gman2 said:
socrstud:
g-r-a-m-m-a-r
as for your suggesting that i take a class on unbiasedly presenting figures, its pretty obvious you havent taken a course on said topic.you familiar with "post hoc fallacy"? (on second thought, make that a rhetorical question)
when you get to that chapter in your english class, you'll reconsider this penn state argument.
your argument:
penn state rushes for 117 yards and passes for 78 yards against ohio state.
penn state wins the game.
therefore, running the ball is the way to beat ohio state.
basically, its a faulty cause-effect argument.
whats weird is that you normally have a solid approach on these games. but this penn state argument is so ass-backward that its crazy.
if penn state laid any blueprint on how to beat ohio state, its to force troy smith into turnovers and play good defense.
You shouldn't say things that you are not sure of...that is called ignorant..."it's not obvious" beacause I was in one....thank you for correcting my grammar again. Goes to show how much I depend on microsoft word for writing papers.
As for my class: I was Simply using a 2 sided arguement which is the best way to go since this is such a highly ego envolved topic in order to satisy systematic processing and not use Heuristic cues. When someone is more envovlved in an issue its important to emphasize both sides of the topic...One needs to emphasizie your most important argument upfront and then also give the opposite sides arguement in a weekened form, then restate again your strongest argument last....Since you are very envolved and do not obviously take me for being a credible source my argument does not fall under your lattitude of acceptance. It is obvious since you are very envolved with this game that your lattitude of rejection is very wide, thus not allowing my arguement, which states,, "that in order to for ND to be effective on the attack they will need to run the ball" to be an effective persuading strategy. And yes that was on my upper level psych final today....maybe your just experiencing cognitive dissonance towards the game because I have threatened your views and placed doubt in OSU powerhouse running deffense, in which you feel as though you need to protect yourself by using self deffensive mechanisms like putting me down for grammar errors in order to make yourself feel better....Yes this was all on my psych final today!!!
...Deffense is not a strength of ND's and I'm not so sure that Weis is sittin at home praying on turnovers in order to win this game. If turn overs come then they will come this is for both teams. we can argue all day about what ND needs to do to win the game, and yes if they create turn overs from Mr. Smith than they will have a good chance of winning, but I think their game plan is this for the offense:
Threaten to pass and run the ball....I've been very surprised with ND's RB since the opening day when he ran all over UPitt, not that UPitt is great by any means on Deffense. This is a very fast and explosive RB....He's very good and I think he could be a key factor in winning this game....
Also by Scott chiming in he was only giving his insight....no need to become deffensive
