Re: [Celtics' Stuff ] Re: Bucks game #2

[CeltsSteve@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 12/1/03 7:56:08 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
Eggcentric@xxxxxxx writes:



> Lappy, it isn't about Pierce, it's all about Walker.  


Why is it anytime a criticism is leveled at Pierce, you are quick to bring 
Walker's name into the discussion? Is that because you can't argue with the 
criticism so instead you attack the messenger because you don't like the message?




> Alas all ye poor misled fans who had the audacity to disagree with this 
> churlish and proud


Would you expect anything less from a Neanderthal?

 

> ''I am never wrong'' poster over Walker's value
> 

'Tis far nobler to only be occasionally wrong than to be only occasionally 
right. You of all people can no doubt relate from whence I speak, huh?




> The obsessive criticism of ''St. Paul'' and his every move continues. Even 
> when achieving a triple-double, his TO's must still be mentioned.


Help me out here. Was that the game I said he turned in a "splendid 
performance"?  Or was that the game I said Pierce put on a "scintillating performance"?


  
> Added to the ongoing personal attacks on those who have dared to be Pierce 
> fans, it all smacks of childish retribution... 


Is 'childish retribution' synonymous with your use of "churlish" or 
"Neanderthal" or both?




> rampant LANCE-ism. - Egg


Actually, you might want to take a hard look at that duplicitous face staring 
back at you in the mirror. It's more like rampant CRhoads-ism. 

Not to bore those of you at home, but the Cliff notes explanation of that 
comment is that CRhoads was a fanatical Pierce poster that Egg befriended, 
embraced, and encouraged and who like a high school science lab project gone awry, 
wreaked havoc on an old AOL board; eventually leading to it's demise. I realize 
what happened on an old AOL board is not relevant here to this list but the 
Lance-ism crack merited a response


> ''As it relates to a ton of undeserved criticism, he (Pierce) receives no 
> more than what another former captain used to receive. I think the fact that 
> said former captain used to receive the brunt of all criticism when the team 
> won and Pierce received all the praise when the team won and thus hearing ANY 
> criticism now of Pierce seems completely foreign to some and even excessive 
> or undeserved to others.''
> -CeltsSteve


Well done! I'm glad to know you hang on every word I write and read my posts 
from other boards. But your point is?????  As I said previously, is it because 
you can't argue with the criticism you instead choose to attack the messenger 
because you don't like the message?

                
    
CeltsSteve