Raz

From my dead-on chatGPT query, this is my AI generated response to your "smack talk" claim. (me) this poster falsely accused me of using AI to "produce smack talk" in an internet forum. Provide me with a pithy yet pointed response to defend my honor. ChatGPT said: "Accusing me of using AI for smack talk? Clearly, my wit is all-natural, and you’ve just been outplayed!"

ChatGPT (AI) provided the following response to my request to analyze you from the above post. Except for the estimate of your education level (which must be H.S. at best) no doubt ChatGPT hit a bullseye. *** (ME) "Analyze and respond about the intelligence, educational level, emotional maturity and mindset of the person who wrote the following: 'So I agree with you and you write this bullshit? WOW. Talk about brainless. "YOU were the one whining about the officials here so unless you are referring to yourself then just STFU' " The person who wrote the message you provided appears to be expressing frustration and disapproval in a rather blunt and confrontational manner. Here's an analysis of the various aspects you mentioned: Intelligence: The intelligence of the writer is difficult to assess directly from this message alone. However, their choice of language and approach might suggest a more emotional or instinctive response rather than a reasoned, intellectual one. The use of derogatory terms like "bullshit" and "brainless" indicates a lack of effort to engage in a constructive or nuanced discussion. Educational Level: The message doesn’t provide explicit clues about the writer’s educational background. However, the informal and aggressive tone, along with the use of slang and profanity, might suggest that their communication style leans towards a more casual or unrefined mode of expression. This might not necessarily correlate directly with their educational level but does suggest a certain informality in their approach to discourse. Emotional Maturity: The writer’s emotional maturity seems to be on the lower side, as evidenced by their use of strong language and personal attacks rather than reasoned argument or constructive criticism. The use of terms like "brainless" and "STFU" (shut the f*** up) indicates a tendency towards emotional outbursts rather than thoughtful engagement. Mindset: The mindset of the writer appears to be defensive and confrontational. They seem to be reacting with frustration and hostility, possibly because they feel personally attacked or disagree strongly with the content of the message they are responding to. This approach suggests a mindset that favors direct confrontation over dialogue or understanding. Overall, the writer’s response indicates a high level of emotional reactivity and a low inclination towards constructive communication. This style of response can often hinder productive discussions and conflict resolution.

The beat goes on. Same tired excuse, blame the officials for a Bronco loss. We wuz robbed!

Nobody? "Refs swallowed their whistle. Allowing clear PI as the ball is in the air. Going to be a tough out Boise. Playing against 11+ Refs in that stadium."

Some things never change like blaming refs for our losses. The Broncs lost by our defense giving up big plays all night. Including a kickoff and punt return for touchdowns plus three different scoring drives of five plays or fewer. Oregon outplayed us when it counted.

If halfmanhalfbronco is gone, one of the best "addition by subtraction" examples in history.

I have had three active alts on this MWC board over the past 12 years with plenty of lively fun give-and-takes over thousands of threads. Sadly one of the big nails in the MWC coffin is driven by a couple of our no-op brain-dead drunk-with-power admins. Post something contrary to their the world-is-flat prospective and their response is vicious ad hominem attacks. For example: You are a racist. Jeffkills: thank you for keeping this board on life-support. You deserve better. That said nothing would be sweeter than a Bronco victory over the hated Oregon Ducks. Go Broncos!

Dicky was a major upgrade from Mean Gene.

BINGO!

Good insights. Utah, Colorado and the ASU and Zona are prime candidates to return to a reformed PAC.

This shot-gun marriage with the MWC simply buys Washington State and Oregon State time to figure out what’s next. That is it. Most likely outcome? Washington State and Oregon State along with Clemson and Florida State plus BiG members like Northwestern and Purdue along with Cal and Stanford reform the PAC. This makes for a solid foundation. Too bad the $10M poison pill exists for worthy MWC teams. Without it SDSU and UNLV and Fresno would run to join the PAC. But 2027, when the $10M buyout term expires, comes soon enough.

Give Jeff a break... he is an attorney.

More than only good travel destinations. Imagine either playing top-tier teams as a member of a P5 conference, year-in and year-out. Teams like Oregon, Alabama, Texas, Penn State and Clemson. Now consider fielding a competitive team and beating one of these name-brands. The eyeballs in SC and Vegas will follow success. Just as they did with the Knights. Beating MWC no-bodies brings no tangible results. Competition against marquise teams brings eyeballs ($$$). Vegas and San Diego are rich targets for that haves.

You point is well taken. I hold your school Wyoming in high-esteem. The Wyoming problem is their minuscule eye-ball market-place. BTW as a Foster graduate I need not attend any more classes unless as a guest lecturer.

Josh Allen is A#1 stud superstar. The rest? naw