# NY Post: Skiles got Crawford and Curry traded



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04212008/sports/knicks/field_narrows_for_jax_107456.htm



> Skiles' bid may have been damaged because two prominent Knicks starters, Eddy Curry and Jamal Crawford, despised him with the Bulls. Skiles got them traded.


I'm not going to get into the merits of Curry and Crawford. Lord knows that I know that the pro-Pax crowd will think they are garbage while I, someone who is more even-handed in their appraisal of Paxson, agree with Larry Brown in saying that Jamal Crawford is a solid NBA guard. I still remember Curry as our leading scorer and #2 in MPG for our #3 in the East team that was young and properly sized/balanced for most part.

That's neither here nor there.

The real problem with this report is that is goes into how much Paxson kowtowed to Skiles. Skiles was the leader of that team. Paxson picked players that Skiles liked, and dumped those that he didn't. Fair enough, but now that Skiles is gone, we're adrift with broken jib. 

Paxson is a weak manager and leaned on Skiles to basically do his job for him. Now that Skiles and the "right way" gibberish is gone, you get a vision statement like the garbled, vacuous ramble from Paxson last week post Boylen firing. There is no there there. He's an empty suit with little more than Paxson platitudes floating around in his head.

Troubling.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> http://www.nypost.com/seven/04212008/sports/knicks/field_narrows_for_jax_107456.htm
> 
> 
> 
> ...













I love how you aren't going to "debate the merits"... and then you offer your half of the debate.

What kind of response do you expect to this thread? 10 pages of the same old garbage?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> the pro-Pax crowd


Who is that?



> we're adrift with broken jib.
> 
> Paxson is a weak manager
> --
> the "right way" gibberish


Are these new opinions that we haven't heard before? Why do they keep ending up in EVERY SINGLE THREAD you post in...instead of threads where they fit the 'Thread Title'?

Curious.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Dornado said:


> What kind of response do you expect to this thread? 10 pages of the same old garbage?


More if possible.

He wants to let us know he doesn't like Paxson as the GM. Needs plenty of threads and plenty of posts within those threads to make it known.


So lets test the mods. As long as he is allowed to tell us that, I'm going to take every opportunity in every thread to tell what I think about his opinion. After all, if he can ignore the thread titles and post what he likes, why can't I?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The interesting part of the article is the fact that another source is saying that Skiles was behind Crawford and Curry getting traded. ( i didn't want this to turn into another curryncrawford sux thread )

Looks like Skiles had a very heavy influence on Paxson's personnel decisions.

Problem is, Skiles is gone, yet the Skiles OK roster remains. 

A total rebuild appears to be in order. 

Just goes to show, don't build a team around a coach. Especially one that is known for burning out / leaving and that really hasn't won much of note in the NBA. If its a superstar coach, then perhaps, but not for Scott Skiles, who appears to be the NBA equivalent of a turnaround consultant.

If you don't like my thread, don't read it / post in it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

No no K4, don't change the subject. Who are you responding to?

You were talking Pax. Pax 24/7, round the clock. Keep it on Pax. Why change now?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> The interesting part of the article is the fact that another source is saying that Skiles was behind Crawford and Curry getting traded. ( i didn't want this to turn into another curryncrawford sux thread )
> 
> Looks like Skiles had a very heavy influence on Paxson's personnel decisions.
> 
> ...


I agree totally with the bolded part... 


I just wish you would stick to analysis like this and leave out all of the antagonizing rhetoric.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Looks like Skiles had a very heavy influence on Paxson's personal decisions.


this isn't accurate.....by acquiring who? and while it might be true as to who skiles didn't want, i didn't read/see/hear any indication of skiles and paxson not being on the same page with regard to acquisitions. they both interviewed draft picks, wasn't it reported they'd had dinner with some (if not all) of the picks during skiles tenure?



> Problem is, Skiles is gone, yet the Skiles OK roster remains.


the entire roster (draftwise) save thomas and thabo were there prior to skiles; again, not accurate.



> A total rebuild appears to be in order.


has paxson indicated this? seems i recall him saying just last week, "you can't get rid of everybody"; this seems to indicate the above quote is another misguided opinion.



> Just goes to show, don't build a team around a coach. Especially one that is known for burning out / leaving and that really hasn't won much of note in the NBA. If its a superstar coach, then perhaps, but not for Scott Skiles, who appears to be the NBA equivalent of a turnaround consultant.


it doesn't appear to me that's what he did; more accurately, it seems he tried to work with the coach with a philosophy that wore itself out given the results of the season early on; skiles admitted as much. skiles also asked out of his deal, BECAUSE he felt he was no longer communicating with the players. could paxson have envisioned this? maybe, but it's hardly a damning turn of events that puts him on the "hot seat".


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Dornado said:


> I just wish you would stick to analysis like this and leave out all of the antagonizing rhetoric.



In a large group of people, I guess I've given up on thinking everyone is going to behave exactly as I wish.

For instance, I wish you would stick to talking about basketball and less about me. But, people are people.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Dornado said:


> leave out all of the antagonizing rhetoric.


Why?

The mods _love it_ and don't do anything about it...and if they threaten all he has to do is post one or two on-topic posts (after 7 or 8 bad ones) -- _and they forget all about it._

They're in-thread now. Watch what happens...


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> In a large group of people, I guess I've given up on thinking everyone is going to behave exactly as I wish.
> 
> For instance, I wish you would stick to talking about basketball and less about me. But, people are people.



I was trying to be nice. I'll take the high road here.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

The point of this for me is that it's another outside insider confirming that Paxson was motivated to do something by someone elses insistance.

How many times do people say, "Show me some proof or an article saying that". Here you go. That K4Ever provided it, doesn't change the info.

K4E finds this stuff, cause he's open (if not searching) for the problems of what happened to such a promising team.

The answer is SpongeBob Paxson.


----------



## popeye12 (Nov 11, 2002)

Well, if it was due to Skiles, then I must really thank him for those trades!!!! Two guys that have not made the playoffs on a team that was "filled with talent" ever since joining the Knicks. Curry couldnt even get PT on that horrid team. Crawford put up some good points with some of their losses and wins but he's no leader and I would take any of the guards that the bulls currently have over him (that includes hinrich, gordon, hughes, sefolosha, and even Duhon!).

Skiles, thanks for doing us that favor!


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> In a large group of people, I guess I've given up on thinking everyone is going to behave exactly as I wish.
> 
> For instance, I wish you would stick to talking about basketball and less about me. But, people are people.


Your frequent baiting and antagonism have a lot to do with that. If you'll notice, people tend to leave you alone when you don't go out of your way to be hostile toward them.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

popeye12 said:


> Well, if it was due to Skiles, then I must really thank him for those trades!!!! Two guys that have not made the playoffs on a team that was "filled with talent" ever since joining the Knicks. Curry couldnt even get PT on that horrid team. Crawford put up some good points with some of their losses and wins but he's no leader and I would take any of the guards that the bulls currently have over him (that includes hinrich, gordon, hughes, sefolosha, and even Duhon!).
> 
> Skiles, thanks for doing us that favor!



Hehe. That's a funny way to look at it. Considering Curry's slide, it does seem like a favor Skiles has done us. Crawford is a more interesting player. He has matured somewhat it seems but certainly still has his flaws. Despite how it all worked out, though, it still could be a troubling sign of Paxson ceding authority over the roster to Skiles, depending on whether they were or weren't on the same page with respect to what had to be done.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> If you'll notice, people tend to leave you alone when you don't go out of your way to be hostile toward them.


Replace "them" with Paxson and you may have a point.

For instance, this thread isn't hostile towards anyone. But, lo and behold, the same old gang shows up to thread-crap all over it. And, for whatever reason, you are choosing to only scold me. No surprise there, IMO.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Replace "them" with Paxson and you may have a point.
> 
> For instance, this thread isn't hostile towards anyone. But, lo and behold, the same old gang shows up to thread-crap all over it. And, for whatever reason, you are choosing to only scold me. No surprise there, IMO.



Actually, the second sentence you wrote is openly hostile. I'm also not scolding you. I'm merely pointing out that if you are really being honest about wanting to talk about basketball rather than talk about yourself, then you would simply need to be less insulting towards others.

The thread itself is actually a good, interesting topic about where the decision-making was going on in the Paxson/Skiles era.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Replace "them" with Paxson and you may have a point.
> 
> For instance, this thread isn't hostile towards anyone. But, lo and behold, the same old gang shows up to thread-crap all over it. And, for whatever reason, you are choosing to only scold me. No surprise there, IMO.



Wow.


let's go through it then, shall we?



> Lord knows that I know that the pro-Pax crowd will think


This is not about basketball, or about Paxson... this is about people you think support him...



> while I, someone who is more even-handed in their appraisal of Paxson


Again, not about basketball or john paxson... just about your idea that you're the only objective person around... 

Every post you make is littered with this crap... the friction you create has nothing to do with the positions you're putting out there and everything to do with your approach.

And honestly, its a tired act... nice try on playing the victim.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

kukoc4ever said:


> http://www.nypost.com/seven/04212008/sports/knicks/field_narrows_for_jax_107456.htm
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:dancingpadlock:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Your frequent baiting and antagonism have a lot to do with that.


Your kid gloves with him too.

In thread you've connected him with "frequent baiting and antagonism" and open "hostility".

Nothing changes though. never ever. Just talk.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

GB said:


> Your kid gloves with him too.


:laugh: come on now, take it outside


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

GB said:


> Your kid gloves with him too.
> 
> In thread you've connected him with "frequent baiting and antagonism" and open "hostility".
> 
> Nothing changes though. never ever. Just talk.



Get over yourself, man. Threadjacking and complaining constantly doesn't make it any more pleasant, does it?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Every post you make is littered with this crap... the friction you create has nothing to do with the positions you're putting out there and everything to do with your approach.
> 
> And honestly, its a tired act... nice try on playing the victim.


7 bad baiting posts and then 1 or 2 good ones when the mods show up so he can play the victim.

And still they dance the dance with him. Been doing it for months and longer...


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Get over yourself, man. Threadjacking and complaining constantly doesn't make it any more pleasant, does it?


this thread was 'jacked' long ago...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Get over yourself, man. Threadjacking and complaining constantly doesn't make it any more pleasant, does it?


I've got some ideas how to keep threads and posts within the threads plenty pleasant.

The mods have other ideas. Ideas that don't seem to be working.

Or do you think they're working?


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Dornado said:


> this thread was 'jacked' long ago...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Dornado said:


> This is not about basketball, or about Paxson... this is about people you think support him...


THe pro-Pax crowd I've dealt with, in real life and on this board, has typically disliked Eddy Curry and Jamal Crawford. Its just the way it is. I'm not trying to be hostile, but that has been my experience in dealing with devout Paxson fans. I was just stating I didn't want this thread to devolve into "thank god dey got riddo dat bum crawford wif da headband."



> Again, not about basketball or john paxson... just about your idea that you're the only objective person around...


That was tongue in cheek.




> Every post you make is littered with this crap... the friction you create has nothing to do with the positions you're putting out there and everything to do with your approach.


Fair enough. I'm not going to pander to wrong-headed ideas / philosophies. I'm here to go back and forth about basketball/views about basketball, not hold hands and sing folk songs.



> And honestly, its a tired act...


So are your replies to me. Its almost like you are stalking my posts. 



> nice try on playing the victim.


Nice job on being the aggressor.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> you are stalking my posts.


Huh? They show up IN EVERY THREAD. A variation on the SAME IDEAS.

And HE is the one STALKING?

:jawdrop:


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> THe pro-Pax crowd I've dealt with, in real life and on this board, has typically disliked Eddy Curry and Jamal Crawford. Its just the way it is. I'm not trying to be hostile, but that has been my experience in dealing with devout Paxson fans. I was just stating I didn't want this thread to devolve into "thank god dey got riddo dat bum crawford wif da headband."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If by stalking your posts you mean "trying to read the bulls forum"... I just call it out when I see it because the moderators aren't doing anything.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Fair enough. I'm not going to pander to wrong-headed ideas / philosophies. I'm here to go back and forth about basketball/views about basketball, not hold hands and sing folk songs.


Any particular reason you wouldn't try to get along with the people you discuss basketball with? I mean, it's basketball. It's recreation. The level of vitriol just seems odd.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Dornado said:


> If by stalking your posts you mean "trying to read the bulls forum"...


:greatjob:


----------



## popeye12 (Nov 11, 2002)

I still dont understand why everyone is so Anti-Pax. The guy has done reasonably well in all drafts, he has made trade offers (and I'm sure there are alot more that we as fans have not heard about), the Memphis trade offer was very fair and generous (possibly us even getting the short end of the stick). The players for some reason did not perform this year and I hope there isn't a huge overhaul this offseason, but there does have to be changes. Hinrich struggled big time this year and to be honest with everyone, I dont know if he is our long term option at PG. I'd give him one more chance this year and hopefully with the new coach they get, we can get everyone to how they were playin the season before. 

Go Bulls.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

popeye12 said:


> I still dont understand why everyone is so Anti-Pax. The guy has done reasonably well in all drafts, he has made trade offers (and I'm sure there are alot more that we as fans have not heard about), the Memphis trade offer was very fair and generous (possibly us even getting the short end of the stick). The players for some reason did not perform this year and I hope there isn't a huge overhaul this offseason, but there does have to be changes. Hinrich struggled big time this year and to be honest with everyone, I dont know if he is our long term option at PG. I'd give him one more chance this year and hopefully with the new coach they get, we can get everyone to how they were playin the season before.
> 
> Go Bulls.


get ready to get labeled...


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

popeye12 said:


> I still dont understand why everyone is so Anti-Pax. The guy has done reasonably well in all drafts, he has made trade offers (and I'm sure there are alot more that we as fans have not heard about), the Memphis trade offer was very fair and generous (possibly us even getting the short end of the stick). The players for some reason did not perform this year and I hope there isn't a huge overhaul this offseason, but there does have to be changes. Hinrich struggled big time this year and to be honest with everyone, I dont know if he is our long term option at PG. I'd give him one more chance this year and hopefully with the new coach they get, we can get everyone to how they were playin the season before.
> 
> Go Bulls.


JIB! JIB!


----------



## popeye12 (Nov 11, 2002)

Labeled for offering my opinion? Must be a fun group of members here. I hold players 98% accountable for this season's flop. No way could 1 season to the next be so upside down. Why is this paxson's fault? Lets see how this offseason pans out, I trust Paxson's drafts, however I would like to see him pull off a better trade than the drew gooden one (which was actually a lot better than I initially thought)


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

popeye12 said:


> Labeled for offering my opinion? Must be a fun group of members here. I hold players 98% accountable for this season's flop. No way could 1 season to the next be so upside down. Why is this paxson's fault? Lets see how this offseason pans out, I trust Paxson's drafts, however I would like to see him pull off a better trade than the drew gooden one (which was actually a lot better than I initially thought)


Yeah, generally if you offer anything short of all-out criticism of John Paxson there's this guy that comes around and accuses you of being a "Pax lover" or the "pro pax crowd" and discounts your opinions as being closed-minded.

I agree the players should be held accountable... I'd throw the GM and the owner in there too, but certainly they don't make or miss the shots... the truth is, if there was just one person to blame for last year it would be an easier fix.

I think Paxson has earned about a B-... that earns him at least another summer to get things back on track in my opinion.


----------



## popeye12 (Nov 11, 2002)

Dornado,

I completely agree with you. This is a very and I mean VERY important offseason for the Bulls. Whatever route Paxson makes as far as coaches, players, contracts, etc, will be the decider if he will keep his job. I think its a very tough job as I think the players on this team make up a very solid squad, now can it win a championship (that is the tough question to answer). I am one that believes you need a STAR on a team but there aren't too many to select from. For example:

McGrady - too inconsistent but can be someone you build around.
Iverson - Getting up there in age but can definitely lead and carry a team
Kobe - no chance at getting him (at least next season)
Shaq - too old
Wade - love to have him here
Marion - not someone that can be the MAN on a team
Dirk - yup

But who out of those players are really availabe? I'd say Iverson and TMac. If we could give up Hinrich, Gordon, Tyrus and Draft pick for Iverson, I would be love to do it. Also, if we could give up Gordon or Hinrich, Hughes, Tyrus or Noah, and Draft pick for TMac, I would do that as well.

We have a roster as follows:

Hinrich
Hughes
Deng
Gooden
Noah

If we could get Iverson

Iverson / FA 
Hughes / Sefolosha
Deng / Noc
Gooden / Noah
Noah / Gray / FA


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

My oh my has my thread been derailed!

Let the pile-on continue!!!!

Feel free to criticize the players all you wish.

Paxson picked all the players.

He burned several high lotto picks and a near MAX contract to acquire these players.

---

Anyway, it seems like Paxson let his coach decide too many of the personal decisions. I'm sure "can this guy play under scott?" was a question on the forefront of Paxson's mind when he made decisions.

Now that Skiles is gone, what is he asking? Will Paxson still impose a strong jib constraint now that Skiles is gone?


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> My oh my has my thread been derailed.


threads without substance have a tendency to do just that.....funny how it happens to ALL of yours.......


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> a strong jib constraint


:sadbanana:


----------



## popeye12 (Nov 11, 2002)

Kukoc,

What do you mean Burned High Lottery Picks to acquire these players? Are you not happy with the draft picks? I am a little disappointed in Tyrus development and Hinrichs poor season last year but all of his picks have been producing outside of this past season. That makes no sense. When Paxson signed Wallace (WHO EVERYONE THOUGHT WAS THE BEST FA OF THAT YEAR) Wallace showed us why we signed him. Unfortunately, this past season was a flop for all players. Why is this paxson's fault? Because he signed them or drafted them? So every team that either didnt make the playoffs or will lose in the first round or 2nd round should fire their GM because its their fault? 

The trades or signings that Paxson has made, got the bulls get past the 1st round last season. So we should ignore all that and start firing away? You make it sound like you have all the answers at GM and its so easy to make trades and sign players...the players you love and wish were still here NEVER succeeded in Chicago so I dont get your point. Its a double standard, why is it Fire Pax because the bulls sucked this year and its not Fire (INSERT FORMER BULLS HERE - PARTICULARLY ON THE KNICKS AND N.O) because the bulls sucked that year?

Doesn't make sense. But I'm a "paxson lover" so I guess I dont know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> The thread itself is actually a good, interesting topic about where the decision-making was going on in the Paxson/Skiles era.


Cosign to JNRJR. I enjoy hearing basketball analysis from K4E, when it is discernible beyond the rhetoric. I very rarely get there, as apparently others don't either. How wonderful it would be not to feel that every post was a salvo in a culture war and an attack upon the readers.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> threads without substance have a tendency to do just that.....funny how it happens to ALL of yours.......


Especially after my threads are viciously thread-jacked.

Usually by the same gang of people.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Philomath said:


> Cosign to JNRJR. I enjoy hearing basketball analysis from K4E, when it is discernible beyond the rhetoric. I very rarely get there, as apparently others don't either. How wonderful it would be not to feel that every post was a salvo in a culture war and an attack upon the readers.


++


I think the time is near where the mods should decide that he's proven he's incapable of doing it though. I hate having to swim through garbage to get at the good morsels.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

kukoc4ever said:


> Especially after my threads are viciously thread-jacked.
> 
> Usually by the same gang of people.


Show us on the doll where they touched you?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> my threads are viciously thread-jacked.
> 
> Usually by the same gang of people.


...whom you relentlessly attack when you begin said threads. And afterward.

And then claim innocence.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> ...whom you relentlessly attack when you begin said threads. And afterward.
> 
> And then claim innocence.


I'm not looking to attack anyone.

Saying that someone is wrong isn't an attack.

It may sting to be so very, very wrong, but its not an attack.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm not looking to attack anyone.


But you do. (see? more of the innocence thing)




> It may sting to be so very, very wrong


Hook, worm, line, pole.

But GB ain't bitin'.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm not looking to attack anyone.
> 
> Saying that someone is wrong isn't an attack.
> 
> It may sting to be so very, very wrong, but its not an attack.



This is an attack:



kukoc4ever said:


> Lord knows that I know that the pro-Pax crowd will think they are garbage while I, someone who is more even-handed in their appraisal of Paxson, agree with Larry Brown in saying that Jamal Crawford is a solid NBA guard.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> This is an attack:


What makes it an attack?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> This is an attack:


I disagree.

People were passionately pro paxson (in pax we trust, jib central) for the last few years. Now that times are rocky for Paxson does not make it an attack to be considered as a supporter of Paxson. Most of these folks would gleefully attack Jamal Crawford and Eddy Curry while lauding the greatness of John Paxson, Scott Skiles, "the right way", jib and the like. (jib central, in pax we trust). Its just how it was. No sense ignoring the past. Larry Brown did consider Crawford a solid NBA guard. Many pro-paxson types did fire away of "fat eddy" and "Crawdaddy." I didn't want this thread to devolve into "thank God Skiles got ridda dem bums." That's the only point in including in the OP to begin with.

Lo and behold, the thread-jack gang took contral and we're at where we're at.

Ah well, thems the breaks I guess.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

GB said:


> What makes it an attack?


I think you know, but I'm happy to provide an explanation for purposes of an example.

First, it puts words into people's mouths unfairly. It says "If you are pro-Paxson, this is what you will think." Well, thank you very much, but this is a message board, so you might as well just allow individual posters to SAY what they think rather than just telling them what you think they think or want them to think, etc. It's intellectually dishonest.

The second reason is it is essentially calling one group of fans stupid on the basis of this ascribed believe and comparatively showing the poster's own perceived superiority due to "Larry Brown" sharing a similar assessment.

The reason threads go off the rails is that 70% of the original post is similar condescending and/or OT material while the good nugget - Skiles was the reason these two players were traded - is buried in extraneous incendiary material.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I disagree.
> 
> People were passionately pro paxson (in pax we trust, jib central) for the last few years. Now that times are rocky for Paxson does not make it an attack to be considered as a supporter of Paxson. Most of these folks would gleefully attack Jamal Crawford and Eddy Curry while lauding the greatness of John Paxson, Scott Skiles, "the right way", jib and the like. (jib central, in pax we trust).
> 
> Sure, those people were really, really wrong. But, that's the risk of offering an opinion. You might be wrong.



See my explanation above for why this is incorrect.

I agree that in isolation, it isn't an insult to say someone is pro-Pax or anti-Pax, provided it's true.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> really, really wrong.


:sadbanana:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I think you know, but I'm happy to provide an explanation for purposes of an example.
> 
> First, it puts words into people's mouths unfairly. It says "If you are pro-Paxson, this is what you will think." Well, thank you very much, but this is a message board, so you might as well just allow individual posters to SAY what they think rather than just telling them what you think they think or want them to think, etc. It's intellectually dishonest.
> 
> ...


Thank-you. It was an attempt to know your mindset on this matter.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> while lauding the greatness of John Paxson, Scott Skiles, "the right way", jib and the like.


Who said Pax was great?

(Nice edit, but I'd already seen your 'really, really wrong' quip.)


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> See my explanation above for why this is incorrect.
> 
> I agree that in isolation, it isn't an insult to say someone is pro-Pax or anti-Pax, provided it's true.


I'm definitely pro-Bulls.

I'd post at the other forum if I weren't:

Basketball Forum - NBA & College Basketball Forums > NBA Teams (Eastern Conference) > Chicago Bulls > John Paxson

Instead I limit myself to this one.


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

Do Not Feed The Trolls.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

i decided to go back and read this "article", and you know what? it's BS, regarding "skiles got them traded".....said article doesn't even dwell on the points the OP is raising.....it's a casually tossed out statement by a national writer with no ties to factual information from chicago.

fact is, crawford was looking for a big pay day, which wasn't going to happen because paxson clearly didn't like crawford's game, paxson alluded to it numerous times as a color commentator the year or so earlier as an employee of the radio broadcast. not wanting to overpay a RFA guard who'd shown next to no improvement in any tangible aspect of the game, nor had he exhibited any needed skills (crawford was the loser in the pg sweepstakes against hinrich, then a first year player, no?), or helped the team even *reach* the playoffs, and in what is just my opinion, might have been sent to denver in a trade package had jwill not screwed up his career. larry brown called him a solid nba guard? so what? how much did crawford help larry brown and his tenure?

further, curry ASKED for a trade when it was clear he wasn't going to take a DNA test; how did skiles have ANYTHING to do with that? skiles didn't ask for the dna test, paxson and management did; as well, when paxson provided contract alternatives that weren't suitable to curry and his management, curry rode with the ONLY team that would acquire him without said test. seeing as curry is still uninsurable, i'd imagine that any coach (on any level) wouldn't even get the say-so as to whether he's retained or not.

therefore, as i posted earlier, this thread is of little substance; just another veiled attempt to skewer the GM, and bait and insult the remaider of posters. :dancingpadlock:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> i decided to go back and read this "article", and you know what? it's BS, regarding "skiles got them traded".....said article doesn't even dwell on the points the OP is raising.....it's a casually tossed out statement by a national writer with no ties to factual information from chicago.


Unnecessary

Curry was traded b/c Paxson didn't want to sign him unless a he took a test that no other team demanded that he take. Only 1 doctor out of dozens even wanted to see it. No shock that the heart problem hasn't resurfaced. Paxson was really, really wrong about that one.

Jamal wanted to get paid a decent wage. He makes about what he's worth. Not overpaid, but not a bargain either. He gets paid less than Hinrich and produces better than the now fat and happy Hinrich.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Crawford


He's like Ron Mercer. Puts up lots of points on bad teams but does nothing to affect winning.


(Why am I taking the bait???? Haven't we had this conversation before? Arrgggh!!!!)


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Ah yes, nothing like a little "attack the source" right after a good old fashioned thread-jack. (the inevitable retort to a "link?" request is almost always an "attack the source")


so where *were* the "facts" regarding skiles' role in the thread title?

they were non-existent; just a figment of one's imagination, yet throw together a thread title with the "NY Post" in the heading and it somehow comes off as legit......what a clownish attempt to discredit skiles (who i was glad to see gone) and paxson......keep trying though. maybe one day there'll be a thread you can put actual facts in, eliminate the veilied insults, not rehash the past with the same cut and paste rhetoric and it won't get "threadjacked"....

troubling.......AND horribly, horribly wrong.....:nonono:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sam Smith also said that Skiles was instrumental in Curry getting shipped out of town.

(time for some more attack the source)


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

:sadbanana:


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

GB said:


> He's like Ron Mercer. Puts up lots of points on bad teams but does nothing to affect winning.
> 
> 
> (Why am I taking the bait???? Haven't we had this conversation before? Arrgggh!!!!)


If you mean he is a scorer like Ron Mercer then you are correct. However, you are incorrect about Crawford not "affective winning." Although the Knicks have been putrid it is not because of Jamal. He has won many games for them with terrific performances-including many last second shots. He could be the best player on that team. Certainly not an all-star but he certainly had a better year than Capt. Klank,who took over his job with the Bulls.

Question: Why was Crawford traded? In the year before he was traded Pax turned down his agent's request for $6.5 million a year. Then Pax traded him ostensibly for his lack of defensive intensity and pure point guard skills. Ben Gordon, the third pick in the draft (who doesn't even start)turned down Paxson's offer of $10 million a year. IMO he is no better than Crawford and four inches shorter. Ben is not a point guard and is not any better a defender than Jamal. I suppose you can argue that he has more of conscience as a shooter than Jamal but not by much. What does this say about Paxson's skills as a GM?

Getting back to K4E's original post. Essentially, I agree with his analysis but I disagree about dumping everyone and starting over. This is a recipe for disaster as the Bulls would not get back value for these guys. Although I am a major critic of Paxson, I agree that we are better served by having a coach who will develop these young players than going in a totally different direction. 

Now, for the record why does everyone dump on Ron Mercer when trying to make a point about a selfish player? If you look at Mercer's stats the year he averaged 20 points a game for the Bulls, his overall performance that year statistic-wise was very similar to Reggie Miller. Do people label Miller "selfish.?" Miller had a supporting cast to let Reggie be Reggie. Mercer did not have that kind of support. He was brought in to be a scorer, and he scored.


----------



## WestHighHawk (Jun 28, 2003)

I'd really like the past few minutes of my life back.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I have one simple quesion. How many playoff games have Curry and JC played in??? Sorry two questions. How many teams have Curry and Crawford played for that have a winning record. I mean they have each been in the NBA for what like 6 years or so. They are both starters right. 

Just asking.

david


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

giusd said:


> I have one simple quesion. How many playoff games have Curry and JC played in??? Sorry two questions. How many teams have Curry and Crawford played for that have a winning record. I mean they have each been in the NBA for what like 6 years or so. They are both starters right.
> 
> Just asking.
> 
> david


If I recall correctly, Curry was the major scoring option for that Bulls team that went to the playoffs and lost to the Wizards. He was sidelined late in the season for that heart situation and didn't get to play in the playoffs. And, the Bulls had a winning record that year with Curry being the main LOW POST OPTION that everybody is now crying about because of its absence.

FWIW, I think the Bulls were a better team with Curry than without him. I fully appreciate that many posters on this board do not share that opinion.


----------



## JohnnieFinn (Apr 9, 2008)

heh heh. heh heh.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

giusd said:


> I have one simple quesion. How many playoff games have Curry and JC played in??? Sorry two questions. How many teams have Curry and Crawford played for that have a winning record. I mean they have each been in the NBA for what like 6 years or so. They are both starters right.
> 
> Just asking.
> 
> david


repped


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

This whole thread is hilarious. Starting a baiting, then palying innocent and then playing a victim. Just hilarious. But I also think it's addictive since even people who post their opinion back on this thread openly question why they are responding.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> This whole thread is hilarious. Starting a baiting, then palying innocent and then playing a victim. Just hilarious. But I also think it's addictive since even people who post their opinion back on this thread openly question why they are responding.



I'm starting to hate the time I spend here...but it's like a trainwreck; I can't take my eyes off of it.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> I, someone who is more even-handed in their appraisal of Paxson


Ok, that's where you lost me, yet again. You have absolutely zero credibility when you start lying like that.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Ok, that's where you lost me, yet again. You have absolutely zero credibility when you start lying like that.


he has 0 credibility like 100% of the time


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

liekomgj4ck said:


> he has 0 credibility like 100% of the time


Well yeah, but you know how it is lol.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Well yeah, but you know how it is lol.


yep, the beauty of the internet :biggrin:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

EDIT

Unless something changes soon, I might find myself ready to pronounce this board dead,dead,dead.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Its funny, my poor thread gets viciously threadjacked by a EDIT and then sadly devolves into a stream of blatant, direct personal attacks and then the mods are openly questioned.

"no personal attacks"
"no armchair moderation" 
"no threadjacking"

Are there any hard and fast rules anymore? 

I just wanted to talk about how Paxson leaned on Skiles to be the personnel filter and didn't want to make the tough call himself, and the thread devolves into this mess.

And do the "usual suspects" behind this sad thread derailment offer any insight, any interesting topics / threads of their own? Nope. Just potshots at poor 'ol K4E, the voice of the everyman, the whipping boy for those who still love "the right way."

Ah well, the days are dark right now, but hopefully Paxson will soon be gone and the Bulls can emerge from this horrible Paxson mess and we can get back to the business of trying to win the NBA Championship. 

Hang in there true believers. Its always darkest before the dawn.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its funny, my poor thread gets viciously threadjacked by a rabid gang and then sadly devolves into a stream of blatant, direct personal attacks and then the mods are openly questioned.
> 
> "no personal attacks"
> "no armchair moderation"
> ...


threadjacked by a rabid gang? Like this one?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> a rabid gang


:sadbanana:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

This thread is like a step into some alternate reality circa 2003 :afro:

I for one think we were all wrong in our evaluations of all the players in one way or another . However K4e took it long and hard when it comes to the "JIB" and no one was trying to silence anyone using it and it sometimes dominated the board.I think there were plenty of posters who went to far one way with that stuff and now that the script is flipped dont really want to be reminded.I dont think K4e should be rubbing it in forever .He took a lot of grief but he should be the bigger person and retire it now. Lets hope Pax can right the ship or he gets shown the door.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> However K4e took it long and hard when it comes to the "JIB" and no one was trying to silence anyone using it and it sometimes dominated the board.I think there were plenty of posters who went to far one way with that stuff and now that the script is flipped dont really want to be reminded.


:yes:


----------



## JohnnieFinn (Apr 9, 2008)

el oh el


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

I just went through this thread and there really is alot of fault to go around , 

there is some baiting done by the OP , no doubt , but there is an equal if not more baiting done by what the OP would call the "pro paxson crowd ", or "paxson lovers" which in my opinion are stupid and inflametory terms, it serves no purpose other than to grate on the nerves of some readers on this forum.

but then *some* people take the bait while complaining about being baited and make their post about the OP instead of the a. the thread topic ...or b. the point the OP was trying to make while being derisive of the OP....which is of course baiting in itself...and the trend continues.

i suggest that in the future people try to keep it on topic and that K4E learn to edit his own posts because his sentiment is actually pretty good and 1 I happen to agree with ...but his little something extra he adds to these posts give people ammunition to highjack his posts/threads which only serves to annoy him and readers in general and see if there can be a return to normalcy in which people talk about basketball exclusively.

if you really believe you have a good point you dont need it and nobody wants to see it anyway.For the most part we are adults here I would like to see more behavior that shows it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> there is an equal if not more baiting done by what the OP would call the "pro paxson crowd ", or "paxson lovers"



Yeah, great. He hurls dirt and everyone else is wrong for feeling insulted AND ignored when the mods refuse to step in.

Enablers...yep. He was demoted because people were leaving...at this point they might as well re-promote him.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

GB said:


> Yeah, great. He hurls dirt and everyone else is wrong for feeling insulted AND ignored when the mods refuse to step in.
> 
> Enablers...yep. He was demoted because people were leaving...at this point they might as well re-promote him.


way to go, miss the whole point(heck you even cut down the sentence in which i had issue for him even using those terms) and make yourself the victim when you have some antagonizing posts in this thread as well , the same thing you say K4E does ...interesting.


you dont think you have a part in this too?


because you do, the ways to handle this have been stressed over and over , but instead some people think its best to target posters , hijack threads and then claim they are the victim even though they very willingly entered into the fray.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> This thread is like a step into some alternate reality circa 2003 :afro:
> 
> I for one think we were all wrong in our evaluations of all the players in one way or another . However K4e took it long and hard when it comes to the "JIB" and no one was trying to silence anyone using it and it sometimes dominated the board.*I think there were plenty of posters who went to far one way with that stuff and now that the script is flipped dont really want to be reminded.*I dont think K4e should be rubbing it in forever .He took a lot of grief but he should be the bigger person and retire it now. Lets hope Pax can right the ship or he gets shown the door.


The problem is, most of those posters are gone... almost all of them post on a certain other board... That leaves the rest of us to deal with constant "I told you so" nonsense. Some of us have at times applauded and at times criticized the Bulls front office... we simply don't fit into the discussion when one guy is waging a war against a non-existent foe.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> you dont think you have a part in this too?


Actually no. The board is really peaceful, a really good place to talk bball on the days that he doesn't post, or on the days that the mods actually tell him to cool it.



> because you do


Oh, I get it. If I and the others outraged by his conduct didn't post at all, K4 would never act up. Is that what you're saying?

If he keeps up, I think you'll get a chance to find out. 


BTW...whats the trend as far board readership? I remember that he was demoted because it was going the wrong way. I can't imagine that this helps.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> the ways to handle this have been stressed over and over


With all due respect, the modding here is the most limp-wristed I've seen in the history of this board.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

GB said:


> With all due respect, the modding here is the most limp-wristed I've seen in the history of this board.


If I have any criticism with the modding is that they allow posters to "gang-up" on those who express a minority opinion. Quite frankly, I don't understand why people get offended by being labeled "pro-Pax." I think Paxson has been mediocre in his performance. If you want to call me "anti-Pax" why should I be offended? Even if you call me a "Pax-hater" I would argue that this is not an accurate reflection of my feelings but I certainly wouldn't be offended to the point where I would waste considerable energy trying to constantly dump on the poster who called me that.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> The problem is, most of those posters are gone... almost all of them post on a certain other board... That leaves the rest of us to deal with constant "I told you so" nonsense. Some of us have at times applauded and at times criticized the Bulls front office... we simply don't fit into the discussion when one guy is waging a war against a non-existent foe.


so why even deal with it?

if it doesn't particuarly pertain to you why would you and others even dignify it?

do you feel the need to defend those that are gone ?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> I I don't understand why people get offended by being labeled


:thumbdown:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

GB said:


> Actually no. The board is really peaceful, a really good place to talk bball on the days that he doesn't post, or on the days that the mods actually tell him to cool it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you dont think that when K4E makes one of his comments and then 5 or so differnt posters make comments back and then the volleys consist over the course of 10 pages that has more to do with any board disharmony then going through the proper ...instead of reading posts and reporting it to the proper channels and leaving K4E's single comment alone on the thread .

if you think your way is the more condusive way for peacefulness for this board , I'm just going to tell you you are wrong.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> reporting it to the proper channels and


...wait ...and wait ...and wait ...and wait ...and wait ...and wait ...and wait ...and wait ...and wait ...and wait ...and wait ...and wait ...and wait ...and wait ...and wait ...and wait ...and wait ...and wait ...and wait ...and wait ...and wait ...and wait ...and wait

and...you get the picture.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Happy tuesday morning guys. Time to get this thread back on track.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

liekomgj4ck said:


> Happy tuesday morning guys. Time to get this thread back on track.


Don't hold your breath. The sharks are out for blood today.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

kukoc4ever said:


> Don't hold your breath. The sharks are out for blood today.


So if your whole thread is true, Skiles got them out. 

What do you think that means?

(serious question actually)


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The sharks



:sadbanana:


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

GB said:


> :sadbanana:


well I can't comment about your buck teeth, because i've never seen ya. But you are a pretty vicious man :wink:


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

GB said:


> :thumbdown:


What is your point? You didn't even provide the entire quote. My point is that I don't understand why people on this board get bent out of shape by being labelled "pro-Pax." So what? Do you prefer that instead people say something like "you support Paxson in his personnel moves." A "label" in this context is just short-hand.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

charlietyra said:


> What is your point? You didn't even provide the entire quote. My point is that I don't understand why people on this board get bent out of shape by being labelled "pro-Pax." So what? Do you prefer that instead people say something like "you support Paxson in his personnel moves." A "label" in this context is just short-hand.


So then if I called you a "K4E jock hugger" you wouldn't be offended? I'll keep that in mind.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> I don't understand why people on this board get bent out of shape by being *labelled*




_But most stereotypes tend to make us feel superior in some way to the person or group being stereotyped. Stereotypes ignore the uniqueness of individuals by painting all members of a group with the same brush._

http://www.media-awareness.ca/engli.../toolkit/stereotypes/what_are_stereotypes.cfm


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

GB said:


> _But most stereotypes tend to make us feel superior in some way to the person or group being stereotyped. Stereotypes ignore the uniqueness of individuals by painting all members of a group with the same brush._
> 
> http://www.media-awareness.ca/engli.../toolkit/stereotypes/what_are_stereotypes.cfm


I don't mind being called a Paxson lover. It's true, I am. So ****ing what?!


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I do. Especially when it's more nuanced than the simplicity with which he tries to tag the group.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

liekomgj4ck said:


> So then if I called you a "K4E jock hugger" you wouldn't be offended? I'll keep that in mind.


I would be offended to the extent that this is the type of "label" that portrays a disgusting visual image of someone who blindly agrees with what someone says. Because of this imagery I could understand how that label would be offensive. I don't understand how something as relatively benign as saying someone is "pro-Pax" is in the same category. For example, are people who support Obama supposed to be offended by being called "pro-Obama?" I don't think so if that is, in fact, accurate.

What is troubling about your post is the words "I'll keep that in mind." What is the message here? Are you going to lie in wait for an opportunity to call me a "K4E jock hugger?" Am I supposed to be intimidated into not expressing my views because of this lame threat?


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

charlietyra said:


> I would be offended to the extent that this is the type of "label" that portrays a disgusting visual image of someone who blindly agrees with what someone says. Because of this imagery I could understand how that label would be offensive. I don't understand how something as relatively benign as saying someone is "pro-Pax" is in the same category. For example, are people who support Obama supposed to be offended by being called "pro-Obama?" I don't think so if that is, in fact, accurate.
> 
> What is troubling about your post is the words "I'll keep that in mind." What is the message here? *Are you going to lie in wait for an opportunity to call me a "K4E jock hugger?" Am I supposed to be intimidated into not expressing my views because of this lame threat?*


*
haha no, not into name calling*


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

liekomgj4ck said:


> I don't mind being called a Paxson lover. It's true, I am. So ****ing what?!


No problem at all.

I think its admirable that you still embrace him as his vision and dream crumble.

Stick to your knitting.

Through thick and thin.

While Paxson's ideology is wrong-headed IMO, I can respect that you are not distancing yourself from it or attacking those that were against it all along.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

kukoc4ever said:


> No problem at all.
> 
> I think its admirable that you still embrace him as his vision and dream crumble.
> 
> ...


What can I say, I'm a fool for the bulls :biggrin: I support him at the moment but that might change after the coming season.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> What is troubling about your post is the words "I'll keep that in mind." What is the message here? Are you going to lie in wait


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Ugh. Get back to the topic at hand, which was Skiles getting Curry and Crawford traded if you may recall, or I'm locking this one up. It's been a while since we had a post of substance rather than a post of style.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

jnrjr79 said:


> Ugh. Get back to the topic at hand, which was Skiles getting Curry and Crawford traded if you may recall, or I'm locking this one up. It's been a while since we had a post of substance rather than a post of style.


Well there was this



liekomgj4ck said:


> So if your whole thread is true, Skiles got them out.
> 
> What do you think that means?
> 
> (serious question actually)


But I received no comment.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

LOL, to answer the mod's comments, my post sums it up real well. K4E, in every single post, is baiting and flaming. This thread is what every thread will be like, as long as he's allowed to post here. When you start a thread with solid baiting and lying (yes he DID lie, blatantly) that's all you're going to get, is garbage from people sick of his BS. To be honest, I'm so sick of his BS that I almost didn't come into the thread, but I was curious as to SKILES getting them fired. But, instead of it actually being about Skiles, it turned into yet more Pax-bashing. It gets real old real fast, and I'm not even really pro-Pax. I like some stuff, and hate some stuff he's done. But the ignorant lying and baiting gets really old and needs to stop.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I'm not quite sure what the lie is.

Another source says Skiles was responsible for running Curry (at least) out of town.

Paxson seemed to really kowtow to what Skiles wanted. I think we all can agree on that.

So, now that he's gone, we're kind of stuck with this Skiles OK roster (save for Hughes and Gooden) but no Skiles.

Not sure what the lie is.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm not quite sure what the lie is.
> 
> Another source says Skiles was responsible for running Curry (at least) out of town.
> 
> ...


Why does that even matter? So what?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> LOL, to answer the mod's comments, my post sums it up real well. K4E, in every single post, is baiting and flaming.


I'd like a mod to tell us why they agree or disagree with this statement. I'd like to know if they think he has to change, or if it's everyone else that has to change.

I really think they think it's 'everyone else', but I want to hear it.



> This thread is what every thread will be like, as long as he's allowed to post here.


Personally, I believe it. I'd like to know whether the mods do too, and if they see it as a problem

It would really clear things up. No sermons about what we need to do. Just answers to his statements and my questions above.

*Thanks* in advance.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

GB said:


> I'd like a mod to tell us why they agree or disagree with this statement. I'd like to know if they think he has to change, or if it's everyone else that has to change.
> 
> I really think they think it's 'everyone else', but I want to hear it.
> 
> ...



I'd prefer to see K4E change AND to see you change, GB.


----------

