(Poll)The weekly Jim Thomas NFL chat

[Prime Time]

I spend around 30 to 40 minutes every Tuesday wading through what is mostly snarky questions and answers, selecting the ones I can stomach and then posting it. On today's chat I noticed a majority of members are sick of it. I'm fine with not posting it any longer. What say you?

 

[Dodgersrf]

I've always enjoyed them.

 

[OldSchool]

Link away to your hearts desire. I'm not going to pay attention but that doesn't mean others should be deprived of the wonderful questions JT answers.

 

[JackDRams]

It's mostly questions from hurt St.Louis ex fans (some, not all mind you) wishing doom on the Rams. I'm not seeing the value now.

 

[PhillyRam]

Does he really gave any insight on the Rams anymore? It was debatable if had any prior to the move, but I can't see how he does at this point. You find better and more accurate commentary from many posters on this board.

 

[bubbaramfan]

Not interested anymore.

 

[tavian]

I'm not a fan of Balzer "in his mouth" and Bernie "the hut". So, not sure I'm interested in the snarky chats if that's what they will be.

 

[Ram65]

The first two and I was out. I normally read all that is posted.

Hell no!

 

[Faceplant]

Wish I had read the current one before voting yes. Fuck Thomas and his whiny bitch ass rhetoric. I won't read another word from him after that piece of shit chat...

 

[Orchid]

Define snarky.

 

[Mackeyser]

I would have said yes before this past week. I don't see him as being a positive contribution.

 

[Prime Time]

Wish I had read the current one before voting yes. freak Thomas and his whiny bitch ass rhetoric. I won't read another word from him after that piece of crap chat...

The poll is set up so you can change your vote.

Define snarky.

(of a person, words, or a mood) sharply critical; cutting; snide, cranky; irritable, sarcastic.

Yep, that about covers it.

 

[Memento]

Hell no is my answer. I literally didn't read past the first question.

 

[Selassie I]

Thanks for the warning. I won't be reading this one.

 

[den-the-coach]

I always felt Thomas kept it professional with the exception of Fisher telling him that the Rams were not trading Sam Bradford. I understand some did not like him, but had opportunties to converse with Thomas when I was in St. Louis and he was always cordial and IMO, kept things on the up and up...So until a Los Angeles reporter is dialed in better I'm for keeping them posted.

 

[CGI_Ram]

I enjoy them. It's a source of interest for me from the perspective he brings. Doesn't mean I always agree with him.

We need to keep things in perspective. Anyone think the LA media was all roses covering the team in 1995?

Please! Enough.

 

[shovelpass]

I enjoy it, and appreciate your efforts. But yes, as of late it's been somewhat negative and onesided.

 

[kurtfaulk]

I spend around 30 to 40 minutes every Tuesday wading through what is mostly snarky questions and answers, selecting the ones I can stomach and then posting it. On today's chat I noticed a majority of members are sick of it. I'm fine with not posting it any longer. What say you?

the question is, do you want those 30 to 40 minutes back in your life every tuesday? it's alot of time to spend on questionable questions and answers.

.

 

[Prime Time]

the question is, do you want those 30 to 40 minutes back in your life every tuesday? it's alot of time to spend on questionable questions and answers.
.

Instead I could spend that time more fruitfully by annoying my fellow mods and admins even more than I do already.

 

[bwdenverram]

As much as I love to hear news of our team, I'm just tired of Thomas and Wagoner at this point. Hope to get some decent new LA coverage going.