Frank Dooshley banned

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MoreRings. Show MoreRings's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned


    There are  a lot of people on here with an agenda.  Why not just ignore him.  I have watched several posters on here that follow him around posting stuff I know they don't believe just to argue with him.  Seriously, so many people hate him and don't want him here?  I disagree, I think there are posters here that  live to argue with him.  Try ignore.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    interesting. not surprised he got banned again

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    I sure don't get how or what is said to get banned once, let alone 20+ times?

    I really haven't had a problem with Rusty. I've disagreed with him and not received some of the stuff I've seen.  There are probably only the jests and giant trolls I wish would leave, And there really is only one I cant stand - so I ignore him

     

    I do get tired of the name calling and the long repeated responses. There are a few of you who constantly were at war with him. if I were called names I wouldn't like it too much either. but when he kept it to football he was fine. I do get tired of the Brady bashing, just like I get tired of the BB bashing. and I am not saying they are above critiCism. Or there isn't frustration. but sometimes it is a broken record and after awhile there is nothing new being said. And sometimes there is condescension. Sometimes I don't get all the negativity

    That said , I enjoy almost everyone's view point. I like honest discussion even when I disagree.

     I am sure Rusty is reading this thread. And am Sure he will be back. When that happens I hope he doesn't start out in attack mode and that you who have legitimate gripes or not, at least wait until he goes over the civility line  before you take out your guns.

    am probably whistling in the wind 

    Am looking forward to ALL your thoughts on the game tomorrow, I will not be ablety to see it

     

    Go Pats

     

     

     

     

     


    Pat's Fan lost in Jet Land

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skinnyrexraptor. Show skinnyrexraptor's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    In response to PhatVirgin's comment:

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:

     


    I still don't know why there are so many here who seem so obsessed with Rusty.  If you don't agree with him then say so and move on.  These kinds of threads only suggest that you are hoping that he will return and are trying to bait him into it.  Honestly, I don't understand why these threads are even permitted on this site.  Clearly, they have nothing to do with the Patriots and are only meant to fuel hostility amongst posters.

    As to the opinion that Rusty has no knowledge of what he is talking about, I think that is totally inaccurate.  The fact likely is that he has about as much real knowledge as any of the rest of us.  Apparently, he just has very strong opinions and isn't shy about sharing them.

    Anyway, that's my thought on the matter.  Carry on, if you must.

     



    IMO, you confuse obsession with readers who are simply sick and tired of posts involving insults. In addition, I don't believe you take into account who has a tendancy to be the first to throw out the first insult.  That doesmatter.

     




     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skinnyrexraptor. Show skinnyrexraptor's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    In response to Bustchise's comment:

    Be advised:  Any post that begins with "I think Russ is a pretty good guy" or "Russ was just stubborn, but he sure knows a lot about football" or "I just don't understand why the mods ban Russ but not all of those trolls".... those are from Queenie FiddyK.  

    Regardless if someone may believe that is responsible for every loss the patsies have experienced in the last decade, no rational human worth their weight in cow manure would stick up for that ignorant lying tool. Sure, someone may agree that giving up huge chunks of yardage every game is a fine way to play defense, someone may think that cutting a large number of high round picks is no big deal considering later round hits and a multitude of overall draft picks, heck, someone may actually think that regardless of the last decade of no superbowl wins that BB is still the best GM in football, but nobody that is not Queenie FiddyK, would defend that loser.  




     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from stillgridlocked. Show stillgridlocked's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to stillgridlocked's comment:

     

     

     

     

    I agree with Salcon though that there are posters here who have an anti BB agenda.  

     

     

     



    Some people don't guzzle the kool-aide. Instead they go by the facts.

     

     



    I agree with you Babe, for the most part, that BB is responsible for the team that goes on the field. 

    OTOH hand right now Brady isn't looking too good because he has no one to throw to. Does that mean that at least some of Brady's success is due to BB putting the right team on the field in other years?

    If someone gets the blame because they are responsible they should also get the credit.  

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to BsLegion's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

     

     


    Really I don't think it's even worth arguing with the guy anymore, because he gets so hostile and is so wrong, it's just not worth it anymore. There may of been a time when he could contribute something, those days have long since past - he now reminds me of patsfan76 before he had his meltdown on here. It's pretty pathetic. I think I may actually put him on ignore - maybe give that a try - see how it goes for a while. He's ruined every single thread on this board for over a year now.

    Put it this way...when you say Curtis Martin never was used as a pass catcher (which he did in the running game thread), and then when people call you out on it? You go on to argue, back pedal, name call, insult people that know what they are talking about...you've got serious issues and really don't know what you are talking about. I work all day, when I get home I go on here for maybe 30 minutes, only to read thread after thread this guy hijacked, ruined, and twisted. There's a reason why this place has turned into a ghost town...

     

     



    That's exactly what happened on the Bruins forum with a Bobby Orr topic. Many there put him in it's place.

     

     

    I still think he's a very good knowledge of the game and will read some of his posts, it's the obsession part on a certain topic , subject that drove me away.

     

     

     




    What was the imbecile saying about Orr?

     




    He was saying that the Bruins management had no class trading Bobby Orr to Chicago. It took about 20 posts back and forth to finally put that debate to bed.  Many posters pasted links with proof .   Honestly I felt bad.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    In response to stillgridlocked's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to stillgridlocked's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I agree with Salcon though that there are posters here who have an anti BB agenda.  

     

     

     

     

     



    Some people don't guzzle the kool-aide. Instead they go by the facts.

     

     

     



    I agree with you Babe, for the most part, that BB is responsible for the team that goes on the field. 

     

    OTOH hand right now Brady isn't looking too good because he has no one to throw to. Does that mean that at least some of Brady's success is due to BB putting the right team on the field in other years?

    If someone gets the blame because they are responsible they should also get the credit.  




    I don't think you give "credit" to a GM for putting a major league receiving corps on the field. That's the minimum expectation. Putting this sad excuse out there is a minus to his rep. He deserves praise for trading for Welker and Moss and for a year giving Brady an exceptional pair of WRs. But that was only one year. Generally, he has been meh at best in the providing WRs department.

    He's had his up moments and down moments; and that's why he's mediocre. Even Brady can't make his latest down look good.

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to stillgridlocked's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to stillgridlocked's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I agree with Salcon though that there are posters here who have an anti BB agenda.  

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Some people don't guzzle the kool-aide. Instead they go by the facts.

     

     

     

     



    I agree with you Babe, for the most part, that BB is responsible for the team that goes on the field. 

     

     

    OTOH hand right now Brady isn't looking too good because he has no one to throw to. Does that mean that at least some of Brady's success is due to BB putting the right team on the field in other years?

    If someone gets the blame because they are responsible they should also get the credit.  

     




    I don't think you give "credit" to a GM for putting a major league receiving corps on the field. That's the minimum expectation. Putting this sad excuse out there is a minus to his rep. He deserves praise for trading for Welker and Moss and for a year giving Brady an exceptional pair of WRs. But that was only one year. Generally, he has been meh at best in the providing WRs department.

     

    He's had his up moments and down moments; and that's why he's mediocre. Even Brady can't make his latest down look good.

     

     




    BB is all about the system.  I'm really starting to think that he is taking this whole team concept too far, if you get what I mean.  I think he believes he can still plug in players and rely on his system to do all the work.  No sir, not this day and age.  It's not your Daddy's football anymore.  You need both, talent and a good system.  Oh,m and players who can be on the field.  The picking up of Armsted, A. Wilson, D. Jones, M. Jenkins isn't going to do it.. as we have already witnessed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from stillgridlocked. Show stillgridlocked's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to stillgridlocked's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to stillgridlocked's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I agree with Salcon though that there are posters here who have an anti BB agenda.  

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Some people don't guzzle the kool-aide. Instead they go by the facts.

     

     

     

     



    I agree with you Babe, for the most part, that BB is responsible for the team that goes on the field. 

     

     

    OTOH hand right now Brady isn't looking too good because he has no one to throw to. Does that mean that at least some of Brady's success is due to BB putting the right team on the field in other years?

    If someone gets the blame because they are responsible they should also get the credit.  

     




    I don't think you give "credit" to a GM for putting a major league receiving corps on the field. That's the minimum expectation. Putting this sad excuse out there is a minus to his rep. He deserves praise for trading for Welker and Moss and for a year giving Brady an exceptional pair of WRs. But that was only one year. Generally, he has been meh at best in the providing WRs department.

     

    He's had his up moments and down moments; and that's why he's mediocre. Even Brady can't make his latest down look good.

     

     



    I certainly agree that what he's given Brady to work with this year has been a failure so far and I'm not optimistic that the rooks and the guys who are injured all the time will all come together at the end of the season.  

    2007 was nice till the Super Bowl which I blame on the coaching (no 2nd half adjustments) and the O-Line doing a disappearing act.

    Regardless I'll be watching the Pats till the day I die if they're on that day!

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    People are going to post what they post.  Pretty much the case across the board.  If you find a poster troublesome or disruptive why provide him the opportunity to respond further by engaging him?  In order for a thread to get hijacked it takes more than one poster to do so and it really doesn't matter who started it.  Old f*rt that I am I left that bu11sh1t behind in elementary school.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    In response to Bustchise's comment:

    Be advised:  Any post that begins with "I think Russ is a pretty good guy" or "Russ was just stubborn, but he sure knows a lot about football" or "I just don't understand why the mods ban Russ but not all of those trolls".... those are from Queenie FiddyK.  

    Regardless if someone may believe that is responsible for every loss the patsies have experienced in the last decade, no rational human worth their weight in cow manure would stick up for that ignorant lying tool. Sure, someone may agree that giving up huge chunks of yardage every game is a fine way to play defense, someone may think that cutting a large number of high round picks is no big deal considering later round hits and a multitude of overall draft picks, heck, someone may actually think that regardless of the last decade of no superbowl wins that BB is still the best GM in football, but nobody that is not Queenie FiddyK, would defend that loser.  




    Why are you here?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from tanbass. Show tanbass's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    In response to MoreRings' comment:


    There are  a lot of people on here with an agenda.  Why not just ignore him.  I have watched several posters on here that follow him around posting stuff I know they don't believe just to argue with him.  Seriously, so many people hate him and don't want him here?  I disagree, I think there are posters here that  live to argue with him.  Try ignore.




    Bingo!! This isn't rocket science folks...well, apparently for some it is. Rusty comes here for attention....nothing else. Whether its negative or positive, when you reply to him, you are feeding him, and you become part of the problem. Having some strange need to try and put him in his place is exactly what he feeds on....if the replies stop, Rusty stops. If you don't understand this very simply concept, please just send me your name so I can add you to ignore....

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from cyncalpatfan. Show cyncalpatfan's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    People are going to post what they post.  Pretty much the case across the board.  If you find a poster troublesome or disruptive why provide him the opportunity to respond further by engaging him?  In order for a thread to get hijacked it takes more than one poster to do so and it really doesn't matter who started it.  Old f*rt that I am I left that bu11sh1t behind in elementary school.




    Well said.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    In response to MoreRings' comment:

    There are  a lot of people on here with an agenda.  Why not just ignore him.  I have watched several posters on here that follow him around posting stuff I know they don't believe just to argue with him.  Seriously, so many people hate him and don't want him here?  I disagree, I think there are posters here that  live to argue with him.  Try ignore.



    This^

    The people who argue with him endlessly are as bad or worse.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    In response to tanbass's comment:

    In response to MoreRings' comment:

     


    There are  a lot of people on here with an agenda.  Why not just ignore him.  I have watched several posters on here that follow him around posting stuff I know they don't believe just to argue with him.  Seriously, so many people hate him and don't want him here?  I disagree, I think there are posters here that  live to argue with him.  Try ignore.

     




    Bingo!! This isn't rocket science folks...well, apparently for some it is. Rusty comes here for attention....nothing else. Whether its negative or positive, when you reply to him, you are feeding him, and you become part of the problem. Having some strange need to try and put him in his place is exactly what he feeds on....if the replies stop, Rusty stops. If you don't understand this very simply concept, please just send me your name so I can add you to ignore....

     




    Hey you're right, I'll give it a try...others have said their experience on here has improved tremendously since putting him on ignore. I'm just tired of hearing it's certain people that enable him and thus cause all these problems. I have been accused of being one of those people but I'm not on here during the day, yet I still see and hear about the madness that goes on. My point is, the guy will argue all day...with any and everyone...to make a significant change everyone would have to put him on ignore, or he'd just have to leave.

    I'm putting him on ignore for the simple fact that he has proven he is an uneducated football fan...he is not worth the conversation. He doesn't know what he is talking about - it's not worth the time. He is pigheaded, rude, insulting, and not worthy of conversation any longer. If you're going to be as wrong as he is on a consistent basis, you need to be humble/willing to listen to others, instead he just spins, lies, twists, turns, insults and then gets banned. It's beyond old now - out of all the insults I could of thrown his way, not being worth the time of football coversation, is the worse. That is what he is.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    One of the reasons I have enjoyed my time over here since late spring is that in order to interact, I had to do research.  While I've been watching the Pats for 30 years, I haven't put so much time into super deep info.  Now I do so the good posters don't light me up...  Wait.  Good posters don't light people up.  They discuss things.

    Agenda this, agenda that.  Guys posting on a message board don't have agendas.  TV news stations has agendas.  Writers have agendas.  Us regular joes have opinions.  Making any more than that is silly.  I'm a Brady fan.  I'm a Belichick the coach fan.  I'm not a Belichick the GM fan.  I have no agenda.  I'm here to discuss, learn, laugh and goof off.

    200+ A Day cannot say the same.  Ever.  So, good riddance for now.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    One of the reasons I have enjoyed my time over here since late spring is that in order to interact, I had to do research.  While I've been watching the Pats for 30 years, I haven't put so much time into super deep info.  Now I do so the good posters don't light me up...  Wait.  Good posters don't light people up.  They discuss things.

    Agenda this, agenda that.  Guys posting on a message board don't have agendas.  TV news stations has agendas.  Writers have agendas.  Us regular joes have opinions.  Making any more than that is silly.  I'm a Brady fan.  I'm a Belichick the coach fan.  I'm not a Belichick the GM fan.  I have no agenda.  I'm here to discuss, learn, laugh and goof off.

    200+ A Day cannot say the same.  Ever.  So, good riddance for now.



    You know what? You can be wrong about something...I have, no doubt, but when it happens you/I would say...oh, you're right...I was wrong, I learned something...my bad. Simple as that. I can talk all day long with people like that - I've wasted my time with him.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from aytee. Show aytee's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    ...

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from the-redsox-rule. Show the-redsox-rule's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    Nobody here bothers me, this is just an internet opinion forum and it takes two people to argue. They have ignore here for a reason. This forum is best when we just talk Patriots and let the silly name calling go.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Uncle Rico. Show Uncle Rico's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    Hey wait! Is this Harvey guy the banned Dooshley guy?  I'm new here and it might take some time to learn who is who but from what I have seen in a couple other threads it sure looks like it is.   Please tell me he isn't one of those forum pretend to know it all's.  I can not stand those types, they ruin everything and always prove to not know it all, usually know very little.  They don't have a life, they turn to forums to get a connection with people and it always turns out bad for them because they are loners, losers trying to prove otherwise but fail in the process.  

    Why don't the mods instantly ban him once he shows up under a new name?  It shouldn't be hard to point him out once he starts postibg again. 

    **

    How much you wanna make a bet I can throw a football over them mountains?... Yeah... Coach woulda put me in fourth quarter, we would've been state champions. No doubt. No doubt in my mind.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    This is just sad.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    Looks like I have to add his new Harvey Wallbanger name to the ignore list.  This guy does not have a clue.  Pretty sad he continues to come back to a place he isn't wanted at.  I wonder if he does that to the local sports bars when he goes to watch the games.  They see him walk in and people shake their heads.  He is probably running out of places to go and watch the games.

     

    ---------------------------------------------

    "Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anybody else."  Text received by Tom Brady from Kurt Warner after Ravens loss.


    view my Patriots photoshops at patsfanfotoshop.tumblr.com





     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Frank Dooshley banned

    In response to TFB12's comment:

     

    Looks like I have to add his new Harvey Wallbanger name to the ignore list.  This guy does not have a clue.  Pretty sad he continues to come back to a place he isn't wanted at.  I wonder if he does that to the local sports bars when he goes to watch the games.  They see him walk in and people shake their heads.  He is probably running out of places to go and watch the games.

     




    Rico Suave fits the mold of one of his prop accounts. 2x ignore for me.

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share