Football ...
Basketball ...
Baseball ...
Other Sports ...
Futbol ...
🤫995🤫 ...
Gambling ...
Movies & TV ...
Music ...
Hobbies ...
Lulz ...
Food & Travel
...
Daily Texan ...
Business & Markets ...
Cloak Room ...
Help ...
For Sale ...
Board Discussion ...
Advertise...
Tailgate Donations

Samson's Wig
Legacy Members-
Posts
2313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by Samson's Wig
-
Every school has a certain amount of fans that have their heads so far up their own asses that they actually believe the refs are out to get their team. Texas is no different. Big12 refs suck. They're not held accountable by the conference. It's been this way for a long time. Every team deals with it every week. Texas hasn't dealt with more shitty calls than any other team. If you polled every other Big12 school's fanbase and asked if they thought the refs were out to get their team they would all overwhelmingly say yes. And if you asked a follow up question as to who they think has benefitted the most from questionable calls in the history of the Big12, every last one of them will say Texas. Randy Christal and Jon Bible are complete boogie-men for the rest of the conference, and not without some merit (yes, they're both retired now). It's all ultimately nonsense and completely childish, but when fans of the bell cow program in the conference whine like little bitches it comes across as especially pathetic. If any school can put their thumb on the scale it's Texas. We're nobodies bitch, but some of you seem to take some kind of weird comfort in thinking we are because it's easier than facing the reality of a mediocre football program.
-
Anyone calling that loss incomprehensible is a low-information gaping vagina. This is a mediocre program. That's not going to change overnight. Acting like a mediocre team should have steamrolled another mediocre team on the road is buffoonery.
-
Childish overreaction from the usual suspects. How do so many of you fall for the hype every damn season. There should be a mental disorder named for this shit.
-
Well, you wouldn't, which is why I mentioned that most of us don't.
-
Is your incredulity based on an assumption that most prisoners are not morons?
-
Indicative of two mediocre programs having an annual slapfight. Things seem to be headed in a different (better) direction for both programs now, but the Horns are way out in front of what Tech is up to right now. Really no excuse for this to be a close game. Tech has no offense whatsoever, even if their defense turns out to be decent this season.
-
To be fair, they have been terrible since the pirate left town. That Wells guy just didn't get anyone excited about the program, understandably. They'll sell out plenty if they can get on track in the new Big12 and win some games, and they're even expanding their stadium again, which isn't happening much anywhere these days. We've also seen a dip in attendance over the last decade (for the same reason as Tech - mediocrity). Hopefully winning will change that in Austin as well.
-
This has to be the least cared about rivalry in all of sports, not just college football.
-
They don't, though. They lay down and get spanked even in the years they should win (the most recent example is - LAST SEASON, although they did lose their starting QB early in that game). I don't really get it, as psychological impacts should fade as the players move through the system and on with their lives, but Tech typically plays their worst game of the season agains the Horns. It's why their fans get so excited on the rare occasions they play well in this game, and I think in part why our fans dismiss Tech so readily every year. The typical Longhorn fan only watches Tech play once a season, and Tech almost always look like shit in that game relative to how they play the rest of the season. Some teams just have your number, not matter how many players and coaches have moved on.
-
We're saying anyone who thinks they aren't susceptible to marketing is fucking delusional or in serious denial. This isn't complicated. The insistence of "I only buy based on quality" is complete bullshit. It's exactly what marketers for luxury brands have trained you to think, which is what makes this funny. "You're self reliant, an outdoorsman, you're smarter than other people, and you know quality when you see it. You care about the Earth and your community more than your own selfish interests. You can't be fooled." The only confusing thing on this thread is the really odd flex coming from those who can't accept the fact they pay extra not just for quality, but to send a message to others. I guess that's difficult to accept for some. A simple example: LL Bean has a lightweight pack-away jacket that is every bit as high quality as the Patagonia nano puff, except it costs $129 instead of $229. Lands End has one for $118. There are tons of other examples. You're paying that extra $100+ for the brand. Patagonia has sold you a message that resonates better with you than what others are pushing. If quality were the true driving factor in the decision, the Patagonia jacket makes no fucking sense whatsoever. Patagonia has masterfully utilized "demarketing", which ties in the "reduce, repair, reuse, recycle" concepts. It's little more than a form of greenwashing. Recall the "Don't Buy This Jacket" campaign? This resonated with lots of folks. It also increased their sales significantly. They preach this stuff because it makes certain people buy more of their products, if it didn't they wouldn't push it. It's no different than the mythology built around Chouinard (which he very carefully nurtures - what a kind and gentle billionaire he is), a narrative they are continuing to push with the story that started this thread. Greenwashing fucking works, and there are a handful on this thread that are clearly very susceptible to it - susceptible enough to pay way more for a jacket and still think they only buy it for the quality. Wear whatever the fuck you want, but acting like you are above marketing while walking around in an overpriced branded fleece or puff jacket is hilarious.
-
Bet the under. Both teams have decent defenses and little offense (especially Tech). Both will be rolling out back up QBs, but Card is serviceable. Smith is terrible, at least in that offense. Although it's another mediocre squad this year, the Horns should roll as Tech is in full rebuild mode with tons of youth on the field and the sideline. If Sark sticks with the run and just buries them, I can see the score getting out of hand, but no way it combines for that many points.
-
No, I didn't. At all. I know reading comprehension drops a few notches for everyone when on a message board, but you're arguing with a ghost.
-
Lame
-
Blaming refs is lame. Creating excuses before the losses even happen is as weak as it gets.
-
That's fair.
-
I hope you're passing what you're smoking. Not cool to Bogart the good stuff.
-
Longhorns should roll Tech easily, despite being a mediocre squad themselves (too many getting their hopes up after that Alabama game). Tech's in a straight rebuilding year with a young OC who doesn't know how to adjust to his backup QB, and a head coach who is experiencing big boy football for the first time. Shockingly, Tim DeRuyter has their defense looking really salty. Even with Ewers playing (who is still very green himself) scoring will not be easy in Lubbock. Fortunately, they have an offense that, at this point, is the worst in the conference. Run it down their throats, wear out their D, game over. Blitz their QB and they can't score. He can't handle it. If the game was later in the season, I could see their coaches getting things together and it being more of a matchup.
-
Because I'm just as big of a moron as you and everyone else is. Marketing works. Their fleeces are no better than what you can get at many places such as Lands End, for a third of the price and with no visible label. I've owned fleece jackets from both companies. There is no discernible difference in quality. Even their better products that don't have lower priced comps, like the nano puff, have comparable options from other overpriced outdoor brands that similarly put their label forward, but you choose Patagonia. Why? Because you're not above being manipulated by marketers. No one is. . Patagonia sells a message first and clothing second, and if that message resonates with you go for it. It's a big chunk of the sticker price you're paying. Our only difference is I'm not ashamed to admit it.
-
I'm glad you're a Patagonia fanboy. As noted above, I too own Patagonia products. I own YETI products as well, but I'm not so stupid as to think they're the only company that can make a good cooler.
-
Well, yeah. No one who purchases a single family home wants to live across the street from an ugly ass apartment building, and the noise, congestion, etc. that comes with it. Of course it's not all about property value, but the two go hand in hand. That corner appears to have been rezoned for commercial use, so the homeowner may have been able to leave with some cash. If it were just residential, they would have taken a bath. There's a zero % chance that property gained value as a straight single family home, I don't care what assessments were done. So developers make money on the apartment and the commercial development, and the homeowner is displaced. Maybe that's ultimately a good thing, but if the homeowner enjoyed living in that community they probably weren't thrilled about it. Claiming that homeowners should be happy that their property gains value as a commercial location is lunacy. No one buys a SFH hoping that their property may one day become a Walgreens. Unless I'm missing something, these pictures just reinforce the NIMBY argument. Apartments move in and before long the whole neighborhood has completely turned over into something else. That something else is a bunch of apartments owned by single real estate investment firm or individually purchased by a bunch of investors who don't live there, and a commercial property owned by what is likely another group of investors from somewhere else. What some see as a success for urban development, and the notion that more apartments somehow equate to lower housing costs, looks more like forcing locals out of their homes and funneling money out of the city to outside investors. Then we're left with apartments that cost too much to rent for most folks, and those who do are living the isolated and shit-tastic experience of an apartment in America. Awesome. In some circles this is a success. Hourly workers can spend 60% of their wages on rent in an apartment owned by people who don't live in the community and homeowners are displaced to the burbs. It's the wet dream of developers everywhere, but it's damaging to cities. I'm all for paving central Austin over and building a boatload of high rises if they are built for regular folks to live in and not with the intent to milk tax dollars and/or foreign investors by building complexes that only the insanely rich or insanely poor can live in. Austin has attempted mixed use developments that most cannot afford to live in (look at the Triangle for a prime example where they even tried to create something that would foster community and it fucking sucks - one bedrooms starting at $1600 isn't adding any value to Austin whatsoever). It's on a slow jog toward becoming an eye sore even though it still has that new smell. From a developer perspective it was a huge success. Downtown Austin is a bunch of condos owned by foreigners looking to launder their funny money, and no one lives in them other than the occasional rich kid living on daddy's dime. That shit is what is killing cities in this country. Austin need infill, and it needs more housing, but letting developers drive the bus is like letting the fox guard the henhouse. NIMBY homeowners suck in Austin, to be sure, but they're pushing back against an equally shitty attempt to milk the city by outside interests. As I wrote before, this is where strong local leadership is required, and we haven't had that in Austin, well, ever.
-
lol, no. I was either unclear or you just mistook my meaning. I don't give a shit what other people wear, and have my head so far up my own ass in general that I can't recall the last time I noticed what someone else was wearing. I can still acknowledge that lots of people make judgments based on brands and may think those things about me based on what I'm wearing. The postmodern world can't escape brands. You can't find a writer/screenwriter under the age of 40 who can even put together a story without using brands as shorthand to set tone and describe characters. It's sad, to me, but it's the world we live in. A dumber, shallower world. Just because most people are inured to it doesn't mean it isn't there. That's the goal of every company's branding, to make it ubiquitous to the point we simply expect to see it. As for avoiding labels, I just don't enjoy being a walking billboard. It's hard to avoid anymore, and I'm as susceptible to marketing as anyone else. If you don't think that the vast majority of people walking around wearing Patagonia, North Face, etc. etc. don't do so because they like being attached to the messaging of those brands and what it says about them, you're dreaming. They may not do it consciously, but there's a reason those folks bought a name brand fleece or puff jacket instead of picking up a generic one that works just as well. Non-branded clothing also sends a message in this nutto world we live in.
-
Moonbug Entertainment says thanks, Yanks! That does seem cruel, but if I were given the option of standing chained to a wall and listening to Baby Shark for 24 hours or going to prison for a year, I know which option I would take. Prison. I would choose prison.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!