# Detroit fans turning on Sheed



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

http://www.mlive.com/forums/pistons/index.ssf

If you have an O-Live moniker it works in there as well.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

They turned on him after the defensive screw-up in last year's Finals, too.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Poor Rasheed. I wonder how he's going to respond?

Since he's a cancer and a looser and is reverting to his old ways, I'd guess he'll disappear in game 6 as the Pistons lose... in ...

Oh, wait. I guess not.

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Poor Rasheed. I wonder how he's going to respond?
> 
> Since he's a cancer and a looser and is reverting to his old ways, I'd guess he'll disappear in game 6 as the Pistons lose... in ...
> 
> ...


When he bricked those last two free throws, I thought the Cavs would pull it out.

Bottom line, though, it _should_ have never come to this point. I mean, we're talking the _lowly_ Cavs, folks.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Poor Rasheed. I wonder how he's going to respond?
> 
> Since he's a cancer and a looser and is reverting to his old ways, I'd guess he'll disappear in game 6 as the Pistons lose... in ...
> 
> ...



Rasheed is a big looser.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> Rasheed is a big looser.


Looser than a gooser.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> Rasheed is a big looser.


Glad you got teh point, Hap.

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Glad you got teh point, Hap.
> 
> Ed O.


Hap don't gotteh point.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Glad you got teh point, Hap.
> 
> Ed O.


all you're base our belong to me.


----------



## ptownblazer1 (Oct 12, 2005)

both teams played hard...both teams played hard...both teams played hard...


CTC Baby...CTC Baby.

Idiot.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

ptownblazer1 said:


> both teams played hard...both teams played hard...both teams played hard...
> 
> 
> CTC Baby...CTC Baby.
> ...


But yet still better than anyone on this portland squad.....


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

He was asked about a guarantee for Sunday's game, and he said something like "what do you think?" and walked off.

I'll admit ... those final free throws aside, 'Sheed helped out the Pistons tonight. That shot he made while being fouled in the fourth was clutch, and he made some timely 3's, too.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

ptownblazer1 said:


> CTC Baby...CTC Baby.


I still find it amazing that people find the "cut the check" remark to be so offensive to them. Wallace was responding to a question about the business of basketball, namely that the Blazers might be looking to trade him. So, in response to the idea of the team not showing loyalty (and nor should they be required to), he responded by saying it wasn't about loyalty _on either side_.

So, teams should freely cut or trade players but players should devastated if their check is signed by someone else? Makes a lot of sense.

"CTC" was one of the pithiest summations of the business of basketball, which goes both ways. No one is _expected_ to be loyal, teams or players, and very few are.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

"Cut the check" was just one of the many stupid things that Wallace said while he was in Portland. He belongs in the Hall of Shame for stupid sayings and stupid behavior.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> "Cut the check" was just one of the many stupid things that Wallace said while he was in Portland. He belongs in the Hall of Shame for stupid sayings and stupid behavior.


Amen, Talkhard. There were literally hundreds of other things Wallace could have said to the media. CTC demonstrated his petulance. Basically Rasheed was stating that his feelings were hurt so he was going to hurt the Blazers right back.

By the way, last night was what Sheed was all about. He came out sluggish looking to his other teammates to carry the load. When they couldn't, he drew upon his deep reservoir of talent to keep the Pistons in the game. Rasheed can dominate any game he chooses, too bad he's all about collecting checks rather than earning them night in and night out.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I loved the "Both teams played hard" interview. That was hilarious. It's become basketball lore.

And Minstrel is right on about the "CTC" much ado about nothing. It was immediately turned into a complete misrepresentation of his message for the sole purpose of demonizing him.

Sheed isn't perfect, but he's a hell of a basketball player (not a robot, so yes he's capable of making mistakes) and not dumb. It's sad that disappoints some people.

One of the things I admire about Sheed is that when he plays hurt, he never whines about it like a little baby (i.e. Kobe) even when it clearly affects his game. He's got too much pride for that.

Go Sheed. Get another ring, Beau.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Oh, the irony.

Sheed blows smoke up the press's behind ("both teams played hard") and he gets ripped for it.

Sheed is brutally honest ("CTC" or his rips on Stern) and he gets ripped for it.

Blasting him for one or the other is an over-reaction. Blasting him for *both* is dishonest! :krazy:


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Oh, the irony.
> 
> Sheed blows smoke up the press's behind ("both teams played hard") and he gets ripped for it.
> 
> ...



I love this kind of apologist. Both of those quotes had one thing in common--Rasheed was acting like a child. He didn't want to be interviewed, so he just repeated "Both teams played hard". His feelings were hurt that we were talking about moving him because he was the 3rd highest player in the league and had the stats of someone that should make the MLE, so he came up with CTC.

Rasheed is a child who when he doesn't get what he wants throws a temper tantrum. The rules don't apply to Sheed, his talent has always allowed him to act and play the way he wants.

I'm glad he's no longer a Blazer. He's a more talented, arrogant and agressive Darius Miles.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

"Apologist" implies he did something that needs to be apologized for.

As already pointed out, the "CTC" comment was nothing more than a blunt statement on the business end of the game. The truth may be ugly, but it is still the truth.

As for "Both teams played hard"..........watching all those pompous, ego-centric media twits freak out was FUNNY! The fact they made such a big deal out of the incident just proved Sheed was right about them.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> "Apologist" implies he did something that needs to be apologized for.
> 
> As already pointed out, the "CTC" comment was nothing more than a blunt statement on the business end of the game. The truth may be ugly, but it is still the truth.
> 
> As for "Both teams played hard"..........watching all those pompous, ego-centric media twits freak out was FUNNY! The fact they made such a big deal out of the incident just proved Sheed was right about them.


Keep apologizing for him. You're one of many that has allowed him to act like a jerk. I have this crazy notion that when someone is paid to do a job, they should do all facets of the job to the best of their ability. Rasheed wants his money, but wants to define what he needs to do to earn it.

I don't really care about him. There are some that just can't let go. He was in my rear view mirror when we sent his tired act to Atlanta.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

maxiep said:


> I don't really care about him. There are some that just can't let go. He was in my rear view mirror when we sent his tired act to Atlanta.


Sure. That's why you started this thread about him and posted three more times in it. 

barfo


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

maxiep said:


> I don't really care about him. There are some that just can't let go.


some that cant let go??? You started this thread!

Personally I find the sour grapes expressed every round he progresses (year after year) pretty tired.

STOMP


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

STOMP said:


> some that cant let go??? You started this thread!
> 
> Personally I find the sour grapes expressed every round he progresses (year after year) pretty tired.
> 
> STOMP


I did indeed. I thought it was funny that after two bad games, they were turning on him the way most fans here waited for five or six years to do. That was the point of my post. It was a comment on Detroit fans, not Sheed. 

I have no sour grapes about Sheed progressing in the playoffs with another team. I had sour grapes when he disgraced the Scarlet and Black as well as Bobby Gross' and Terry Porter's number. My sour grapes ended when we made him a Hawk.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

maxiep said:


> I have no sour grapes about Sheed progressing in the playoffs with another team. I had sour grapes when he disgraced the Scarlet and Black as well as Bobby Gross' and Terry Porter's number. My sour grapes ended when we made him a Hawk.


co-sign. especially the part about Bobby and Terry's # being disgraced.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

maxiep said:


> I did indeed. I thought it was funny that after two bad games, they were turning on him the way most fans here waited for five or six years to do. That was the point of my post. It was a comment on Detroit fans, not Sheed.


you think few blowhards posting on their equivalent of O-live represent the Detroit fans collective conscious? I don't think you have any understanding of how low the opinion of the O-live forum is here. The masses there love him and give him ample credit for the success they've enjoyed as do his teammates and GM... I'm sure you'll see that love tomorrow if you tune in.



> I have no sour grapes about Sheed progressing in the playoffs with another team. I had sour grapes when he disgraced the Scarlet and Black as well as Bobby Gross' and Terry Porter's number. My sour grapes ended when we made him a Hawk.


obviously you've let the bitterness go 

STOMP


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

lol you guys get SOOOO worked up over 'Sheed..... it's freaking unbelievable...

for one, do you think he'll change cuz you ***** about it? --no

and for two, if you dont like what he says, dont read about him, or watch his games.

jesus. It's a never ending episode of O.C in here..


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> "Cut the check" was just one of the many stupid things that Wallace said while he was in Portland.


Why was it stupid?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Great post, maxiep. Just needs some translation work:



maxiep said:


> Keep apologizing for him.


_"I can't support my arguments, so I'll just try to undercut the other person with a pat label."_



> I have this crazy notion that when someone is paid to do a job, they should do all facets of the job to the best of their ability.


_"I dislike Wallace, so that means he didn't play as hard as expected. I like non sequiturs."_



> I don't really care about him. There are some that just can't let go. He was in my rear view mirror when we sent his tired act to Atlanta.


_"I argue passionately about what a jerk he was and how anyone who disagrees with me is an 'apologist' in order to prove how much I don't care about him."_


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

maxiep said:


> Keep apologizing for him. You're one of many that has allowed him to act like a jerk. I have this crazy notion that when someone is paid to do a job, they should do all facets of the job to the best of their ability. Rasheed wants his money, but wants to define what he needs to do to earn it.
> 
> I don't really care about him. There are some that just can't let go. He was in my rear view mirror when we sent his tired act to Atlanta.



Every day of the week, jocks give interviews full of meaningless drivel and empty platitudes. All Sheed did was wink and admit what he was doing. 

BTW, I don't "allow" Sheed (or anybody else) to do anything. I just refuse to be some hectoring harridan of public propriety. I don't pretend to have the right or the power to micromanage other human beings. As far as I am concerned, Sheed's only "crime" was being overpaid........and I put the blame for that on the front office. The rest of this stuff is just white noise.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Great post, maxiep. Just needs some translation work:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Uh oh, it appears as though your panties are in a twist over one of my posts again. While I appreciate the translation attempt, stick to your day job. As someone that speaks four languages, is proficient in two others and has actually done translation work, you didn't do very well. Let's go through your arguments point by point, shall we?

First, I'm a labeler? Ironic given your accusation that when disageeing with someone I give them a "pat label". By the way, I can disagree with someone and not "undercut" them. Also, I can support my arguments just fine. I'm not to blame that you can't seem to follow along.

Second, I liked and supported Rasheed for a long time. I lived in DC when he was at Simon Gratz, at UNC and a Bullet, so he's likely been on my radar screen longer than he's been on yours. I can remember when Thompson tried to bring him to Georgetown and I was excited when we traded him for Strickland. 

Rasheed fell out of my favor when he began being a distraction both on and off the court. I didn't appreciate his locker room bullying either. He has undeniable talent, but chooses when and where he applies it. I've seen too many people with talent in their chosen areas not live up to it, and I've seen them enabled by people that want to believe they will change and become what they should be. The only people more pathetic than those that choose to coast on their God-given talents are those that let them do it and make excuses for them. 

As for the assumed non-sequitor, I was responding to why I felt Oldmangrouch was being an apologist, and doesn't that deserve a further examination of the issues? Perhaps you're happiest with a cursury glance, but I like to go a bit deeper.

Third, do you believe I'm arguing "passionately"? This is a charge you've leveled at me before, and something I'm now recognizing as a tactic of yours to imply that my argument isn't reasoned. Sorry, but I'm an NPR guy; rarely does my rhetoric rise to the Antonio Banderas-level of passion that you assume I project. Perhaps you can explain to me how responding to a post is really a demonstration of my deep-seeded hatred for Rasheed.

I appreciate the callout as always Minstrel. I seem to bother you, which is why you keep coming to the defense of others with whom I have a different opinion. One day you'll have to explain it to me. Until that day comes, I will thank you for caring so much. It's sweet. It really is.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Every day of the week, jocks give interviews full of meaningless drivel and empty platitudes. All Sheed did was wink and admit what he was doing.
> 
> BTW, I don't "allow" Sheed (or anybody else) to do anything. I just refuse to be some hectoring harridan of public propriety. I don't pretend to have the right or the power to micromanage other human beings. As far as I am concerned, Sheed's only "crime" was being overpaid........and I put the blame for that on the front office. The rest of this stuff is just white noise.


See, now that's a quality response. Well thought out, reasoned and written. Minstrel, you should take notes.

For the record, Oldmangrouch, we have an honest disagreement on this issue. Rasheed is arguably the most divisive Blazer ever, and we appear to be on different sides of the gulf. I appreciate your respectful and insightful discussion on this issue. If I offended you by referring to you as an apologist, I apologize.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

maxiep said:


> Uh oh, it appears as though your panties are in a twist over one of my posts again.


As usual, you start your post with an attempt to characterize the other person as overly-emotional. Your posts can be written by template. 



> First, I'm a labeler? Ironic given your accusation that when disageeing with someone I give them a "pat label".


I said you did in this case. I didn't label you as a "pat labeler."



> By the way, I can disagree with someone and not "undercut" them.


I'm sure you can. You just don't choose to.

Here's a challenge: try to disagree in the future without accusing the other person of being an "apologist," "an enabler of bad behaviour," "having their panties in a twist," and similar types of labels or jibes.

If you can do that from now on, I'll agree I was wrong.



> Third, do you believe I'm arguing "passionately"? This is a charge you've leveled at me before, and something I'm now recognizing as a tactic of yours to imply that my argument isn't reasoned.


I assume that people who are unable to argue without throwing in jibes like "you have your panties in a twist" are getting emotional about being disagreed with. It's not always true, but it's a pretty strong correlation.



> I appreciate the callout as always Minstrel. I seem to bother you


Your illogical argumentative style "bothers" me as much as it does from anyone else. I argue when I feel people have a weak case, either factually or logically. You know, that _is_ much of the point of a discussion forum...to argue contentions one disagrees with. You call it being bothered, I call it discussion.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Here's a challenge: try to disagree in the future without accusing the other person of being an "apologist,"....and similar types of labels or jibes.
> 
> If you can do that from now on, I'll agree I was wrong......



What's wrong with being identified as an apologist? Personally, I don't see that as being a "jab" type of description. I looked up the definitiion - just to be sure.... 



> A person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution; "an apologist for capital punishment" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
> 
> Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. Someone who engages in apologetics is called an apologist.The term comes from the Greek word apologia {Ἀπολογία}, meaning the defense of a position against an attack, not from the English word apology, which is exclusively understood as a defensive plea for forgiveness for an action that is open to blame.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> As usual, you start your post with an attempt to characterize the other person as overly-emotional. Your posts can be written by template.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Whoa Nellie, Minstrel you done got me confused real good! I admire your ability to be a hypocrite with a straight face. Perhaps you can teach me that skill some time; maybe that's why I always lose at poker.

A template, eh? That's a great idea, especially when responding to callouts as formulaic as yours. You seem to be really good with computers. Can you set one up for me? It looks like I was wrong about you, your panties only twisted after my post about twisted panties. Were you going "cowboy" before that?

If you can't see that you labeled me as much as you accused me of labeling Oldmangrouch, then it's time for an optometry appointment.

I also particularly enjoy when you accuse me of engaging in poor behavior when you created an entire post based on spinning one of mine. I lived in DC for seven years, do you think I have never seen that tactic before? By the way, I enjoy the British spelling of "behaviour"; it makes your post so much fancier.

I have a challenge for you. Try starting a post without calling someone out as its basis. Real dialogue is so much more fun. Perhaps you're one of those people who come in here to get into arguments rather than engage in actual discussion, but I don't really enjoy that game. Know that I participate in it only to make you happy. God forbid you actually have to discuss the Blazers or basketball with me.

As for you assuming my emotional state, there's an old Tony Randall line from "The Odd Couple" about when someone assumes. It seems you enjoy templates. Try thinking for yourself. it's hard at first, but eventually you'll get used to it.

Sorry for bothering you so much. If you call callouts where you spin an entire post just to create disagreement a "discussion", might I suggest you run for office in Iran or North Korea? Then you can label people the Great Satan without ever having to hear a response. As to what you believe your Spock-like approach to be, if you think he would have to resort to twisting words to make his point, then I have nothing left to say but you must think of him as perpetually in that state of heat where he needs to mate. Too bad that only happens once every seven years. Live Long and Prosper.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

maxiep said:


> Whoa Nellie, Minstrel.....



Personally speaking, my apt response to this, here, little _discussion_ is ---> this. :laugh:


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

ABM said:


> Personally speaking, my apt response to this, here, little _discussion_ is ---> this. :laugh:


It is pretty funny. I love when threads completely get driven off the beaten path by people just trying to fight.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

maxiep said:


> If you can't see that you labeled me as much as you accused me of labeling Oldmangrouch, then it's time for an optometry appointment.


Right, saying that you labeled someone is, itself, labeling. Similarly, charging someone with a crime is, itself, a crime. Great logic. And you wonder why I "call you out." You're free to use terrible logic, and I'm free to point it out.

As I already pointed out, I didn't _label_ you as a "labeller." I said you labelled olmangrouch in that particular instance. You really have no leg to stand on, but it's always an easy trick to try and claim that by having your own poor behaviour noted, the other person did the same.



> By the way, I enjoy the British spelling of "behaviour"; it makes your post so much fancier.


My parents came from India, I grew up reading children's books by British authors. That has instilled some British spelling habits. Sorry to take away another attempted jibe.



> I have a challenge for you. Try starting a post without calling someone out as its basis.


The vast majority of my posts are not in response to other people's poor logic. However, calling someone out for using bad logic to support their arguments is perfectly within the spirit of honest discussion. Using ad hominem insults or labels isn't. There's the difference.

It appears, since you didn't take up my challenge, that you agree that you can't handle disagreement without trying to undercut the other person illogically.

That's fine. I'll give you last word, since I don't really want to go back and forth with you like the last time. We shall have to agree to disagree on...just about everything.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

so...who wants to bet 50 ucash points on the Cavs winning?


----------



## OdomLOL (May 16, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Right, saying that you labeled someone is, itself, labeling. Similarly, charging someone with a crime is, itself, a crime. Great logic. And you wonder why I "call you out." You're free to use terrible logic, and I'm free to point it out.
> 
> As I already pointed out, I didn't _label_ you as a "labeller." I said you labelled olmangrouch in that particular instance. You really have no leg to stand on, but it's always an easy trick to try and claim that by having your own poor behaviour noted, the other person did the same.
> 
> ...


Come on Minstrel, I was just going to read the ongoing debate here but I have yet to see any sort of solid basketball based arguements come from you. At least you ended it with a "agree to disagree".


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I love Sheed. He is the reason Detroit turned the corner. He is constantly described as the most outgoing, funny and likable guy by any teamate. Sheed is disliked because he doesnt wear a mask when talking, he is true and says whatever the hell he wants. I admire that quality. I love how after game 6, when asked about the free throws he said, "I f'ed up". He is a great basketball player and gets a bad rap for reasons unknown. So what if he got some T's, that is a testament to his passion for the game in my opinion. So what if he smokes pot, that has nothing to do with his character or play on the court. He is a great player and a good guy.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> so...who wants to bet 50 ucash points on the Cavs winning?


I actually found some of my Mom's (very) old _Betty Crocker Points_. Do those count? Hmmm....how about some _S&H Green Stamps_?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> so...who wants to bet 50 ucash points on the Cavs winning?



I will! I'll see your 50 points, and raise you 100! Cavs win baby!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> I will! I'll see your 50 points, and raise you 100! Cavs win baby!


yer on, bucko! thats the easiest 150 points I ever made!

tool!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> yer on, bucko! thats the easiest 150 points I ever made!
> 
> tool!


bring it on, baldie!


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> bring it on, baldie!



I know you are, but what am I?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> bring it on, baldie!












Are you jealous smeg for brains?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> Are you jealous smeg for brains?


may a diseased yak urinate in your soup.


(hi ABM! :wave: :wave: )


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Right, saying that you labeled someone is, itself, labeling. Similarly, charging someone with a crime is, itself, a crime. Great logic. And you wonder why I "call you out." You're free to use terrible logic, and I'm free to point it out.
> 
> As I already pointed out, I didn't _label_ you as a "labeller." I said you labelled olmangrouch in that particular instance. You really have no leg to stand on, but it's always an easy trick to try and claim that by having your own poor behaviour noted, the other person did the same.
> 
> ...


You're a funny cat, Minstrel. All I did was point out how ironic it was that you labeled me after I "labeled" Oldmangrouch. And now look, you're all atwitter.

Wow! Childrens books from the UK? Did you read them aloud in an upper-crust British accent? My sister has Pippi Longstocking books, should she read them with a Swedish accent or be tossing umlats on every vowel? I lived in London for a while and read Kipling when I was young, should I use that fancy spelling too? Please recognize the difference between having something instilled and an affectation. I'll accept that kind of spelling from EnglandDan in the OLive forum, but unless you recently arrived here it's merely pompous.

As for the vast majority of your posts, how about making them about the Blazers? That would be cool. Know that I stand in bewildered awe of your logic; you are just so gosh darn wise. As for me, all that fancy book learnin' and I still have to take off my shoes to count to 20.

So we disagree on "just about everything"? How would you know? There you go again with those dang assumptions. It's always a pleasant experience to have a discussion with someone who lives their lives by boilerplate and prejudgment.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

OdomLOL said:


> Come on Minstrel, I was just going to read the ongoing debate here but I have yet to see any sort of solid basketball based arguements come from you.


This thread isn't actually about basketball. So, I guess you were doomed to be disappointed.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I love Sheed. He is the reason Detroit turned the corner. He is constantly described as the most outgoing, funny and likable guy by any teamate. Sheed is disliked because he doesnt wear a mask when talking, he is true and says whatever the hell he wants. I admire that quality. I love how after game 6, when asked about the free throws he said, "I f'ed up". He is a great basketball player and gets a bad rap for reasons unknown. So what if he got some T's, that is a testament to his passion for the game in my opinion. So what if he smokes pot, that has nothing to do with his character or play on the court. He is a great player and a good guy.


That's a great Pro-Sheed argument. I disagree with the conclusion, but I wanted to applaud your approach. That post is a great source for discussion, but I'm all Sheeded out and everything about him has been said. 

Minstrel are you taking notes? ThatBlazerGuy's post is what an actual post about basketball looks like.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> This thread isn't actually about basketball. So, I guess you were doomed to be disappointed.


Of course it wasn't. Your post was about calling someone out. I'm glad you admitted it. 

Anytime you want to discuss hoops, I'll be around.

Hugs and Kisses,
maxiep


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

maxiep said:


> Of course it wasn't. Your post was about calling someone out. I'm glad you admitted it.


I said this *thread* wasn't about basketball. So of course my post, in a thread not about basketball, wouldn't be about basketball.

Anytime you want to talk basketball, create a thread about basketball.


----------



## OdomLOL (May 16, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> This thread isn't actually about basketball. So, I guess you were doomed to be disappointed.


That is a good point, so what is the point of this thread?


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I said this *thread* wasn't about basketball. So of course my post, in a thread not about basketball, wouldn't be about basketball.
> 
> Anytime you want to talk basketball, create a thread about basketball.



Umm, look at the subject title. I did.

Boy, I didn't realize my posts were such juicy bones to you. Let's say we throw some tea and crumpets in the boot of my car, drive on the left hand side of the road to my country manor and have high tea and go fox hunting? Doesn't that sound smashing old chum?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

maxiep said:


> Umm, look at the subject title. I did.


No, you created a thread about Detroit fans. Not much basketball-related debate there.

And your posts are "juicy bones" in that they are being consistently directed at me and with such poor logic.


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

The point of this thread is,

maxiep is a









Who likes to start









But always looks like a









in the end :biggrin:


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> No, you created a thread about Detroit fans. Not much basketball-related debate there.
> 
> And your posts are "juicy bones" in that they are being consistently directed at me and with such poor logic.



Two things. First, the post related to Detroit Piston fans and their reaction to a Detroit Piston basketball player. Furthermore, and I'm not sure if you know this or not, but that Detroit Piston basketball player used to be a Portland Trail Blazer basketball player. See the connection now or do I need to include an official NBA ball for you to consider it a "basketball" post?

Second, you always had the choice not to answer or involve yourself, yet you chose to do so anyway. What does that say about you and impulse control?

P.S. Love the "poor logic" throwaway line; you make me chuckle.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Todd said:


> The point of this thread is,
> 
> maxiep is a
> 
> ...


Thanks for your input Todd. But while I started this thread, I didn't start this particular discussion. So please tell me how I'm trolling and looking for a fight?

By the way, I looked at your rep points, and they are impressive indeed! One day someone will have to tell me what they mean.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Great post, maxiep. Just needs some translation work:
> 
> _"I can't support my arguments, so I'll just try to undercut the other person with a pat label."_
> 
> ...


The fact is, Minstrel, Sheed is *widely* described here, in Atlanta, as a _classic_ knucklehead (even akin to the likes if T.O.) - and he only played one game in a Hawk uni! :laugh:

Apologist, or apologizing for, is absolutely a correct term when discussing Rasheed and his antics. He may be funny - even revered - by some, but he's certainly not to a great deal of others.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

maxiep said:


> Two things. First, the post related to Detroit Piston fans and their reaction to a Detroit Piston basketball player.


Fans' reactions to a basketball player is not a basketball discussion.



> Furthermore, and I'm not sure if you know this or not, but that Detroit Piston basketball player used to be a Portland Trail Blazer basketball player.


That's awesome. It still doesn't make Detroit fans' reactions an issue related to actual basketball. Basketball-related discussion, in most people's opinion as far as I've seen, are issues related to the basketball abilities of players and teams.



> Second, you always had the choice not to answer or involve yourself, yet you chose to do so anyway. What does that say about you and impulse control?


It suggests that I'm okay with responding. It's something to do while watching baseball.



> P.S. Love the "poor logic" throwaway line


It's not throw-away, but I'm glad you like it.  Those who use poor logic never believe they do, so while I'll take your implied disagreement under advisement, it probably won't matter too greatly.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Todd said:


> The point of this thread is,
> 
> maxiep is a
> 
> ...


maxiep is an ugly baby who's looking to swing a sledge hammer, and will end up looking like a horse lifted off the ground beacuse the weight of what he's towing is too much?

you sure showed him.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

ABM said:


> Apologist, or apologizing for, is absolutely a correct term when discussing Rasheed and his antics.


If "apologist" were used in its strict definition, I'd agree with you, ABM. However, the term "apologist" has come to connote a vested interest in defending a player (or other entity when used in other venues). In some sense, it's become akin to the term "homer," when it comes to sports discussions. Someone who argues not because they rationally believe something but because they have an emotional investment in something.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

SMiLE said:


> Are you jealous smeg for brains?


Shot from the rear:


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> As already pointed out, the "CTC" comment was nothing more than a blunt statement on the business end of the game. The truth may be ugly, but it is still the truth.


Smart players know how to avoid sticking their foot in their mouth. It may be "just business" in the NBA, but it's never just business to the loyal fans, who get attached to their team's players. When Wallace said, "Just cut the check," he was completely ignoring the feelings of the fans, the very people who support him and make it possible for him to earn his millions.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

mgb said:


> Shot from the rear:


Aww, man, now *THAT'S* funny!!! :laugh: :laugh:

Beautiful edge reducer, mgb. :clap:


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> If "apologist" were used in its strict definition, I'd agree with you, ABM. However, the term "apologist" has come to connote a vested interest in defending a player (or other entity when used in other venues). In some sense, it's become akin to the term "homer," when it comes to sports discussions....



Hmmmmm.......I must travel in different circles than yourself.

On second, thought, I think I just _travel_ in circles. :laugh:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> When Wallace said, "Just cut the check," he was completely ignoring the feelings of the fans, the very people who support him and make it possible for him to earn his millions.


But the fans already disliked him and wanted him out; at least, the ones prone to being angered by this comment did. So I'm not sure that Wallace really had anything to lose by telling the truth, especially when rumour had it that he was on the way out.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Fans' reactions to a basketball player is not a basketball discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Firstly, let's agree to disagree that it's not a basketball discussion. I look at other topics here, and it's certainly not out of bounds or off topic by any means.

Secondly, if you want to discuss basketball, try actually discussing basketball for a change rather than calling someone out. I'm sure you would call that "poor logic", but it suits my simplemindedness just fine.

Thirdly, it was a throwaway line. You never really address where the logic failed, why your logic was superior or why the logic it was "poor" in the first place. It was merely a dig. Call me crazy, but I prefer evidence and structure when addressing logic. It looks like you may have confused a viewpoint with which you disagree and faulty logic.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> But the fans already disliked him and wanted him out; at least, the ones prone to being angered by this comment did. So I'm not sure that Wallace really had anything to lose by telling the truth, especially when rumour had it that he was on the way out.



Let me guess, you use the spelling "rumour" because you listened to the Fleetwood Mac album when you were young? That album rocks!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

maxiep said:


> Firstly, let's agree to disagree that it's not a basketball discussion. I look at other topics here, and it's certainly not out of bounds or off topic by any means.


I didn't say it was off-topic or out of bounds. I was simply explaining to someone else why I didn't make "basketball-related points."



> Thirdly, it was a throwaway line. You never really address where the logic failed, why your logic was superior or why the logic it was "poor" in the first place.


I did, in previous posts. For example, your claim that my pointing out an example of you labelling someone else was, itself, an act of labelling. That holds as much water as saying that if you call a racist "intolerant," you are, yourself, being intolerant. It's fallacious; pointing out bad behaviour is not bad behaviour itself.

My later mentions of your poor logic were simply to explain why I responded to you--in my opinion, you didn't support your arguments well, and pointing that out is a pretty standard part of discussion.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

maxiep said:


> Let me guess, you use the spelling "rumour" because you listened to the Fleetwood Mac album when you were young? That album rocks!


You complain about other people "just wanting to fight," but you pretending not to understand that growing up reading British English would influence how one writes just to attempt to get under my skin is a pretty classic example of trying to stir up a fight.

It doesn't get under my skin, because I'm used to people trying to bait on forums, but I thought it might be useful to highlight your hypocrisy.

As with your previous attempts to annoy me, I'll ignore your future references to me "putting on an affectation." Just don't think that your inconsistency between what you claim to want and what you do aren't being caught.


----------



## OdomLOL (May 16, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> You complain about other people "just wanting to fight," but you pretending not to understand that growing up reading British English would influence how one writes just to attempt to get under my skin is a pretty classic example of trying to stir up a fight.
> 
> It doesn't get under my skin, because I'm used to people trying to bait on forums, but I thought it might be useful to highlight your hypocrisy.
> 
> As with your previous attempts to annoy me, I'll ignore your future references to me "putting on an affectation." Just don't think that your inconsistency between what you claim to want and what you do aren't being caught.


Sorry Minstrel but that is just plain silly to spell in that way unless you are British or live in Canada. It comes of as pretentious and pompous. No offense, just sayin.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I didn't say it was off-topic or out of bounds. I was simply explaining to someone else why I didn't make "basketball-related points."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Boy, there's still some meat on this bone! 

Sorry Minstrel, but you labeled me a "labeler" because you accused me of labeling someone. If you don't see the humor or irony in that, then you're just not having enough fun in show business.

Your analogies don't hold water. You didn't have to label me to disagree with me labeling someone else--that was a jump you decided to make. Don't blame me for your lack of impulse control.

Again, your mentions of poor logic were because you find me disagreeable on a personal level. They have nothing to do with logic. And by "pretty standard". you remind me of when Dr. Evil was giving his life story to the self-help group, "My childhood was typical: summers in Rangoon... luge lessons... In the spring, we'd make meat helmets... When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds--pretty standard really."

Okay...your turn!


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> ...pointing out bad behaviour is not bad behaviour itself..


Good point. Thus, pointing out Rasheed Wallace's well documented bad behavior is not bad behavior, in and of itself.

To me, it's a bit amusing witnessing yours and Ed O's seeming blind defense of Sheed and Bonzi - if I'm not mistaken, at various times, citing that it's simply all about what happens on the court that truly matters.

It's too bad, too. As talented as Sheed is, he _could_ have been so much better here. So much better. His antics ultimately affected his on-court relationships (and "potential" success") with Sabas, Scottie, Detlef, and others.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> You complain about other people "just wanting to fight," but you pretending not to understand that growing up reading British English would influence how one writes just to attempt to get under my skin is a pretty classic example of trying to stir up a fight.
> 
> It doesn't get under my skin, because I'm used to people trying to bait on forums, but I thought it might be useful to highlight your hypocrisy.
> 
> As with your previous attempts to annoy me, I'll ignore your future references to me "putting on an affectation." Just don't think that your inconsistency between what you claim to want and what you do aren't being caught.



I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm just making fun of you. In the words of Sgt. Hulka, "Lighten up, Francis."

Seriously, learn to laugh occasionally. Recognize you have the choice to spell using British English, and recognize that I think it's as ridiculous as Madonna speaking with an English accent. At least she now lives there.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

maxiep said:


> You didn't have to label me to disagree with me labeling someone else


And I didn't. So we're on the same page.



> Again, your mentions of poor logic were because you find me disagreeable on a personal level.


I don't find you "disagreeable on a personal level." I just disagree with pretty much everything you've said in this thread, and I feel you didn't support your arguments well. The same was true of the Bonzi thread. You seem to believe I have it in for you, but this thread and the one about Wells are the only instances where we've really gotten into it. It simply comes down to my disagreeing with you and the way you choose to argue those points sometimes.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

maxiep said:


> I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm just making fun of you. In the words of Sgt. Hulka, "Lighten up, Francis."


This whole thing began with you whining about me cleverly making fun of your irrational post (best part was how much you didn't care about Wallace, yet made a thread about him and posted over and over in it).

I get it now, though. It's mean-spirited desire to "fight" when someone takes apart your post with humour and it's just in fun when you do it much less effectively.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel, to me, this whole _thing_ began right here:

jus sayin 




Minstrel said:


> Great post, maxiep. Just needs some translation work:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

ABM said:


> Minstrel, to me, this whole _thing_ began right here:
> 
> jus sayin


Yeah, but that was me making fun of him, nothing combatative. maxiep should have lightened up, but instead he got all upset about it. 

He just needs a sense of humour and then I'm sure we'd be pretty good friends.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

ABM said:


> Minstrel, to me, this whole _thing_ began right here:
> 
> jus sayin


This is what I'm trying to say. I had the temerity to respond to that post calling me out. How trollish of me. Because I responded I was met with the Full Fury of Minstrel! I feel like a villan who crossed Chuck Norris in "Walker, Texas Ranger".


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

maxiep said:


> This is what I'm trying to say. I had the temerity to respond to that post calling me out.


Lighten up, Francis.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Yeah, but that was me making fun of him, nothing combatative. maxiep should have lightened up, but instead he got all upset about it.
> 
> He just needs a sense of humour and then I'm sure we'd be pretty good friends.


:laugh: :greatjob:

That was pretty rich. I'm sure even Maxie will get a chuckle out of that one. :yes:

Heck, you guys could meet up at some local pub, enjoy a few pints together, go outside and beat each other to a pulp, then shake hands and walk away. Yeah, that's the ticket.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Yeah, but that was me making fun of him, nothing combatative. maxiep should have lightened up, but instead he got all upset about it.
> 
> He just needs a sense of humour and then I'm sure we'd be pretty good friends.


All I did was respond, and you got all Hurtbutt (TM) about it. By the way, you would be really good friends with poster in O-Live named sdblazerfan/DaveTwardzik. You two share the same riotous sense of humor.

I think you didn't mean for it to be funny at all. I think that's you trying to backtrack. And as for lightening up, re-read my posts. Do I seem serious?


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

ABM said:


> :laugh: :greatjob:
> 
> That was pretty rich. I'm sure even Maxie will get a chuckle out of that one. :yes:
> 
> Heck, you guys could meet up at some loca pub, enjoy a few pints together, go outside and beat each other to a pulp, then shake hands and walk away. Yeah, that's the ticket.


For the record, I don't drink and fight. If I get mad at someone, I stick them with the tab. :biggrin:


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

maxiep said:


> All I did was respond, and you got all Hurtbutt (TM) about it. By the way, you would be really good friends with poster in O-Live named sdblazerfan/DaveTwardzik. You two share the same riotous sense of humor.
> 
> I think you didn't mean for it to be funny at all. I think that's you trying to backtrack. And as for lightening up, re-read my posts. Do I seem serious?



OK, so I was wrong. :whoknows:


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Lighten up, Francis.



Now THAT was funny! :clap:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

maxiep said:


> I think you didn't mean for it to be funny at all. I think that's you trying to backtrack.


I think you're trying to save face after being shown to be a complete hypocrite. 

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Take care, guy.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I think you're trying to save face after being shown to be a complete hypocrite.
> 
> Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.
> 
> Take care, guy.



Glad to see you're coming around and having some fun! :cheers:


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)




----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> may a diseased yak urinate in your soup.
> 
> 
> (hi ABM! :wave: :wave: )


May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits! :biggrin:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

maxiep said:


> For the record, Oldmangrouch, we have an honest disagreement on this issue. Rasheed is arguably the most divisive Blazer ever, and we appear to be on different sides of the gulf. I appreciate your respectful and insightful discussion on this issue. If I offended you by referring to you as an apologist, I apologize.



Sheed is divisive? That point I will never argue! :biggrin: 

Let's just call it a draw and move on. :wink:


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

ABM said:


> When he bricked those last two free throws, I thought the Cavs would pull it out.
> 
> Bottom line, though, it _should_ have never come to this point. I mean, we're talking the _lowly_ Cavs, folks.


A BLAZERS fan calling another team "lowly"?


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Detroit fans will be against him until he makes a big shot or they win and then it will be all peachy again.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

chromekilla said:


> Detroit fans will be against him until he makes a big shot or they win and then it will be all peachy again.


I was thinking the exact same thing tonight. I think he started redeeming himself with that clutch lay-up in game 6, too.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> A BLAZERS fan calling another team "lowly"?


Cavs was italicized for a reason. Totally tongue-in-cheek.

Seriously, on the surface, it might appear that the Cavs _should be_ "lowly" in comparison to the Pistons. They're certainly proving otherwise, though. Will they beat Detroit in Game 7? Probably not. However, they're now squarely on the proverbial map. :yes:


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

ABM said:


> Seriously, on the surface, it might appear that the Cavs _should be_ "lowly" in comparison to the Pistons. They're certainly proving otherwise, though. Will they beat Detroit in Game 7? Probably not. However, they're now squarely on the proverbial map. :yes:


having the best player in the league is always an advantage come the playoffs. Prince would seem to be one the best players in the league to match up on LaBron, but the kid has sliced up Detroit's tremendous D at will. 

The Cavs big offseason signees were Marshall and Larry Hughes. Marhall's outside shot has been huge this series but I think they've really missed LH both in the regular season and in this series. He'll be going today. At full strength, I really like their blend of talent and am not surprised that they're doing as well as they have in the playoffs. LaBron getting the superstar treatment from the refs sure has helped, but they're just plain good too.

While I expect a Pistons win today, I think that the Cavs will become an elite team next season and possibly surpass them. I'm really looking forward to being a _witness_ to today's game.

STOMP


----------



## Brian. (Jul 11, 2002)

Its funny that any pistons fan would "turn against sheed". Its incredibly shortsighted. We never would have won the title in 04 without him and we wouldn't have been within a couple of minutes of another last year without him. Certainly he has made mistakes on the floor most notably leaving Robert Horry last year. That being said there was a statistic in todays Detroit Free Press that summed up the Sheed era real well. The pistons are 12-0 in the playoffs when he scores at least 20 pts.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

barfo


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Boys and girls! Behave yourself! No food fights allowed in class!

1. Fan reaction is a basketball-related topic
2. Postings on an Oregon-live type board are not a rational judgment about public opinion
3. Detroit fans seemed fine with Rasheed Wallace yesterday


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Sheed is a great player and the Pistons would not have won yesterday without him.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

tlong said:


> Sheed is a great player and the Pistons would not have won yesterday without him.


For about the zillionth time: Sheed is a great player who, at times, is also a gigantic pain in the butt and subject to behavioral meltdowns that decrease his effectiveness and can serve as a distraction to the team. That said, if there were an option of having kept him in a Blazers uniform, I'd probably have been in favor of it as long as the rest of his fellow knuckleheads were cut from the roster. As the Pistons are proving, and as the Bulls proved previously with Rodman, a team can afford to have one major knucklehead on its roster as long as he is surrounded by other solid players. Unfortunately, I don't believe that Sheed left the Blazers that option.


----------

