What's good for the goose. . .

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

Jim,

Let me clarify: there is nothing unfair or cheap about disagreeing with
someone.

There IS something annoying about someone who feels:
a) that they must belittle another person's reasoning or arguments (as
incoherent or ridiculous) in order to disagree with them, and/or
b) planting little "innuendoes" implying other "real reasons" that must lay
behind another's "ridiculous " reasons.

That's what I object to, and that is why I was "whining" - to bring such
instances to your attention. It seems instead that you'd rather do the
passive/aggressive "duck and cover" and pretend you were "only" disagreeing.

If you had simply and reasonably disagreed (as you do below) I'd certainly
have no reason to "whine". After all, there are many reasonable objections
one can raise - as Joe and Josh have shown. I take issue not with what you
"meant to say" as much as how you said it. The tone and wording of your
original post pretty much spoke for itself - you were uncharitable,
denigrating, and implied a "hidden agenda". That's what I echoed in the tone
of my reply.

But I don't take it personal either, Jim, because I've seen you do it to
others.

If they disagree with you, it can't because they simply see the facts
differently. No - you've got to personalize it because they are just reeealy
stooopid and/or have a secret agenda that only you can sniff out (hating
Pitino, Walker etc.). Whatever - you're entitled to your opinions. But I can
be just as uncharitable as you can. So let's stop the silliness and simply
respect other's opinions even if we don't agree. Truce?

-TomM

> Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 19:48:25 PDT
> From: "Jim Meninno" <jim_meninno@hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: Houston, do we have a problem?
>
> >"Thomas Murphy" whined:
>
> >That's a pretty cheap shot (actually, several in succession).
> >I really don't think you're being very fair here (yet again). That's a
> >pretty low blow! ;?)
> >...someone who just finished taking me to task...
>
> Is this really necessary, Tom? I don't see why it is so "cheap" or
"unfair"
> to disagree with someone.
>
> I'll explain the comments about Pierce, because I think you truly didn't
> understand.  My contention is that single skill players are fine, and all
> good teams have them.  But to be truly successful you build around a
> versatile player.  If Antoine is traded, the closest thing they will have
is
> Paul Pierce.  I legitimately asked if your idea is to make it his team.  I
> have to say that your examples of Indiana and Philadelphia don't exactly
> thrill me.  Let's talk about teams that have at least been to the finals
> once.  And, I don't even consider Houston to be the equal of Miller (in
his
> prime) or Iverson.  I can't think of one championship team that didn't
have
> a core player who was better rounded than Allen Houston (I think that sums
> up what Joe was trying to say).  I understand your concerns about Antoine,
> as you so shrewdly pointed out it's not as if I consider him a lock to
make
> the Celtic's great.  But I believe it's at least possible that he might,
> whereas trading him for Allen Houston would mean mediocrity.  I'd rather
> continue to suck until we get the player that makes the Celtics great than
> fall into mediocrity.  They're already close to this happening, and the
move
> you propose would ensure it.  You're free to disagree with any of this, as
> I'm sure you will, and don't worry, I won't take it personally if you do
> (now I'm starting to sound like Dorine!).
>
> Jim