the law?
and you're very ignorant and amoral, Bwian, very unlike the
pseudo-intellectual beacon of justice image you'd like to
project in this ng.
anabolic steroids have been around since the late 1930's
and their ill health effects were known by the 1960's.
their use runs counter to the ethos of true sportsmanship
and fair play.
> The worst thing you can say is that it shortened players
> lives, which is true
and okay with you, because it allowed you to enhance
your otherwise miserable life.
> but the medical knowledge didn't exist at the time
> to make that fact well-known.
the medical ill health effects from anabolic steroids
have been known since at least the 1960's.
> That's not justification, that's reality.
the reality is you're an ignoramus and amoral to boot.
>> you cite one player who didn't play for the Squealers,
>> and he played for the Raiders, a team which made SB
>> appearances during the same period.
>
> Which is my point exactly.
the only point you have is the one at the top of your head,
dunce.
> Are you currently in the Raiders NG trashing their
> championships also? I just made the point that other
> teams were doing it and gave an example, and you're
> agreeing with me! What's your argument?
let me explain it to you, moron.
the Squealers overwhelming used more steroids than any
other NFL team. it brought them more SB trophies
than any other NFL team. those SB winnings should
be disqualified.
>> who else, Bwian?
>
> You can look up multiple players from any team in the
> league at that time that were using steroids.
no, Bwian.
that burden of proof is yours.
you didn't carry it by merely citing the case of Alzado.
> It wasn't a secret then, and it isn't a secret now.
great. then you should have no problems producing
the documentation.
who else, Bwian, other than at least 18 Squealers plus
Alzado, used steroids?
>... you use it as some reason to denigrate
> a team's achievements because...
because athletic achievement through the use of performance
enhancers is really no achievement at all. the only thing
those Squealer SB victories did was give an amoral ignoramus
like you an opportunity to blow a horn in an otherwise
meaningless drone's life in pittspuke.
>> then you go off citing what baseball players.
>> what's that got to do with the legitimacy of the 6
>> trophies?
>
> First of all, the Steelers only won 4 in the 70's steroid
> era...
and the other 2 were bought and paid for by Dan Rooney.
all 6 mean nothing. do i need to elaborate further?
> ... Secondly, I'm not going to cite any more players
> because...
because you can't.
the Squealers overwhelming used steroids, not only during
the 1970's, but beyond. their ill-gotten gains (read
SB trophies) should be disqualified.
> I really don't care.
of course you don't. you masquerade here as someone with
an intellect and morals. you have neither. you're no
better than the morons from the hills round Pittspuke
who still don't get it about Benji's wrongdoing.
> If you want to look some things up and keep trolling,
> be my guest.
Bwian, lemme explain something: you don't own
the Squealer ng. your permission to post here
isn't required.
however... i do own you.
> But I can tell you, you're going to find info on the
> Cowboys, Redskins, Eagles, Raiders, etc...
unfortunately with you, Bwian, it's always no cite,
no proof. just the usenet equivalent of flapping your
jaws in the wind. in other words, you an inflated
gas bag.
funny how all those other teams used 'roids, but
no team other than the Squealers has seen 18
former players bite the dust since 2000.
>> so the Squealers no longer use 'enhancers' today?
>
> I don't know, do they?
we'll see in a few years, Bwian.
> What would you consider an enhancer today?
for you, an enhancer is a pic of those 6 ill-gotten
SB trophies.
here Bwian, go feel big and strong and powerful some more:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09076/956225-460.stm
> I'm still interested in your motive here.
won't help you get out of pubescence.
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
-
On 9/6/2010 1:45 PM, Brian Allen wrote:
>> using the 'everyone did it' argument as justification
>> for wrong doing and the ill-gotten gains from it (read
>> SB trophies) doesn't work, Bwian.
>
> And I disagree. If multiple teams were doing it, and it
> wasn't illegal, how did it give them a competitive
> advantage or break the law?
and you're very ignorant and amoral, Bwian, very unlike the
pseudo-intellectual beacon of justice image you'd like to
project in this ng.
anabolic steroids have been around since the late 1930's
and their ill health effects were known by the 1960's.
their use runs counter to the ethos of true sportsmanship
and fair play.
> The worst thing you can say is that it shortened players
> lives, which is true
and okay with you, because it allowed you to enhance
your otherwise miserable life.
> but the medical knowledge didn't exist at the time
> to make that fact well-known.
the medical ill health effects from anabolic steroids
have been known since at least the 1960's.
> That's not justification, that's reality.
the reality is you're an ignoramus and amoral to boot.
>> you cite one player who didn't play for the Squealers,
>> and he played for the Raiders, a team which made SB
>> appearances during the same period.
>
> Which is my point exactly.
the only point you have is the one at the top of your head,
dunce.
> Are you currently in the Raiders NG trashing their
> championships also? I just made the point that other
> teams were doing it and gave an example, and you're
> agreeing with me! What's your argument?
let me explain it to you, moron.
the Squealers overwhelming used more steroids than any
other NFL team. it brought them more SB trophies
than any other NFL team. those SB winnings should
be disqualified.
>> who else, Bwian?
>
> You can look up multiple players from any team in the
> league at that time that were using steroids.
no, Bwian.
that burden of proof is yours.
you didn't carry it by merely citing the case of Alzado.
> It wasn't a secret then, and it isn't a secret now.
great. then you should have no problems producing
the documentation.
who else, Bwian, other than at least 18 Squealers plus
Alzado, used steroids?
>... you use it as some reason to denigrate
> a team's achievements because...
because athletic achievement through the use of performance
enhancers is really no achievement at all. the only thing
those Squealer SB victories did was give an amoral ignoramus
like you an opportunity to blow a horn in an otherwise
meaningless drone's life in pittspuke.
>> then you go off citing what baseball players.
>> what's that got to do with the legitimacy of the 6
>> trophies?
>
> First of all, the Steelers only won 4 in the 70's steroid
> era...
and the other 2 were bought and paid for by Dan Rooney.
all 6 mean nothing. do i need to elaborate further?
> ... Secondly, I'm not going to cite any more players
> because...
because you can't.
the Squealers overwhelming used steroids, not only during
the 1970's, but beyond. their ill-gotten gains (read
SB trophies) should be disqualified.
> I really don't care.
of course you don't. you masquerade here as someone with
an intellect and morals. you have neither. you're no
better than the morons from the hills round pittspuke
who still don't get it about benji's wrongdoing.
> If you want to look some things up and keep trolling,
> be my guest.
Bwian, lemme explain something: you don't own
the Squealer ng. your permission to post here
isn't required.
however... i do own you.
> But I can tell you, you're going to find info on the
> Cowboys, Redskins, Eagles, Raiders, Browns, etc...
unfortunately with you, Bwian, it's always no cite,
no proof. just the usenet equivalent of flapping your
jaws in the wind. in other words, you an inflated
gas bag.
funny how all those other teams used 'roids, but
no team other than the squealers has seen 18 former
players bite the dust since 2000.
>> so the Squealers no longer use 'enhancers' today?
>
> I don't know, do they?
we'll see in a few years, Bwian.
> What would you consider an enhancer today?
for you, an enhancer is a pic of those 6 ill-gotten
SB trophies.
here Bwian, go feel big and strong and powerful some more:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09076/956225-460.stm
> I'm still interested in your motive here.
won't help you get out of pubescence.
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
-
On 9/6/2010 1:45 PM, Brian Allen wrote:
>> using the 'everyone did it' argument as justification
>> for wrong doing and the ill-gotten gains from it (read
>> SB trophies) doesn't work, Bwian.
>
> And I disagree. If multiple teams were doing it, and it
> wasn't illegal, how did it give them a competitive
> advantage or break the law?
and you're very ignorant and amoral, Bwian, very unlike the
pseudo-intellectual beacon of justice you'd like to project
in this ng.
anabolic steroids have been around since the late 1930's
and their ill health effects were known by the 1970's.
their use runs counter to the ethos of true sportsmanship
and fair play.
> The worst thing you can say is that it shortened players
> lives, which is true
and okay with you, because it allowed you to enhance
your otherwise miserable life.
> but the medical knowledge didn't exist at the time
> to make that fact well-known.
the medical ill health effects from anabolic steroids
have been known since at least the 1960's.
> That's not justification, that's reality.
the reality is you're an ignoramus and amoral to boot.
>> you cite one player who didn't play for the Squealers,
>> and he played for the Raiders, a team which made SB
>> appearances during the same period.
>
> Which is my point exactly.
the only point you have is the one at the top of your head,
dunce.
> Are you currently in the Raiders NG trashing their
> championships also? I just made the point that other
> teams were doing it and gave an example, and you're
> agreeing with me! What's your argument?
let me explain it to you, moron.
the Squealers overwhelming used more steroids than any
other NFL team. it brought them more SB trophies
than any other NFL team. those SB winnings should
be disqualified.
>> who else, Bwian?
>
> You can look up multiple players from any team in the
> league at that time that were using steroids.
no, Bwian.
that burden of proof is yours.
you didn't carry it by merely citing the case of Alzado.
> It wasn't a secret then, and it isn't a secret now.
great. then you should have no problems producing
the documentation.
who else, Bwian, other than at least 18 Squealers plus
Alzado, used steroids?
>... you use it as some reason to denigrate
> a team's achievements because...
because athletic achievement through the use of performance
enhancers is really no achievement at all. the only thing
those Squealer SB victories did was give an amoral ignoramus
like you an opportunity to blow a horn in an otherwise
meaningless drone's life in pittspuke.
>> then you go off citing what baseball players.
>> what's that got to do with the legitimacy of the 6
>> trophies?
>
> First of all, the Steelers only won 4 in the 70's steroid
> era...
and the other 2 were bought and paid for by Dan Rooney.
all 6 mean nothing. do i need to elaborate further?
> ... Secondly, I'm not going to cite any more players
> because...
because you can't.
the Squealers overwhelming used steroids, not only during
the 1970's, but beyond. their ill-gotten gains (read
SB trophies) should be disqualified.
> I really don't care.
of course you don't. you masquerade here as someone with
an intellect and morals. you have neither. you're no
better than the morons from the hills round pittspuke
who still don't get it about benji's wrongdoing.
> If you want to look some things up and keep trolling,
> be my guest.
Bwian, i hate to break this to you, but you don't own
the Squealer ng. your permission to post here isn't
required. however.. i do own you.
> But I can tell you, you're going to find info on the
> Cowboys, Redskins, Eagles, Raiders, Browns, etc...
unfortunately with you, Bwian, it's always no cite,
no proof. just the usenet equivalent of flapping your
jaws in the wind. in other words, you an inflated
gas bag.
funny how all those other teams used 'roids, but
no team other than the squealers has seen 18 former
players bite the dust since 2000.
>> so the Squealers no longer use 'enhancers' today?
>
> I don't know, do they?
we'll see in a few years, Bwian.
> What would you consider an enhancer today?
for you, an enhancer is a pic of those 6 ill-gotten
SB trophies.
here Bwian, go feel big and strong and powerful some more:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09076/956225-460.stm
> I'm still interested in your motive here.
won't help you get out of pubescence.
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
-
On 9/6/2010 10:12 AM, sTanky McGoofus wrote:
> Anonymous wrote...
>
>> 3Rivers Writer wrote:
>>> Chuck Noll's comment after Super Bowl XIII, when Tom
>>> Landry and the Cowboys were crying about the
>>> officiating:
>>>
>>> "You have to play better than the officials officiate".
>>>
>>> Says it all.
>>
>> what Noll really meant was, "you have to use 'roids
>> better than the officials officiate."
>>
>> the squealers have seen the last of the NFL's gifts.
>> they're in for a very long decline.
>>
>> benji's gonna get stomped when he comes back.
>> and the squealers are gonna stink.
>>
>> enjoy, moron.
>>
>>
>
> Sort of like what you said before they won their last
> two Super Bowls.
>
sort of like you confusing me with someone else.
by the way, one of those last two SB's was FIXED.
>
> THANKS!
>
might be a tad more meaningful if you were grateful
'bout your precious squealers by the thanksgiving
day, if not later.
we'll see.
-
> using the 'everyone did it' argument as justification
> for wrong doing and the ill-gotten gains from it (read
> SB trophies) doesn't work, Bwian.
And I disagree. If multiple teams were doing it, and it wasn't illegal, how
did it give them a competitive advantage or break the law? The worst thing
you can say is that it shortened players lives, which is true, but the
medical knowledge didn't exist at the time to make that fact well-known.
That's not justification, that's reality.
> you cite one player who didn't play for the Squealers,
> and he played for the Raiders, a team which made SB
> appearances during the same period.
Which is my point exactly. Are you currently in the Raiders NG trashing
their championships also? I just made the point that other teams were doing
it and gave an example, and you're agreeing with me! What's your argument?
> who else, Bwian?
You can look up multiple players from any team in the league at that time
that were using steroids. It wasn't a secret then, and it isn't a secret
now. Crackpots like you use it as some reason to denigrate a team's
achievements because you're jealous or weird or whatever. Carry on, I
guess.
> then you go off citing what baseball players.
> what's that got to do with the legitimacy of the 6 trophies?
First of all, the Steelers only won 4 in the 70's steroid era, so your
shitty argument just got worse from your poor hyperbole. Secondly, I'm not
going to cite any more players because I really don't care. If you want to
look some things up and keep trolling, be my guest. But I can tell you,
you're going to find info on the Cowboys, Redskins, Eagles, Raiders, Browns,
Bengals, etc... It was common.
> so the Squealers no longer use 'enhancers' today?
I don't know, do they? What would you consider an enhancer today? Trolling
through rhetorical questions. *rolls eyes*
> so will many of your Squealer idols from SB XL and XLIII.
>
> now go admire some more of this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Superbowl_Trophy_Crop.jpg
I'm still interested in your motive here. Are you pissed because athletes
are dying young? Is it just jealousy over the most successful franchise in
the Super Bowl era? Or do you just go from NG to NG, probing for
weaknesses? You're an interesting troll, that's for sure! I'll tell you
one thing, I definately appreciate the comic relief you bring.
-
On 9/6/2010 12:30 PM, Brian Allen wrote:
>> what's really sad is that squealer ng morons are in
>> in hardcore denial about it, as it reflects the their
>> own shallowness and the true significance of the
>> 6 trophies they perennially jack off to.
>
> There's no denial.
not much.
> Every team in the league was popping 'roids.
no team has had as many reported problems from 'roids
by former players than the Squealers.
using the 'everyone did it' argument as justification
for wrong doing and the ill-gotten gains from it (read
SB trophies) doesn't work, Bwian.
it's hardly what sportsmanship should be about.
> Ever hear of Lyle Alzedo? He wasn't a Steeler.
you cite one player who didn't play for the Squealers,
and he played for the Raiders, a team which made SB
appearances during the same period.
who else, Bwian?
> Baseball players were doping up with greenies in the 70's
> also.
then you go off citing what baseball players.
what's that got to do with the legitimacy of the 6 trophies?
> Trainers didn't understand the significant side effects
> of enhancers during that time period.
so the Squealers no longer use 'enhancers' today?
> The true shame is the baseball steroid issues of the 90's.
> Trainers DID know better by then, and they still doped up
> Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, etc. Sick fucks, if you ask me.
> Bonds will be dead before he hits 60.
so will many of your Squealer idols from SB XL and XLIII.
now go admire some more of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Superbowl_Trophy_Crop.jpg
-
On 9/6/2010 2:44 AM, 3Rivers Writer wrote:
> Chuck Noll's comment after Super Bowl XIII, when Tom
> Landry and the Cowboys were crying about the officiating:
>
> "You have to play better than the officials officiate".
>
> Says it all.
what Noll really meant was, "you have to use 'roids
better than the officials officiate."
the squealers have seen the last of the NFL's gifts.
they're in for a very long decline.
benji's gonna get stomped when he comes back.
and the squealers are gonna stink.
enjoy, moron.
-
On 9/6/2010 2:44 AM, 3Rivers Writer wrote:
> Chuck Noll's comment after Super Bowl XIII, when Tom
> Landry and the Cowboys were crying about the officiating:
>
> "You have to play better than the officials officiate".
>
> Says it all.
what Noll really meant was, "you have to use 'roids
better than the officials officiate."
the squealers have seen the last of the NFL's gifts.
they're in for a very long decline.
benji's gonna get stomped when he comes back.
and the squealers are gonna stink.
enjoy, moron.
-
> You won't have true vindication until the league takes the trophy
> away from the Steelers and gives it to the Seahawks. Don't hold
> your breath waiting for that to happen.
Wow, two whole blown calls. It's not like the average NFL game doesn't
feature two blown calls or anything. Yeah, that was sarcasm. Two blown
calls is an excellent game for any sport at any level. I also liked the
guy's comment that Levy made "unsolicited" statements. He was standing in
front of the team that lost the game. How much more solicitated does it
get?
-
In article
"Bill in Yakima"
>
> Not that it's any consolation, the Stealers still have the
trophy, but Bill
> Levey admits blown calls in that game. He made an unsolicited
admission
> during a visit to the Seattle training camp. He wouldn't say what
the calls
> were, but did say their were two of them. Gave him a lot of
sleepless nights
> and he thinks about it constantly. Refreshing, since the official
NFL line
> is "We did a good job" Got to give the guy a lot of credit for
coming clean.
> Bet he's not too popular in Pittsburgh.
You won't have true vindication until the league takes the trophy
away from the Steelers and gives it to the Seahawks. Don't hold
your breath waiting for that to happen.
-
> Only surprises, really, are Bailey and Hartwig. I know that some predicted
> Hartwig, but with Essex stinking the joint out at G this PS (Hartwig plays
> G well), the uncertainty of the RT (which Essex can stink at equally
> well), and Doug Legursky as BU for a rookie C, I thought they would keep
> him around.
Legursky makes it as a 5-spot lineman and fullback. At this point, he's
probably the backup center. The real surprise to me was Urbik. He showed a
lot of improvement this preseason and was playing a lot of different
positions successfully.
> Bailey was a helluva ST guy and showed a lot of promise. Most of the LB at
> all levels had good camps, though, so I guess someone had to go. I really
> thought that the ST woes would keep him around, though.
The real question is who do you cut to keep him? Madison is the other ST
ace, and the team probably feels like they needed an extra DB more than an
extra LB.
> Worthington was no surprise. He would have an occasional good day at camp,
> but for the most part he was just taking way too much coaching-up. He
> constantly had 2, 3 or more coaches in his face. Another wasted
> 'conversion' effort.
I hope he makes the PS. I didn't see him as a conversion simply because his
height and weight match a 3-4 DE makeup. How many 7th round picks did the
Steelers waste on 275 LB DE's under Cowher?
> I like Foster and am glad to see he stuck around, but I don't get what the
> situation is with him. He worked at about every position in camp,
> including RT and looked good... but he's not had the chance to fight for
> any one spot. I like the kid and his seeming understanding of the line and
> diversity but I really thought that after the way we saw them move him
> around that it spelled the end for him. I hope he gets to prove himself at
> some point.
Foster started games last year and held his own, IMO. He's above Hills on
the depth chart. There's a guy that is living a charmed life. Why keep
Hills over Urbik?
> Particularly glad Burnett is gone... wish he'd have taken Lewis with him.
Agreed. Both suck. Lewis started that Denver game and made 2009 Gay look
All-Pro.
> Why the hell is Mundy still in town?
Because they need 4 safeties and Will Allen is a street-corner backup.
> Glad to see Redmon made it... now if Arians will just use him.
>
> Please... Don't any of ya suggest they bring Parker back...
Parker had a nice career for an undrafted guy that couldn't even see the
field in college. He has nothing to apologize for, but on the other hand,
it's time to retire. As for Redman, I just hope they use him in
short-yardage situations. He at least gives them a chance.
Sport-News
- Swisher's walkoff HR gets Yankees by O's (AP)
- Yanks' Marte, Aceves unlikely to return (AP)
- Clemens wants lawsuit against him tossed (AP)
- Gonzalez fueling Rockies' playoff hopes (AP)
- Brewers' Hoffman earns 600th save (AP)
- Phils in 1st for first time since May 30 (AP)
- Rays rout BoSox, pull closer to Yankees (AP)
- Surging Twins push Central lead to 4 1/2 (AP)
- Lincecum Ks 11, Giants stay 1 game back (AP)
- Latos strikes out 10, Padres top Dodgers (AP)
News from:
PHP Module - Flicker
No photos found for, poker
NFL Articles
|