i had your back but now thats bs .. nicks is a solid wr .. hes an amani toomer type .. hes gonna be solid for years .. maclin can be reggie wayne .. i take the higher ceiling anyday .. but nicks can play as a rookie .. maclin is gonna return kicks and catch a few balls but thats it

If they start within the endzone itself, I’d say Nicks has a slight advantage because his hands are a little bit better

Definitions of libel:
1 a: a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought
b (archaic) : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression
b (1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2): defamation of a person by written or representational means (3): the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4): the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

The quotes:
yophillybro: “Giants – Plexiglass, Bengals – TJ. Cowboys- TO. should I go on”
whiskeybill: “you could go on by naming a wideout that didn’t get traded this offseason or going to jail”

Whiskeybill meant: Yophillybro could continue to name wideouts that A) did not get traded this offseason (erroneous comment, none of the WRs were traded, both were signed through FA, but this is a very minor point, since effectively they traded teams) OR (operating word) B) [are] going to jail. The first is in reference, as noted, to TJ and TO. The second is in reference to Plaxico Burress, who will see jail time.

Definition by definition

1a: It’s not a written statement by a plaintiff, so it’s not 1a libel
1b: It’s not a handbill that is attacking or defaming anyone, so it’s not 1b libel

2a: It doesn’t convey an unjustly unfavorable impression, since it only talks about what has happened or is guaranteed to happen. He doesn’t, for example, say that Plaxico has killed dogs with Mike Vick. So it’s not 2a.
2b1: It is not a published statement or representation, and is not unjust, since, again, it is simply stating public fact — they’ve already been exposed to the public contempt. So it’s not 2b1.
2b2: It’s not defamation of a person by written or representation means, because he’s not defaming them. He’s citing public knowledge, and not saying anything obviously untrue. So it’s not 2b2.
2b3: His post is not blasphemous, treasonous, seditious, or obscene in its writings or gestures. So it’s not 2b3.
2b4: Therefore, he has not committed the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel. So it’s not 2b4.

To conclude, his post fits no possible definition of libel. Your post, however, COULD be libelous under definition 2 a: “a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression.” You’ve conveyed an unjustly unfavorable impression of whiskeybill by defaming him via erroneously calling him libelous, and your statement was a composed in writing and, as according to various court cases, online writing can be seen as libelous even if not done in pen or pencil etc since it fits the greater meaning of the word “writing.”

he lost their playoff game by himself

Delhomme is keeping that team from being really great. He’s an okay manager, but by no means more accurate than McNabb. McNabb is better than Delhomme in every way, and Carolina fans will tell us that themselves. I completely agree that that extension was silly.

It’s called positive reinforcement. You look for something, see it, and even if it happens extremely rarely the instance sticks out in your mind. It’s a famous psychological problem, one of the first analyzed, and it also deals with things like the economy. You see what you expect and assume it’s the norm, but statistics show it’s the exception.

Delhomme fans will think he has another problem or something, that maybe he leads receivers TOO much (resulting in more INTs) or overthrows a lot or also underthrows. The reality is that McNabb hits his target 70% of the time, the target catches it 60-odd% of the time, and that’s exceptionally good. Not the best, but very, very good.

When he does miss, it’s because the ball is uncatchable for everyone — partially the reason he throws so few INTs. But, mostly, it’s because he’s incredibly smart and rarely makes stupid throws.