Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaMaddHattar. Show DaMaddHattar's posts

    Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    I agree--Mankins is out, Bodden is gone.  Brady has been so distracted during the off-season, plus he's frustrated about his contract.  And now, Moss is unhappy, so you can count on him mailing it in.  No one can rush the passer, and they can't stop the run.  The defense is so young, and there's no leadership.  And Belichick somehow thinks he's going to coach every position.  I'm not even going to watch the carnage today--going to go out and enjoy the weather instead.  Guess we might as well give the Lombardi to the Colts and save us all some time.  The only drama for this season will be the Colts going for perfection.  Oh well--see everyone next August!  
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from apdynasty23. Show apdynasty23's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    Sick picture.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    In Response to Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.:
    [QUOTE]  The only drama for this season will be the Colts going for perfection.
    Posted by DaMaddHattar[/QUOTE]

    LOL, that didn't happened they got smoked first game oout the chute. they 0-1
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from USMCM1A1. Show USMCM1A1's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    You are the stupidest poster at these boards, and that's saying something.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    LOL. I love when people who don't get irony call other people stupid.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    Yeah.  You shouldn't even come back here.  Its embarrassing.  
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from USMCM1A1. Show USMCM1A1's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    In Response to Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.:
    [QUOTE]LOL. I love when people who don't get irony call other people stupid.
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    Irony as a rhetororical figure would require textual signification--merely saying something stupid can't be qualified as irony based on a secret intention.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from GadisRKO. Show GadisRKO's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    We are 1-0 after smashing the Bengals in the mouth. next troll please...
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from molgen. Show molgen's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    In Response to Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.:
    [QUOTE]LOL. I love when people who don't get irony call other people stupid.
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]
    Truly, look at the time on the Hatter's post - 4:30 pm! Of course he's being sarcastic and making fun of the doom and gloomers.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    Irony is always a rhetorical figure, so no need to qualify. Textual signification makes for poor irony. In fact, colloquial irony almost NEVER offers textual signification. Context becomes the signification. It is a dialectic between a situation and agent that first offers the reader "A" and then returns "not A."

    For instance, walking into a party that has only two people there and saying "quite a turnout" is ironic by virtue of context. Just like posting about how NE is going to be terrible and Indy is going to be undefeated on a Patriots' fan board, immediately after a big NE victory and even bigger Colts defeat is ironic by context. 

    I don't see any secret intention; I see something fairly straightforward. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    In Response to Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.:
    [QUOTE]Irony is always a rhetorical figure, so no need to qualify. Textual signification makes for poor irony. In fact, colloquial irony almost NEVER offers textual signification. Context becomes the signification. It is a dialectic between a situation and agent that first offers the reader "A" and then returns "not A." For instance, walking into a party that has only two people there and saying "quite a turnout" is ironic by virtue of context. Just like posting about how NE is going to be terrible and Indy is going to be undefeated on a Patriots' fan board, immediately after a big NE victory and even bigger Colts defeat is ironic by context.  I don't see any secret intention; I see something fairly straightforward. 
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    I have no idea what you just said, but it sounds really impressive.  No wonder I got a C+ in English Lit.  Go Pats!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from proftom. Show proftom's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    Didn't the Pats win big today? Like biggest win in the NFl today. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    In Response to Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.:
    [QUOTE]Didn't the Pats win big today? Like biggest win in the NFl today. 
    Posted by proftom[/QUOTE]

    Without resorting to textual signification, because that's way beyond my grasp, I think the original poster was just kidding. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Macrawn. Show Macrawn's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    Hehe, I love the satire. About 75 percent of the posters on this board had their hands on the yellow towel ready to throw it in for the year. 

    Can you imagine if those same people played the stock market? They would sell at the market lows when they panic and buy at the highs when everything is perfect making people who have a little more ice in their veins rich. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    O.K., I missed the time, objection withdrawn.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from threejak. Show threejak's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.


    It's a shame the old McLean Hospital had to close.....
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from USMCM1A1. Show USMCM1A1's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    In Response to Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.:
    [QUOTE]Irony is always a rhetorical figure, so no need to qualify. Textual signification makes for poor irony. In fact, colloquial irony almost NEVER offers textual signification. Context becomes the signification. It is a dialectic between a situation and agent that first offers the reader "A" and then returns "not A."

    For instance, walking into a party that has only two people there and saying "quite a turnout" is ironic by virtue of context. Just like posting about how NE is going to be terrible and Indy is going to be undefeated on a Patriots' fan board, immediately after a big NE victory and even bigger Colts defeat is ironic by context.  I don't see any secret intention; I see something fairly straightforward. 
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    Some of my freshman students who are less mature writers make the same mistake--they mistake an intention for a trope.  They'll say something crude or fatuous, and then retroactively defend it by saying "Oh, I was being ironic."

    Figuration requires non-literal use of languge (please see Holman & Harmon); that is, a speaker or writer must signify in some way that their language use is not literal.  You gave an example that was not textual, but a speech event--in that case the real time utterance is figurative.  Do you see how that is not comparable to a text, which does not occur in a real life context? 

    Writing something on a Pat's board that is indistinguishable from any other deeply stupid thing regularly posted may be stupid, or it may be bad writing, but it can't be ironic in a literary sense.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from harleyroadking1. Show harleyroadking1's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    ^^^
    all that and the Pats won and Colts lost
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    Man, he was not serious, look at the time of the post it was after the game!!!
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    In Response to Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.:
    [QUOTE]LOL. I love when people who don't get irony call other people stupid.
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    I don't know how "ironic" this obvious sarcasm was, but the point is well taken.


    Now, a guy who can't accurately identify irony busting another guy's balls for being unable to identify irony . . .

    that actually IS ironic.



     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    In Response to Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year. : Some of my freshman students who are less mature writers make the same mistake--they mistake an intention for a trope....
    Posted by USMCM1A1[/QUOTE]

    Just tell me when you guys are going to start marking us down for grammar, so I know when to bail on this board.

    I never liked trope by the by.  My Italian grandmother made it one time and it reminded me of rubbery liver.

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

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    Some of my freshman students who are less mature writers make the same mistake--they mistake an intention for a trope.  They'll say something crude or fatuous, and then retroactively defend it by saying "Oh, I was being ironic."

    Figuration requires non-literal use of languge (please see Holman & Harmon); that is, a speaker or writer must signify in some way that their language use is not literal. 

    1.)   None of my freshman students say anything crude. And if they did I would remove them from the classroom whether what they said was ironic or not.

    2.)   Your conclusion is a non-sequitur if you expect it to follow from this rather trim quote. What you extracted above is tautological, but nothing more. Stating that figuration requires being non-literal is tantamount to saying that in order for language to be abstract it must not be concrete. It isn’t incorrect, but it has zero bearing on the conversation. That is to say, in no way does it imply that a writer or speaker needs to signal that they are using non-literal language. I don’t understand how you think one leads to the other naturally. Also, even if it did state that a writer needs to use it, I would challenge it with any number of examples where something is received ironically even though there is no signal that non-literal language is being used. For instance, if I write that pigeons are flying rats on the side of a building, my language is no less metaphorical (figurative) because I failed to announce the fact that it is figurative. In an English speaking area, the sheer understanding that pigeons are pigeons and that there is no such thing as a flying rat is more than sufficient to generate friction between the two concepts.

    You gave an example that was not textual, but a speech event--in that case the real time utterance is figurative.  Do you see how that is not comparable to a text, which does not occur in a real life context?  

    3.)   II understand how a speech act is not comparable to a text by virtue of the fact that it is in real time, but they are comparable in the sense that they emerge from a rhetorical situation. This rhetorical situation establishes the expectation of what is literal or figurative. In this rather obvious instance, the very fact that the writer stated that the Colts would win all of their games this season only minutes after the Colts suffered their first defeat establishes his language as non-literal. He does not need to establish his own rhetorical back-drop for his statement to be ironic, the backdrop are the recent events and shared interests that have drawn us to this board. As far as crude gestures, if a student pins a “wide-load” sign to the back of another student who is incredibly thin, it is still crude and fatuous, but it is (in fact) ironic. Moreover, it is ironic without any signal that the sign is non-literal. The disagreement between “A” (a skinny student) and “not A” the sign that identifies them as overweight provides a clear contextual environment that flags the textual language as ironic. Stating that this poster is stupid is akin to someone stating that the person who pinned the sign on the girl was dumb because they though a skinny girl was overweight. Such a person is either not paying attention to the rhetorical situation (in one case a cultural where there are reasonably homogeneous parameters for what is fat and what is thin, or in the case of the forum reasonable expectations that everyone notices the timing of posts, and everyone follows the scores of the games mentioned. If this post were a week old, it would not be so obviously ironic because neither team had any record at that point. In that case, I would not have even commented. l could cite Kenneth Burke, Aristotle, Abrahams and Harpman or a few others to support this. Examples of textual (specifically literary) irony that support this are abound. Consider how many literary texts rely on forms of dramatic irony where no language is set forth that is even figurative to express the difference between the agent and scene (or any other figures) and yet considerable ironic tension is developed by the simple difference between what the reader understands and what the character understands about the situation. Furthermore, the difference between literature and speech acts is absolutely negligible in the sense that both respond to an external context in which expectations are established and the parameters for what is figurative (fictive and metaphorical) and literal (factual or mimetic). For instance, there would be nothing ironic about this post on a forum in Dubai where people discuss the Koran. It would be nonsense because it does not refer to anything in the rhetorical situation. Here, as you can see from the other respondents, it is an ironic send-up of the posters who thought certain losses on the roster would prove insurmountable.

          Writing something on a Pat's board that is indistinguishable from any other deeply stupid thing regularly posted may be stupid, or it may be bad writing, but it can't be ironic in a literary sense.

    And It isn’t ironic in the literary sense, it is ironic in the rhetorical sense which is much broader and can include gestures, artwork, flavor combinations, speeches, melodies, etcetera. These fora are not literature. They are a form of media. Even if they were literature I simply cannot accept your definition. I mean, according to that, Swift's Modest Proposal (another text that elides the difference between literature, media and speech acts) is not ironic because it is merely intended as ironic and isn't specifically announced as a the trope it is. 



     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    I have it on very good authority that rain on your wedding day is ironic.  Ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife, or the good advice that you just didn't take is ironic, a little too ironic.  Don't you think?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rerun85. Show Rerun85's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    Can you 2 idiots Identify and define Bloviating. Bunch of Rhodes Scholars here. Quick, you're wanted in surgery DR. Howard.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.

    In Response to Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Pats in the tank--waiting for next year. : I don't know how "ironic" this obvious sarcasm was, but the point is well taken. Now, a guy who can't accurately identify irony busting another guy's balls for being unable to identify irony . . . that actually IS ironic.
    Posted by p-mike[/QUOTE]

    From the OED -

    sarcasm:  A sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt. Now usually in generalized sense: Sarcastic language; sarcastic meaning or purpose.

    Sarcasm and irony, despite this normal mistake, are not mutually exclusive. Now a guy mistaking sarcasm for something that cannot be ironic is actually common. Although when he is as sarcastic as you, I would expect more. ;-)


     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share