Knicks · So What Do You Guys Think Of This? (page 2)
TeamBall wrote:Splat wrote:TeamBall wrote:Stupid documentary and really exposes the whole "my heart never wavered" thing with Melo. Definitely won't be watching this. That being said, we all knew the man wanted his money and this thread has "agenda" written all over it.Why do you say on the hand it exposes Melo's values, yet on the other hand you discount the thread as agenda driven?
This notion that threads that discuss a player's values as much as their BB strengths and weaknesses are agenda-driven and other threads are not agenda-driven doesn't compute.
Since when is having a bias prior to starting a thread a disqualification of the thread's value?
Just asking since your post was of two minds, so I found it odd.
Not referring to you, but I think anytime somebody bleats "Agenda" it is just as lame a debating mechanism as saying "Hater" or other labels meant to squash dissent against prevailing opinions. Now that the consensus has shifted due to the continued implosion of the club, that may change somewhat, but I don't understand why people think they come off as anything other then thick-headed when they say such things.
We all have predispositions when we start or post in a thread and should take that for granted without needing to reach for weak labels.
Per this thread, if Melo comes off looking one way or another due to the documentary, then discussing that is relevant, not comments on why a thread was started. If the thread had zero value, you could say so, but considering this is current events it is commenting on it has every right to exist as any other thread on the board.
(Again, just general thoughts, not being overly personal here).
If I discounted the thread, I probably wouldn't have responded to it. No offense man but thats the approach I took with your thread where Melo was talking about being more involved in media, a thread where you even admitted you started it to elicit reactions from certain people. My point in acknowledging the agenda was to kind of highlight how difficult it would be for an objective discussion in a thread originated in bias. I'm still willing to give it a chance though.
Absolutely, my agenda in starting that thread was up front, bold and centered. I wanted to elicit a response, i.e. "Can anyone defend the stuff this guy is saying?"
You know what? Nobody really could. Nobody stepped forward to say, "Yes, this is good what he is saying and here's why."
Instead, we got the haterz comments.
So I've seen the pattern. Haterz and agenda comments are often made when people don't want to deal with the points made by the person they are attacking. Classic attack the messenger, sidestep the message stuff.
Seems to me the only valid approach is to accept there are agendas and debate their points. Or don't. If people harp about agendas they just look incompetent and not up for the debate itself. I don't mind rabid disagreements. That's even fun sometimes. I just find the sidestepping labels truly lame.
gunsnewing wrote:What is a digital athlete?
Pre-season, when Melo was spewing about being a start-up venture fund capitalist, he said he wants to become recognized as "the first digital athlete" whatever TF that means.
It was just more verbal diarrhea out of the mouth of a rich idiot.
Splat wrote:gunsnewing wrote:What is a digital athlete?Pre-season, when Melo was spewing about being a start-up venture fund capitalist, he said he wants to become recognized as "the first digital athlete" whatever TF that means.
It was just more verbal diarrhea out of the mouth of a rich idiot.
Yea I know. I was just hoping to get someone who supports Melo's take on it. Someone who is not bias per say.
There are usually 2 sides to an argument. Unless one side shifts the focus elsewhere like Berman or whatever
Splat wrote:TeamBall wrote:Splat wrote:TeamBall wrote:Stupid documentary and really exposes the whole "my heart never wavered" thing with Melo. Definitely won't be watching this. That being said, we all knew the man wanted his money and this thread has "agenda" written all over it.Why do you say on the hand it exposes Melo's values, yet on the other hand you discount the thread as agenda driven?
This notion that threads that discuss a player's values as much as their BB strengths and weaknesses are agenda-driven and other threads are not agenda-driven doesn't compute.
Since when is having a bias prior to starting a thread a disqualification of the thread's value?
Just asking since your post was of two minds, so I found it odd.
Not referring to you, but I think anytime somebody bleats "Agenda" it is just as lame a debating mechanism as saying "Hater" or other labels meant to squash dissent against prevailing opinions. Now that the consensus has shifted due to the continued implosion of the club, that may change somewhat, but I don't understand why people think they come off as anything other then thick-headed when they say such things.
We all have predispositions when we start or post in a thread and should take that for granted without needing to reach for weak labels.
Per this thread, if Melo comes off looking one way or another due to the documentary, then discussing that is relevant, not comments on why a thread was started. If the thread had zero value, you could say so, but considering this is current events it is commenting on it has every right to exist as any other thread on the board.
(Again, just general thoughts, not being overly personal here).
If I discounted the thread, I probably wouldn't have responded to it. No offense man but thats the approach I took with your thread where Melo was talking about being more involved in media, a thread where you even admitted you started it to elicit reactions from certain people. My point in acknowledging the agenda was to kind of highlight how difficult it would be for an objective discussion in a thread originated in bias. I'm still willing to give it a chance though.Absolutely, my agenda in starting that thread was up front, bold and centered. I wanted to elicit a response, i.e. "Can anyone defend the stuff this guy is saying?"
You know what? Nobody really could. Nobody stepped forward to say, "Yes, this is good what he is saying and here's why."
Instead, we got the haterz comments.
So I've seen the pattern. Haterz and agenda comments are often made when people don't want to deal with the points made by the person they are attacking. Classic attack the messenger, sidestep the message stuff.
Seems to me the only valid approach is to accept there are agendas and debate their points. Or don't. If people harp about agendas they just look incompetent and not up for the debate itself. I don't mind rabid disagreements. That's even fun sometimes. I just find the sidestepping labels truly lame.
The only one calling anyone a hater here is you. I acknowledged that I think F5 has an agenda against Melo but at no point said "and therefore your thread is stupid". I even responded to him respectfully and will continue to do so as long as he does the same.
gunsnewing wrote:I wish I was 'Digital' something. Its sounds cool as hell
I dub thee the first Digital Tool
TeamBall wrote:Splat wrote:TeamBall wrote:Splat wrote:TeamBall wrote:Stupid documentary and really exposes the whole "my heart never wavered" thing with Melo. Definitely won't be watching this. That being said, we all knew the man wanted his money and this thread has "agenda" written all over it.Why do you say on the hand it exposes Melo's values, yet on the other hand you discount the thread as agenda driven?
This notion that threads that discuss a player's values as much as their BB strengths and weaknesses are agenda-driven and other threads are not agenda-driven doesn't compute.
Since when is having a bias prior to starting a thread a disqualification of the thread's value?
Just asking since your post was of two minds, so I found it odd.
Not referring to you, but I think anytime somebody bleats "Agenda" it is just as lame a debating mechanism as saying "Hater" or other labels meant to squash dissent against prevailing opinions. Now that the consensus has shifted due to the continued implosion of the club, that may change somewhat, but I don't understand why people think they come off as anything other then thick-headed when they say such things.
We all have predispositions when we start or post in a thread and should take that for granted without needing to reach for weak labels.
Per this thread, if Melo comes off looking one way or another due to the documentary, then discussing that is relevant, not comments on why a thread was started. If the thread had zero value, you could say so, but considering this is current events it is commenting on it has every right to exist as any other thread on the board.
(Again, just general thoughts, not being overly personal here).
If I discounted the thread, I probably wouldn't have responded to it. No offense man but thats the approach I took with your thread where Melo was talking about being more involved in media, a thread where you even admitted you started it to elicit reactions from certain people. My point in acknowledging the agenda was to kind of highlight how difficult it would be for an objective discussion in a thread originated in bias. I'm still willing to give it a chance though.Absolutely, my agenda in starting that thread was up front, bold and centered. I wanted to elicit a response, i.e. "Can anyone defend the stuff this guy is saying?"
You know what? Nobody really could. Nobody stepped forward to say, "Yes, this is good what he is saying and here's why."
Instead, we got the haterz comments.
So I've seen the pattern. Haterz and agenda comments are often made when people don't want to deal with the points made by the person they are attacking. Classic attack the messenger, sidestep the message stuff.
Seems to me the only valid approach is to accept there are agendas and debate their points. Or don't. If people harp about agendas they just look incompetent and not up for the debate itself. I don't mind rabid disagreements. That's even fun sometimes. I just find the sidestepping labels truly lame.
The only one calling anyone a hater here is you. I acknowledged that I think F5 has an agenda against Melo but at no point said "and therefore your thread is stupid". I even responded to him respectfully and will continue to do so as long as he does the same.
All I really asked of you was my question about the apparent divergent meanings in your post.
Otherwise, I was talking out loud about the topic of labeling posters and twice I went out of my way to state I wasn't focusing on you, yet you still responded in attack mode.
Saying the only one here calling others haters is me is neither here nor there. It is not only completely false, it is also the antithesis of what I was trying to broach as a concern about how people engage one another.
I tried.
Splat wrote:gunsnewing wrote:I wish I was 'Digital' something. Its sounds cool as hellI dub thee the first Digital Tool
or perhaps
Digital Antichrist
gunsnewing wrote:
I asked you to give me the middle finger and this is what I get? 
Splat wrote:TeamBall wrote:Splat wrote:TeamBall wrote:Splat wrote:TeamBall wrote:Stupid documentary and really exposes the whole "my heart never wavered" thing with Melo. Definitely won't be watching this. That being said, we all knew the man wanted his money and this thread has "agenda" written all over it.Why do you say on the hand it exposes Melo's values, yet on the other hand you discount the thread as agenda driven?
This notion that threads that discuss a player's values as much as their BB strengths and weaknesses are agenda-driven and other threads are not agenda-driven doesn't compute.
Since when is having a bias prior to starting a thread a disqualification of the thread's value?
Just asking since your post was of two minds, so I found it odd.
Not referring to you, but I think anytime somebody bleats "Agenda" it is just as lame a debating mechanism as saying "Hater" or other labels meant to squash dissent against prevailing opinions. Now that the consensus has shifted due to the continued implosion of the club, that may change somewhat, but I don't understand why people think they come off as anything other then thick-headed when they say such things.
We all have predispositions when we start or post in a thread and should take that for granted without needing to reach for weak labels.
Per this thread, if Melo comes off looking one way or another due to the documentary, then discussing that is relevant, not comments on why a thread was started. If the thread had zero value, you could say so, but considering this is current events it is commenting on it has every right to exist as any other thread on the board.
(Again, just general thoughts, not being overly personal here).
If I discounted the thread, I probably wouldn't have responded to it. No offense man but thats the approach I took with your thread where Melo was talking about being more involved in media, a thread where you even admitted you started it to elicit reactions from certain people. My point in acknowledging the agenda was to kind of highlight how difficult it would be for an objective discussion in a thread originated in bias. I'm still willing to give it a chance though.Absolutely, my agenda in starting that thread was up front, bold and centered. I wanted to elicit a response, i.e. "Can anyone defend the stuff this guy is saying?"
You know what? Nobody really could. Nobody stepped forward to say, "Yes, this is good what he is saying and here's why."
Instead, we got the haterz comments.
So I've seen the pattern. Haterz and agenda comments are often made when people don't want to deal with the points made by the person they are attacking. Classic attack the messenger, sidestep the message stuff.
Seems to me the only valid approach is to accept there are agendas and debate their points. Or don't. If people harp about agendas they just look incompetent and not up for the debate itself. I don't mind rabid disagreements. That's even fun sometimes. I just find the sidestepping labels truly lame.
The only one calling anyone a hater here is you. I acknowledged that I think F5 has an agenda against Melo but at no point said "and therefore your thread is stupid". I even responded to him respectfully and will continue to do so as long as he does the same.All I really asked of you was my question about the apparent divergent meanings in your post.
Otherwise, I was talking out loud about the topic of labeling posters and twice I went out of my way to state I wasn't focusing on you, yet you still responded in attack mode.
Saying the only one here calling others haters is me is neither here nor there. It is not only completely false, it is also the antithesis of what I was trying to broach as a concern about how people engage one another.
I tried.
I'm responding to you because you're quoting my posts and responding to the content in it...only seems like common courtesy. There also isn't any attack mode here. My post was straight forward. I dislike the documentary and Melo saying his hear never wavered when his documentary is illustrating just that but at the same time I thought the thread was created with an agenda. I'm not sure what the problem is.
TeamBall wrote:Splat wrote:TeamBall wrote:Splat wrote:TeamBall wrote:Splat wrote:TeamBall wrote:Stupid documentary and really exposes the whole "my heart never wavered" thing with Melo. Definitely won't be watching this. That being said, we all knew the man wanted his money and this thread has "agenda" written all over it.Why do you say on the hand it exposes Melo's values, yet on the other hand you discount the thread as agenda driven?
This notion that threads that discuss a player's values as much as their BB strengths and weaknesses are agenda-driven and other threads are not agenda-driven doesn't compute.
Since when is having a bias prior to starting a thread a disqualification of the thread's value?
Just asking since your post was of two minds, so I found it odd.
Not referring to you, but I think anytime somebody bleats "Agenda" it is just as lame a debating mechanism as saying "Hater" or other labels meant to squash dissent against prevailing opinions. Now that the consensus has shifted due to the continued implosion of the club, that may change somewhat, but I don't understand why people think they come off as anything other then thick-headed when they say such things.
We all have predispositions when we start or post in a thread and should take that for granted without needing to reach for weak labels.
Per this thread, if Melo comes off looking one way or another due to the documentary, then discussing that is relevant, not comments on why a thread was started. If the thread had zero value, you could say so, but considering this is current events it is commenting on it has every right to exist as any other thread on the board.
(Again, just general thoughts, not being overly personal here).
If I discounted the thread, I probably wouldn't have responded to it. No offense man but thats the approach I took with your thread where Melo was talking about being more involved in media, a thread where you even admitted you started it to elicit reactions from certain people. My point in acknowledging the agenda was to kind of highlight how difficult it would be for an objective discussion in a thread originated in bias. I'm still willing to give it a chance though.Absolutely, my agenda in starting that thread was up front, bold and centered. I wanted to elicit a response, i.e. "Can anyone defend the stuff this guy is saying?"
You know what? Nobody really could. Nobody stepped forward to say, "Yes, this is good what he is saying and here's why."
Instead, we got the haterz comments.
So I've seen the pattern. Haterz and agenda comments are often made when people don't want to deal with the points made by the person they are attacking. Classic attack the messenger, sidestep the message stuff.
Seems to me the only valid approach is to accept there are agendas and debate their points. Or don't. If people harp about agendas they just look incompetent and not up for the debate itself. I don't mind rabid disagreements. That's even fun sometimes. I just find the sidestepping labels truly lame.
The only one calling anyone a hater here is you. I acknowledged that I think F5 has an agenda against Melo but at no point said "and therefore your thread is stupid". I even responded to him respectfully and will continue to do so as long as he does the same.All I really asked of you was my question about the apparent divergent meanings in your post.
Otherwise, I was talking out loud about the topic of labeling posters and twice I went out of my way to state I wasn't focusing on you, yet you still responded in attack mode.
Saying the only one here calling others haters is me is neither here nor there. It is not only completely false, it is also the antithesis of what I was trying to broach as a concern about how people engage one another.
I tried.
I'm responding to you because you're quoting my posts and responding to the content in it...only seems like common courtesy. There also isn't any attack mode here. My post was straight forward. I dislike the documentary and Melo saying his hear never wavered when his documentary is illustrating just that but at the same time I thought the thread was created with an agenda. I'm not sure what the problem is.
No problem. We're good.
gunsnewing wrote:ah found a Digital Athlete finally!
Wow, you're inventive. I hope you have a patent registered for that, otherwise somebody will beat you to market and reap billions from that. Pure genius. No more fecal matter on my tablet screen. Hooray!
TeamBall wrote:Splat wrote:TeamBall wrote:Splat wrote:TeamBall wrote:Splat wrote:TeamBall wrote:Stupid documentary and really exposes the whole "my heart never wavered" thing with Melo. Definitely won't be watching this. That being said, we all knew the man wanted his money and this thread has "agenda" written all over it.Why do you say on the hand it exposes Melo's values, yet on the other hand you discount the thread as agenda driven?
This notion that threads that discuss a player's values as much as their BB strengths and weaknesses are agenda-driven and other threads are not agenda-driven doesn't compute.
Since when is having a bias prior to starting a thread a disqualification of the thread's value?
Just asking since your post was of two minds, so I found it odd.
Not referring to you, but I think anytime somebody bleats "Agenda" it is just as lame a debating mechanism as saying "Hater" or other labels meant to squash dissent against prevailing opinions. Now that the consensus has shifted due to the continued implosion of the club, that may change somewhat, but I don't understand why people think they come off as anything other then thick-headed when they say such things.
We all have predispositions when we start or post in a thread and should take that for granted without needing to reach for weak labels.
Per this thread, if Melo comes off looking one way or another due to the documentary, then discussing that is relevant, not comments on why a thread was started. If the thread had zero value, you could say so, but considering this is current events it is commenting on it has every right to exist as any other thread on the board.
(Again, just general thoughts, not being overly personal here).
If I discounted the thread, I probably wouldn't have responded to it. No offense man but thats the approach I took with your thread where Melo was talking about being more involved in media, a thread where you even admitted you started it to elicit reactions from certain people. My point in acknowledging the agenda was to kind of highlight how difficult it would be for an objective discussion in a thread originated in bias. I'm still willing to give it a chance though.Absolutely, my agenda in starting that thread was up front, bold and centered. I wanted to elicit a response, i.e. "Can anyone defend the stuff this guy is saying?"
You know what? Nobody really could. Nobody stepped forward to say, "Yes, this is good what he is saying and here's why."
Instead, we got the haterz comments.
So I've seen the pattern. Haterz and agenda comments are often made when people don't want to deal with the points made by the person they are attacking. Classic attack the messenger, sidestep the message stuff.
Seems to me the only valid approach is to accept there are agendas and debate their points. Or don't. If people harp about agendas they just look incompetent and not up for the debate itself. I don't mind rabid disagreements. That's even fun sometimes. I just find the sidestepping labels truly lame.
The only one calling anyone a hater here is you. I acknowledged that I think F5 has an agenda against Melo but at no point said "and therefore your thread is stupid". I even responded to him respectfully and will continue to do so as long as he does the same.All I really asked of you was my question about the apparent divergent meanings in your post.
Otherwise, I was talking out loud about the topic of labeling posters and twice I went out of my way to state I wasn't focusing on you, yet you still responded in attack mode.
Saying the only one here calling others haters is me is neither here nor there. It is not only completely false, it is also the antithesis of what I was trying to broach as a concern about how people engage one another.
I tried.
I'm responding to you because you're quoting my posts and responding to the content in it...only seems like common courtesy. There also isn't any attack mode here. My post was straight forward. I dislike the documentary and Melo saying his hear never wavered when his documentary is illustrating just that but at the same time I thought the thread was created with an agenda. I'm not sure what the problem is.
Definitely an agenda.
Not that there is anything wrong with having agendas.
I hate stupid players ... there I said it
we have a lot of stupid players.
mreinman wrote:Definitely an agenda.Not that there is anything wrong with having agendas.
I hate stupid players ... there I said it
we have a lot of stupid players.
That's basically the Master Agenda as far as I can tell. The club is disease-ridden with stupid players. Upping the IQ and bringing in players with good fundamentals and a 2-way game is my agenda.
Splat wrote:mreinman wrote:Definitely an agenda.Not that there is anything wrong with having agendas.
I hate stupid players ... there I said it
we have a lot of stupid players.
That's basically the Master Agenda as far as I can tell. The club is disease-ridden with stupid players. Upping the IQ and bringing in players with good fundamentals and a 2-way game is my agenda.
hard to find 2 way players anymore.
call me crazy but I actually did not like dfishers game at all. He hit some big shots but took so many horrible shots. Tough defender.
Steve Kerr was a much better choice but he was smart to run for the hills.
mreinman wrote:TeamBall wrote:Splat wrote:TeamBall wrote:Splat wrote:TeamBall wrote:Splat wrote:TeamBall wrote:Stupid documentary and really exposes the whole "my heart never wavered" thing with Melo. Definitely won't be watching this. That being said, we all knew the man wanted his money and this thread has "agenda" written all over it.Why do you say on the hand it exposes Melo's values, yet on the other hand you discount the thread as agenda driven?
This notion that threads that discuss a player's values as much as their BB strengths and weaknesses are agenda-driven and other threads are not agenda-driven doesn't compute.
Since when is having a bias prior to starting a thread a disqualification of the thread's value?
Just asking since your post was of two minds, so I found it odd.
Not referring to you, but I think anytime somebody bleats "Agenda" it is just as lame a debating mechanism as saying "Hater" or other labels meant to squash dissent against prevailing opinions. Now that the consensus has shifted due to the continued implosion of the club, that may change somewhat, but I don't understand why people think they come off as anything other then thick-headed when they say such things.
We all have predispositions when we start or post in a thread and should take that for granted without needing to reach for weak labels.
Per this thread, if Melo comes off looking one way or another due to the documentary, then discussing that is relevant, not comments on why a thread was started. If the thread had zero value, you could say so, but considering this is current events it is commenting on it has every right to exist as any other thread on the board.
(Again, just general thoughts, not being overly personal here).
If I discounted the thread, I probably wouldn't have responded to it. No offense man but thats the approach I took with your thread where Melo was talking about being more involved in media, a thread where you even admitted you started it to elicit reactions from certain people. My point in acknowledging the agenda was to kind of highlight how difficult it would be for an objective discussion in a thread originated in bias. I'm still willing to give it a chance though.Absolutely, my agenda in starting that thread was up front, bold and centered. I wanted to elicit a response, i.e. "Can anyone defend the stuff this guy is saying?"
You know what? Nobody really could. Nobody stepped forward to say, "Yes, this is good what he is saying and here's why."
Instead, we got the haterz comments.
So I've seen the pattern. Haterz and agenda comments are often made when people don't want to deal with the points made by the person they are attacking. Classic attack the messenger, sidestep the message stuff.
Seems to me the only valid approach is to accept there are agendas and debate their points. Or don't. If people harp about agendas they just look incompetent and not up for the debate itself. I don't mind rabid disagreements. That's even fun sometimes. I just find the sidestepping labels truly lame.
The only one calling anyone a hater here is you. I acknowledged that I think F5 has an agenda against Melo but at no point said "and therefore your thread is stupid". I even responded to him respectfully and will continue to do so as long as he does the same.All I really asked of you was my question about the apparent divergent meanings in your post.
Otherwise, I was talking out loud about the topic of labeling posters and twice I went out of my way to state I wasn't focusing on you, yet you still responded in attack mode.
Saying the only one here calling others haters is me is neither here nor there. It is not only completely false, it is also the antithesis of what I was trying to broach as a concern about how people engage one another.
I tried.
I'm responding to you because you're quoting my posts and responding to the content in it...only seems like common courtesy. There also isn't any attack mode here. My post was straight forward. I dislike the documentary and Melo saying his hear never wavered when his documentary is illustrating just that but at the same time I thought the thread was created with an agenda. I'm not sure what the problem is.Definitely an agenda.
Not that there is anything wrong with having agendas.
I hate stupid players ... there I said it
we have a lot of stupid players.
Can't say I disagree with you there
mreinman wrote:Splat wrote:mreinman wrote:Definitely an agenda.Not that there is anything wrong with having agendas.
I hate stupid players ... there I said it
we have a lot of stupid players.
That's basically the Master Agenda as far as I can tell. The club is disease-ridden with stupid players. Upping the IQ and bringing in players with good fundamentals and a 2-way game is my agenda.
hard to find 2 way players anymore.
call me crazy but I actually did not like dfishers game at all. He hit some big shots but took so many horrible shots. Tough defender.
Steve Kerr was a much better choice but he was smart to run for the hills.
Hard to find, but they both exist and systems cultivate them. That doesn't mean they have to be triangulated hotshots, but bringing in guys with some defensive acumen, passing skills and some kind of offensive moves or shot is not like asking for the Hope Diamond to appear in my toilet after a night at Chipotle.
Steve Kerr is a smart man, but even Alfred E. Neumann would have taken the GS job over the Knicks. Fish looks shell-shocked.