Re: Sanity

[Kestas <Kestutis.Kveraga@Dartmouth.EDU>]

At 23:18 3/5/00 -0400, you wrote:
>You are so full of yourself.  You made points which I challenged.  

I'm not full of myself. It's just that when you dismiss anything I say with
a "they just matured, what's so hard to understand?", and chastise me for
not supplying Shaq's family history along with his quote about Jackson, I
know it's just become a game to you. 

>That's
>all.  I neve said Jackson, or Riley were NOT good coaches.  

You just assigned all the credit for the successes of their teams to the
sudden maturation and talent of  their players. 

>I merely opposed
>your assertion that a former coach/Celtic would be in a better position to
>coach this team other than Pitino.  I made valid points without pulling
>quotes out of the paper or NBA.com.  

Are you implying that providing supporting evidence from one's claims is
undesirable?
I guess from your vantage point it may well be. 

>The fact of the matter is that the
>Bulls, for the most part, WERE allowed to stay together and mature as a
>team.  There was some tinkering but the nucleus co-existed.  Jackson had a
>lot to do with it as coach 

There we go, finally. Q.E.D.

> and so did their goofball owner who shelled out
>big bucks in order to maintain the unit.  However, a man you mentioned,
>Horace Grant, left them and didn't have the most kind things to say about
>Jackson.  I didn't see those quotes though.

I was not aware of them. 

>I thought Darrell Armstrong was their leading scorer?  

No, Mercer is.
 
>The Celtics play hard
>most of the time.  They do NOT play intelligently all of the time though.
>Same as the old Bulls.  All good teams need some time to mesh, which seems
>to be a point that you either don't like or refuse to accept.

I both like it and accept. However, the meshing process would be greatly
facilitated by not having someone at the helm who trades players early and
often.  

>have big expectations.  But since you have such a haughty opinion of
>yourself, what do you think my answer to that one would be?

Well, I don't think it was very hard at all  to anticipate the answer, if
your previous posts in this thread are any indication. But I brought it up
solely in response to your dig about Doc Rivers, as if his losing today
invalidates my statements about him in any way. 

>Oh that's right, you're not continuing this "debate" as you call it, because
>I'm grasping at straws, according to you.  There's no chance that you could
>be wrong is there?  

There's always a chance, especially when you're talking basketball. 

>I could merely be treating you like you treated Alex.
>Must be nice.

How did I treat Alex? He had an issue with my comments, I explained why I
said what I said several different ways in 3 or 4 posts, yet he kept at it
-  which got really old after a while. I didn't think he had any business
scolding me like this since he had done exactly the same thing with "Pitino
bashers" around the same time, only somewhat more politely. And my comments
were nothing compared to the way he dressed down a list member who had
challenged him on his knowledge of statistics a while back.  I respect and
value his contributions to this list, but this was just over the top.