Re: "to be liked is a choice"

["Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>]

Alex,

What you say is fair enough. I certainly don't endorse twisting the truth
simply because someone may have a history of manipulation. I don't think
anything I wrote could be construed in this way. There is nothing wrong in
pointing out how paranoia, whatever it's source, can cloud our judgment. IF
the discussion remained at this level, I don't think I would have felt a
need to jump in.

But it was not me but Jim who upped the stakes. He went from disputing the
interpretation of a particular set of statements to claiming that
dissatisfaction or distrust of Pitino was rooted in dislike (and then -
comically - he followed it up by spinning a scenario that was even more
Machiavellian than what he was contesting with Joe!).

When you wrote your post saying that you agreed with Jim "absolutely" I
took you at your word and assumed that you agreed with the substantive
thrust of his post, which as I read it went far beyond disputing the
particulars of the role of the staff. Instead Jim blatantly asserted that
people who criticize Pitino do so simply because they don't like him.
Pretty inflammatory, but there it is - re-read it yourself. 

Perhaps YOU were responding specifically to Joe's criticism, but given your
enthusiastic endorsement of what Jim had to say it didn't come across that
way. As far as your comments regarding the drafting of Pierce, I stand
corrected - you are correct, they have been a basis for criticism. All I
can say is that I get the digest and hadn't received Kestutis' comments
when I responded. 

But on the larger issue raised by Jim and (so I thought) heartily endorsed
by you - that people criticize Pitino simply because they don't like him -
I think my points remain valid. Pitino has a history of being pretty
slippery and as a consequence people get into the habit of second-guessing
what he "really means" by his statements and actions. This has nothing to
do with dislike, it has everything to do with how Pitino presents himself
publicly (FWIW I agree with Kestutis in that I don't have any personal
grudge against the man). Jim himself spun a scenario that was even more
crack-brained than the one originally under dispute - but I guess that's
okay because he doesn't "dislike" Pitino? 

Under the circumstances (fostered by Pitino's slipperiness) - people are
going to disagree about what Pitino "really means", not just about his
staff, but about all sorts of things. That doesn't necessarily mean that
one faction is driven by dislike, it just means that the guy is so damn
slippery that it is hard to tell what is going on. How about another
example: Danny Fortson's role on the team. In this particular instance
there was a difference of opinion on the list about what Pitino intended
for Fortson after he came off the injury list. Pitino SAID that Fortson was
only out of shape, needed to learn the plays, was going to be eased back in
etc. and a lot of people - yourself included - assured the rest of us that
was exactly what was going on. Of course, we now KNOW that this was not
true - but at the time those of us who followed Joe's lead in questioning
Pitino were no doubt perceived as being "unfair" to Pitino. 

Regarding Fortson, I could say "you want to tell me who looks lame now?"
but that would miss the larger point - when it comes to Pitino it is hard
to know because he has deliberately made it hard to know. You can't trust
him, so we end up arguing over whether a criticism is fair or not - which
is okay by me - until it gets personal and devolves into "you're only
saying this because you don't like him" - which is not okay in my book.
Some of us will be right sometimes and some other times, but I don't think
ANY of us has Pitino completely figured out (himself included). So please,
argue about what Pitino's words or actions may mean, but don't turn this
into a "for or agin" kind of thing - that way lies a swamp. You may be
correct, Kestutis may be, Joe may be, but only time will tell for sure.
Sure, let's try and make informed estimates and argue about which is better
informed, but let's NOT start slurring one side or another by questioning
their motives. I'd like to think that kind of ad hominem is beneath us
(hence my original post). Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now ;)

Peace - TomM

----------
> From: Alex Wang <awang@MIT.EDU>
> To: Thomas Murphy <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>; celtics@igtc.com
> Subject: Re: "to be liked is a choice" 
> Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 9:15 PM
> 
> Tom,
> 
> Jim's original objection was to Joe's contention that Pitino was 
> distorting reality and shifting blame when he talked about Chris
> Wallace and "his staff" instead of "my staff". I agreed with Jim
> and added the example about Pierce. At no point did I ever say,
> "This clears Pitino's reputation," as you seem to believe I was
> trying to do. I just put up an example where Pitino gets unfairly
> bashed. And if you don't believe it happens, go back and re-read
> Kestas' response to my post, which was exactly the type of thing
> I was referring to. No, it wasn't "tongue-in-cheek".
> 
> Jim and I were solely referring to Pitino's comments regarding
> his staff and how they are being unfairly (in my opinion) twisted
> to put him in a further negative light. What you seem to be 
> saying below is, Pitino has a history of "manipulations", so
> people are justified in reading whatever meaning they want from
> his words, regardless of whether there's any truth to it. 
> Personally, I think this defense of the "irrational anti-Pitino" 
> is pretty lame, as is saying that Jim and I are on a "high horse"
> for responding to certain unfair, or at least dubious, criticisms
> of Pitino.
> 
> Alex
> 
> > Alex, with all due respect, I have a hard time believing that Pitino's
> > problems with his reputation really stem from the few instances in
which he
> > has sought to include his staff in a public discussion of the team's
> > decision process. I don't remember him taking heat over the Pierce
> > selection, and if such a remark was made I have a hard time believing
that
> > it wasn't meant tongue-in-cheek. You've made valuable contributions to
this
> > debate in the past, for example pointing out the contradiction of
> > criticizing the players he has assembled and his coaching of them (if
the
> > former is bad, then how can you assess the latter) but this latest
defense
> > of Pitino is pretty lame. 
> >
> > If the ONLY thing that Pitino's critics in the press and on this list
had
> > to point to were his statements regarding his staff, then you'd have a
> > case, but I hardly think that is the situation. The reason that
Pitino's
> > credibility is SO eroded (to the point that people could even start to
> > believe that references to his staff might be an attempt to shift blame
OR
> > that people could even start to believe Pitino might attempt to concoct
a
> > phony trade to motivate Fortson/depress his market value) is due to a
> > history of three years of attempted manipulations large and small. It
is
> > the accumulation of Pitino's own past statements and actions that have
led
> > to this state of affairs, not a dislike of Rick that has led us to read
> > every little thing he says five different ways (except in the case of
Peter
> > May ;) 
>