Re: No more excuses

[bird <birdw@xxxxxxx>]

> From :Eggcentric@xxxxxxx
> I would just
> love to meet you and ask in person why you remain so as one with
> Wallace, Papile, and Obie, while focusing 100% of your BT anger on
> Gaston.
Is this the problem?  You think I'm "at one with" (whatever that means) 
these guys?  Let me try to be clear once more: I only think that people 
focus all their vehemence on these guys and turn them into demons 
sometimes.  Inaccurately.  At least possibly.  And they also think they 
know what's going to happen in the future, and of course they can't.

Wallace would have to have the Baker deal work out in order to even be 
considered mediocre by me.  Papile may know AAU, but has shown little 
other than an ability to throw softballs for others (like Kestas's very 
funny transcript) as fodder.  Obie's main virtue is that he's not Rick 
Pitino, and had some success, as well.  His wacky tactics and weird 
substitution patterns, not to mention his lack of offense, and 
inability to develop younger players, make him a mixed blessing, as 
well.  He's got the team playing over .500 and that's something, but of 
course, one always wonders how well the team could be with a actual 
offense.

The real problem may be that there's no good communication between 
Wallace and Obie.  Wallace doesn't get guys Obie wants to play.  Obie 
doesn't play the guys Wallace gets.  Well, that's not good enough.  The 
coach and GM are supposed to be on the same page.

The real problem here might be that some people continually 
characterize those with a reasonable opinion of these guys as "not 
getting it" or "not thinking critically" or as defending these guys' 
track record.  To me, that's extreme, the way some people express it.  
Of course, there are those who express their opinions in a less extreme 
way.  But, the opposite of the extreme positions here do not have to be 
that Wallace, Obie and Papile are doing a good job and deserve a pat on 
the back, but that perhaps they are not the cause of all the world's 
ills, either.  I'm going to challenge those who think critical thinking 
is jumping on a bandwagon with people who think they know the future.  
Critical thinking is thinking for one's self, and that's what I'm 
doing.  Critical thinking and large, blanket statements do not mix well.

As for Paul Gaston, I think I've explained this before, too, but 
simply: if he would have spent the money to bring Rodney Rogers and 
Strick, we wouldn't be in this situation.  Other people have their 
axes, and I have mine.

> Like what does your clever  "Paul Gaston delenda est "
> mean ... scapegoat in Bantu?
Latin.  Ah, the wonders of a classical education.  Before the Third 
Punic War between Rome and Carthage, a Roman senator named Cato so 
desired war with the Phoenicians that he ended every speech he gave the 
Senate with "ceterum censeo delendam esse Carthaginem" (or, "Besides 
which, my opinion is that Carthage must be destroyed").  Basically, the 
Senate couldn't resist this Jedi-mind-trick-like tactic and invaded.  
They burned Carthage down, killed or sold into slavery her populace, 
cursed the land, and the story goes that they salted the earth so that 
nothing would ever grow there again, though that may be mythical.  
That's Romans for you.

There are those on this list for whom every scapegoat is the "BDT".  
They will never do any right, by definition what they do is wrong, and 
no matter the bad effect, the cause must be the "BDT".  Cato would be 
very proud.

Oh, and I also think that Paul Gaston should be destroyed.

Bird