At 10:13 AM 10/27/02 -0500, Eggcentric@AOL.com wrote:
*Shrug* I didn't say her entire summary was patronizing and would have thought that was pretty clear in context. I intentionally put the comment right after the patronizing text, which was at the beginning of her post. 'Just get over it' is an emotionally charged phrase used to indicate that you think someone is acting immature and needs to stop fussing (just) and grow up enough to cope (get over it). It is given as an order, i.e. from a perceived superior position with a right (moral or otherwise) to do so, which is intended to emphasize the speaker's superior/more mature status. There are other, much less charged ways to just say that you think someone is wrong.> People are just going to have to get over turnovers. I've been arguing > this point for both Paul and Antoine for years. > -Tammo < Well no we're not just going to have to get over it (man, are you trying to be as infuriatingly patronizing as you can? why not do it to someone who's asked for it rather than JB), because it's a valid complaint where too many are his own fault and eminently correctable. You 'just have to get over' things that can't be helped or can't be fixed/changed. This isn't one of them.> - Kim Kim - Okay, only one egg remaining in my cupboard this AM so I will bite. Why do you feel that the Tammo summary was patronizing or a direct hit at JB?
Maybe it would help if you didn't assume people are talking from a warped, inherently one vs the other perspective. As to the Obie/Wallace 'assumption', I doubt if it's necessarily any such thing, whatever they say. I expect it's got a lot more publicly making the best of what they've got rather than doing a lot of pointless handwringing to the contrary. That seems to be the way they are as people (compare to Pitino if you doubt it) and makes sense to me as a policy, given the way everything they say gets over-analyzed to the point of nausea, usually as *proof* of whatever someone else already believes about them. They did TRY to go after Travis Best that we know of (and who else that we don't), so clearly they had some thought that a true PG would help. Besides, they're talking Walker as playmaker, which has been part of his role for a while, not Walker actually playing the PG. And he's hardly the first forward -here or elsewhere- to help as playmaker. Which IMO he is quite capable of.In all fairness, just maybe pro-Pierce and pro-Walker fans alike self-consciously expect too much from our only two decent players. The Obie/Wallace assumption that Walker is so versatile that he can easily cover for our lack of a point guard and still do his job as a PF - well that to me IS A LOT MORE PATRONIZING to us fans than the Tammo post.