Re: There's no reasoning with you Cecil and Noah

[Ryan Lee <rlee_at_channing@yahoo.com>]

I ramble?  You've written some rather lengthy boring 
dissertations in the past that could fill up a
library.

None of my posts are objective?  So I guess my
description of the Washington game was rather one
sided and subjective huh?  Yeah I really trashed Toine
in that post by saying it was his best game ever.  Or
maybe I wasn't giving the Washington players enough
credit because I was so one tracked.  I mean Laetner
did light us up for 30.   

  Most of my Walker posts haven't been based on just
one game.  I didn't just wake up one day and decide to
dislike the guy.  I watched his game stagnate for 5
years so excuse me if I have to vent.  Noah, you being
a "reasonable" person can just look at the rest of the
league.  Every other teams star player does what
they're supposed to do.  
Abdur Raheem stays on the blocks and gets rebounds. 
Garnett keeps his game inside the 3 point line.  As
does Duncan and Webber.  I'm sure all of these
mentioned players can hit the 3 BUT YOU DON'T SEE THEM
TAKING 3s.  They play to their strengths and because
of that they are all-stars.  So be objective Noah and
tell me why Toine is not in that same class.

Furthermore if you would actually read the posts in
its entirety instead of going off on small bits of it,
you would see I do explain myself and not just spit
out random subjective statements.  For instance,
Walker is stupid.  I didn't just say he was stupid.  I
said he was stupid because he doesn't make the best of
his skills.  He uses his speed to draw defenders but
doesn't kick the ball out.  He takes way too many 3s
when he being the best rebounder should be in the
blocks.  Now how stupid is that? Noah do you happen to
read only the first sentence of every paragraph?  Is
that why you don't catch my drift?  I mean if you're
only reading every other sentence of mine, I can see
how I don't make sense.  

Another thing, every time we've traded messages, you
seem to include the entire list.  Is this some kind of
ego thing to prove that you are smartest one here?  If
this is a pissing match, then you win.  I don't have
the time or the patience to argue stupid issues.  And
another thing, why do half you people (YOU and CECIL
especially) mention list member's names.  I'm here
minding my own business and you two are dropping names
(specifically mine) left and right.  All I did was
post about the Washington game where I even said good
things about Toine and Cecil is talking trash about
other list members.  What gives guys?  Are you two the
owners of this list?  What, if anyone trashes your
idol Antoine Walker, you regulate the list by starting
flaming threads that last for several digests?  The
funny thing was that in my initial post about the
Washington game, I didn't even trash Walker but yet
you guys are on my case.  Why don't you guys make
opinions on players and not on members of the list? 
Or if you have something to say to a member
specifically, stop including the entire list so that
some of us can read about Celtic issues and not about
your stupid ego trips.

R


  

--- Noah Evans <ishbak@forest.cwru.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 09:30:39AM -0800, Ryan Lee
> wrote:
> 
> >I may namecall on Walker but at least I
> > have some sound logic to backup what I say.  
> 
> The reason people take issue with your views is that
> you don't base
> your arguments on objective criteria.
> 
> Most of your arguments against Walker's ability as a
> player amount to
> amateur psychology about Walker's (lack of)
> intelligence and evil
> intent.
> 
> If people disagree with you, you don't argue against
> their points you
> argue against the individual. Since most of your
> arguments come from
> subjective impressions(Walker's game is ugly, Walker
> is stupid, Walker
> is evil) you argue against other people by
> questioning their
> intelligence. Anyone who disagrees with you must
> have "never played
> basketball" or "never seen a game".
> 
> Also (this is unfair but might be worth mentioning)
> your posts are
> usually one long rambling paragraph. This makes your
> arguments seem
> like a stream of consciousness diatribe.
> 
> If you want people to take your views seriously
> present your views in
> a more rational way.
> 
> If you'd like to make subjective arguments about
> Walker's abilities,
> develop those arguments rather than just presenting
> them as a one
> sentence assertion(i.e. "Walker's game is ugly, if
> you watched a game
> you'd know"). 
> 
> Noah
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com