Re: Majordomo results

["Greg Odegaard" <grodeg@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I got one simple question, how the hell did this private email to no more
than a dozen good folks get to Egg and then now onto the list?  If there is
anything that warrants a zero tolerance rule is posting private emails on
any list PERIOD Maybe worse yet is cutting and pasting things from another
list to serve some stunted agenda, however your argument might be or not.

Someone clearly had to send it to Egg unless he/she is exists under an
assumed name elsewhere as well, and then sending this on this list in
inexcusable.

Reap what you sow, and respect the privacy of others.

Disgusting,
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: <Eggcentric@AOL.com>
To: <hironaka@nomade.fr>; <birdw@mac.com>; <Celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: Majordomo results


> Farewell, dear Hironaka and Bird.  But just remember, although you are
> not allowed to murder a woman who has injured you, nothing forbids
> you to reflect that she is growing older each minute.  See, you are
> avenged 1440 times a day.
>
> That's the short response. Now here is the long response for those who
> have the patience to sift through Jung's psychological profile of a real
> Celt fan.
>
> Back around Feb. 21-25, Joe H., you received lots of heat on your views
> concerning the Baker trade as not being costly to us at all as some
> were claiming.  Two of these responses via Tom Murphy were damn
> near brilliant.  You also received some heat about your claim that our
> poor FA signings were solely the work of Gastonomics rather than
> of Wallacetupidity.
>
> Fine - isn't that the idealized version of the raison dbetre of such a
> hobby list? Is not their purpose to stimulate our interest in a favorite
> subject, to learn from others, to voice our opinions, to debate our
> differences, and to maybe have a little fun along the way?  Well I guess
> according to the Bible of Joe. H., it is not.  Because it turns out that
the
> egos of the  "I am the MOSTEST loyalist Celt fan in the WHOLE WORLD
> and you bad guy naysayers aren't real fans "  have the need to constantly
> reinforce and articulate their position, downing those who dissent.
> And like elephants and idols, when the real battle begins, suddenly these
> mostest bestest Celt fans have feet of clay.
>
> I am very disappointed in you, Joe H.  I enjoyed your energy, enthusiasm,
> research, simplicity, and abject Celt loyalty.  It was all good and it was
> all positive.  But then I disagreed with your blaming Gaston 100% and
> Wallace 0% for our particular FA signings and mentioned that you bled
> green.  Now that's a big revelation, n'est ce pas?  I mean, so what ... it
> isn't like you were called a serial killer, so why suddenly tuck tail and
> leave the igtc list in a snit over such a simple difference of opinion?
>
> You and Bird and his dissed WayRay, Dorant, Jaims, op-ed specialists
> Berry, Kestas, Tom Murphy, Josh, Tyler, Hill, NCAA specialist Tammo,
> ace contributors Cecil, Douglas, Snoopy, Jessen and so many more
> are all part of the colorful tapestry that makes for an interesting
> igtc list. Really, the more flavors in the mix, the tastier the stew.
> We may fight each other on certain issues, but in the end, we need each
> other to stimulate our participation.
>
> No question, Hironaka, I do bemoan the following which you included
> yesterday on the Yahoo board in your repeat post concerning Baker's
> contract actually serving as a plus for our team.  I certainly never
> intended in my post of 2/22 to drive you to such depths.
>
> < The last time I sent a post like this, it got me more
> trouble than it was worth on another mailing list.
> Someone named "Eggcentric" wrote a silly and badly
> worded/written post (calling me a secret Chris Wallace
> fan etc.), and that was enough to make me unsubscribe
> from the IGTC Celtics list for good rather than bother
> replying. > - Joe H.
>
> May your life never be more troubled. I will reprint said dreaded Egg
> reply below and question just why you were reduced to tears over it.
> If it is due to the Wallace remark, please note that after claiming you
> were not defending Wallace, you couldn't resist but to place him
> among the most recent top five NBA GM's in the very next paragraph.
>
> You know what I really think, Joe - that you are too nice for such
> brash give and take, and that you should stick to Bball and not to the
> finances of our team. Your theory expressed yesterday was that the
> Baker trade is actually good for our team since we are now so far
> over the lux. tax that it's no prob now for us to just spend millions
more.
> You must be a whiz with your credit cards, Joe, like   "Hey I now owe
> $10.000, so why not make it $20,000. "
>
> Meanwhile, your pal Bird (did he just leave the igtc list or was he
> thrown off - it's unclear as his email to you states both) bemoans
> the good old days of the brilliant igtc posters.  With the little I know
> of Bird, I can only assume that these posters were in full agreement
> with his views thereby stroking his ego.  I love Bird's line,  "Allow the
> man making a "grand" exit to speak plainly and without style for once. "
> May I politely insert that I never felt this cynical, defensive, troubled,
> grouchy critter EVER had style?
>
> And then there is his "Eggcentric" a "person" who does not even have the
> common courtesy to leave a recognizable name to her/his/its missives.
> Truly, no finer example of courage exists. "
>
> I can only say that I am not a his or an it, and I see nothing wrong with
> signing my contributions via screename (even alternate screenames?),
> not via birth name.  Although, as I think back, I actually have at times
> signed Brenda (big deal - who cares) and once even stupidly listed the
> website to our hotel.
>
> You two, Joe H. and Bird, you come off as humorless little sore sports -
> boys in a big man's world. If you can't take the heat, step out of the
> sandbox.
>
> Egg
>
> ------------
> Re: Post West coast trip notes (Feb. 22)
>
> < That's fine because I don't dispute your conclusion, but
> Egg we are playing around a bit with numbers here. > -Joe
>
> Yes, we are.  And the reason is that while I am making reference
> to Wallace screwing up big time on the minimum signings
> that he WAS allowed, you are making reference to the broader
> picture of what Wallace WAS NOT allowed -  the budget of a
> Sacramento to sign a $4.6 million Keon Clark or a $2.7 mill
> Bobby Jackson.
>
> Repeat: No one is blaming Wallace for not doing what he
> was not allowed to do - only for how he handled what he was
> allowed to do.
>
> < The only three names I mentioned (Bobby and Jim Jackson
> plus Keon Clark) are as you realize on Sacramento's books
> for over 8 million dollars this season, while the four
> you name in return (Wolko, Sundov, Bremer, Waltah etc)
> make around 1/4 of that combined and drew zero interest
> from other teams. Not fair, Egg! > - Joe
>
> It's perfectly fair. You listed Jimmy Jackson as a player who
> we could have had under different ownership.  I pointed out
> that Wallace could have signed Jimmy (and listed several other
> decent FA's as well) for the minimum instead of Sundov,
> Wolko, etc.
>
> < If you like, all of this still might well be a matter of
> Chris Wallace's "abject stupidity", but budget was a
> factor as well. >
>
> Threepeat: Budget was not a factor concerning the four FA's
> Wallace was allowed to sign.  His  "abject stupidity " was in
> WHO he chose to sign.
>
> < You can take the one-size-fits-all approach to the NBA
> minimum, but the richest of the four contracts Boston
> paid this summer (Waltah) was actually 100k less than
> what Jim Jackson got, hence around 1/6th of Sacramento's
> other critical summer signing (Keon Clark) or "Mini Me"
> for that matter. > -Joe H.
>
> See above.
>
> < You should not imply that Chris Wallace had roughly the
> same pool of money as everyone else, and somehow chose
> Wolko over Keon Clark. >
> No no no no no = I did not imply that. I talked oranges for
> oranges, restricting my remarks to vet. min. contracts vs.
> vet. min. contracts.  Aha, Joe H., I hereby accuse you of the
> one introducing and implying apples ($5 mill contracts) for
> oranges ( minimum contracts).  Your penalty: For a period of
> fourteen days, you will wear a Detroit Piston sweatshirt
> and cap while viewing all Celt televised games.
>
> < This is a GM who felt compelled to salary dump their summer
> star Joe Forte just because he made all of 1 million dollars.
> He's a guy who reportedly offered Rodney Rogers only one
> million dollars.> - Joe H.
>
> Joe, I bet my husband could still be a summer star capable of
> attracting Papile's discriminating eye in the prove-nothing
> summer league.  Forte was thrown into the Baker deal to make
> the math work,  but also because he is an internationally known
> pain in the ass - a mouth with an attitude larger than his talent.
> He will be out of the NBA sooner than later.
>
> Yes, the insulting Rogers offer was solely due to Gaston not
> wanting to exceed the luxury tax threshold.  But how did Wallace
> handle that budgetary challenge ... by clever trades or signings,
> no.  By adding Sundov, Wolko, and Baker, yes.  Arggggg.  Bring
> me a cookie and a sip of brisk tea.
>
> < I think the best thing to do is fire Chris Wallace. The
> substitution patterns on Vin and Kedrick, plus Obie
> support for the Blount do-over trade, suggest that the
> coaching staff is working at odds with the GM. > - Joe H.
>
> True, but then why not fire O'Brien, too? After all, he hasn't
> exactly been an innocent bystander in all of this.  Lots of
> blame to go around here.
>
> < I'm not defending Chris Wallace. > - Joe H.
>
> Then I am not exactly sure what you are doing or even
> now why I am submitting this.  Holy cow.
>
> < But I do think Chris Wallace has as much of a leg to
> stand on as most GMs. I can imagine the bullet points on
> his c.v. and its really not that bad. We're talking maybe
> top five for GM of the year last year, and ECF in his
> first full year as GM. > -Joe H.
>
> I admire your loyalty, Joe. Talk about bleeding green.
> Wallace is a perpetual caricature of himself, a mockery
> and contradiction of what he pretends to be and what
> fans like yourself think/want him to be.  We are all his
> victims.
>
> <I hope we can come up with someone better. > - Joe H.
>
> Me too.
>
> < I really think the sky's the limit on this team, once the
> owners change their mindset on the luxury tax. > - Joe H.
>
> Miracles are propitious accidents.
>
> Egg