# Shaq puts Oden/Przybilla on blast



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

> Shaq shot straight from the cuff. Always good for a great quote, Shaq commented about his exchange with Blazers center Joel Przybilla – with both drawing double-technical fouls in the second quarter after Przybilla confronted Shaq about throwing a ball in his face during a foul call- and of course, Greg Oden:
> 
> *"No," Shaq said when asked if he could share about his conversation with Przybilla that landed them both T's.
> 
> ...


Shaq strikes again! 

Lol @ shaq calling Oden a 'low level ninja'... :lol:


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*

I don't see anything wrong with what he said but I imagine there'll be a lot of people in here with their panties in a bunch ready to call him a scumball and some more...


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*

Classic Shaq.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*



Dre™ said:


> I don't see anything wrong with what he said but I imagine there'll be a lot of people in here with their panties in a bunch ready to call him a scumball and some more...


There you go, preemptively striking again. :laugh:


----------



## Idunkonyou (Feb 23, 2003)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*

Shaq = loud blowhole on a team that isn't making the playoffs. Funny stuff.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*



Bartholomew Hunt said:


> There you go, preemptively striking again. :laugh:


:admin:

I didn't strike at anyone, I'm just saying what's going to happen.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*

I normally don't like when Shaq complains so much, but low level ninja was funny, and not that bad of a sting.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*



Dre™ said:


> :admin:
> 
> I didn't strike at anyone, I'm just saying what's going to happen.




Oh, if KG had said this the forum would be in meltdown mode already... believe that. :laugh:

KG's the ***-hole... Shaq's just the 'funny fat guy' who can do or say whatever he want's and get away with it. :azdaja:


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*

It really wasn't that funny. I don't care that he said it, but it's just not that funny.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*

I don't mind what he said, other than the fact hes such a moron. I'm a shogun, you don't talk to me about low level ninjas? How ****ing dumb is Shaq? He always says things he thinks are funny, but in reality just show how dumb he is.

Hey Mr Myagi, how is Danielle Russo? _You don't as me about low level karate kid! I am his sensei!_

If what he said ever made sense that would be great, but he keeps sounding like a big, dumb, *******.


----------



## playablue (Dec 30, 2006)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*



R-Star said:


> I don't mind what he said, other than the fact hes such a moron. I'm a shogun, you don't talk to me about low level ninjas? How ****ing dumb is Shaq? He always says things he thinks are funny, but in reality just show how dumb he is.
> 
> Hey Mr Myagi, how is Danielle Russo? _You don't as me about low level karate kid! I am his sensei!_
> 
> If what he said ever made sense that would be great, but he keeps sounding like a big, dumb, *******.


He is hilarious.....you must never have smokin bud before. I take life seriously not ball, so taking shaq at his word is funny, so laugh.


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 2, 2006)

LOL @ "low-level ninja". He would have really made my day had he called Oden a genin instead.

Not sure about the Pryzbilla stuff, but the Vanilla Godzilla aka "I drop 80ppg in NBA2k" is not backing down from anyone.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I'm a Blazer fan and I have no problem with anything he said. He is right on the money, imo. Shaq, Howard and Ming are in a class of their own, and Oden is just a rook that needs to earn his way there.

I also agree with Shaq when he said (a while ago) that Oden needs a go-to move and to gain his athleticism back (which he will of course probably by next year) and he will be a great center.

No offense to Shaq though, but if he doesn't retire after next year (which he might) this may be one of his final chances to talk smack to Oden. 

Oh well... Have fun watching Oden in the playoffs from home, Shaq... Shaq is still one of my favorite ppl in the NBA, and it will be a sad day when he retires.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*



R-Star said:


> I don't mind what he said, other than the fact hes such a moron. I'm a shogun, you don't talk to me about low level ninjas? How ****ing dumb is Shaq? He always says things he thinks are funny, but in reality just show how dumb he is.
> 
> Hey Mr Myagi, how is Danielle Russo? _You don't as me about low level karate kid! I am his sensei!_
> 
> If what he said ever made sense that would be great, but he keeps sounding like a big, dumb, *******.


The irony!


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

Classic Shaq, going to miss him when he retires. I swear fanboys get more offended than the guys Shaq mentions.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*



Tragedy said:


> The irony!


Going to make a worthwhile post Trag? Or just try, and fail, to look witty?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*



playablue said:


> He is hilarious.....you must never have smokin bud before. I take life seriously not ball, so taking shaq at his word is funny, so laugh.


Eh.....what?


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*



R-Star said:


> Going to make a worthwhile post Trag? Or just try, and fail, to look witty?


Never tried to. But it's funny that you are clowning Shaq for his humor when most of your humor is pretty lame.

No offense, however.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*



Tragedy said:


> Never tried to. But it's funny that you are clowning Shaq for his humor when most of your humor is pretty lame.
> 
> No offense, however.


No offense taken. People like me on here, pretty much everyone hates you. You're envious. That's fine, and understandable.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Alright chill that **** out


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Conflict is drama, Dre. Tragedy is conflict.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*



R-Star said:


> Hey Mr Myagi, how is Danielle Russo? _You don't as me about low level karate kid! I am his sensei!_


:rofl:


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

It's sad seeing Shaq still trying to stay relevant. Poor guy.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

I never get sick of quotes coming from the big fella!


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I wanted Robin Lopez to stand up to Shaq. I am sure most of these guys don't even like playing with the Big Lotto.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

The "Big Lotto" has only missed the post-season once in his entire career, and that was his rookie season. He'll miss it again this year. But it's pretty clear that he has had a positive effect on the court, and ask any player that has played with Shaq and almost all of them will say that they like having him in the locker room.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I'm looking at HKF's list and only 3 of those people have won anything...1 of which due in heavy part to the Big Lotto.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Dre™ said:


> I'm looking at HKF's list and only 3 of those people have won anything...1 of which due in heavy part to the Big Lotto.


Do you have a point?


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Calling a 4-time champion The Big Lotto for his second lottery season ever...:admin: That's my point. 

I understand you have some kind of disdain for him, but I mean know where you can and can't attack him :yes:


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

How is Shaq the 'Big Lotto' if he hasn't missed the playoffs since 1993?


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

If you have enough effeminate hatred in you for someone you've never met, you'll make anything logical.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

The funniest part is when the word flop comes out of his mouth.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*



Tragedy said:


> The irony!


:lol:


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Dre™ said:


> If you have enough effeminate hatred in you for someone you've never met, you'll make anything logical.


"effeminate hatred" are you kidding me? Dre don't be stupid. Shaq was heading for the lottery before he quit on the Heat last year and he's heading for the lottery this year. He likes nicknames so I am giving him one.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Joel Przybilla is possibly the biggest flopper in the league, and exactly the sort of player who would throw the ball at a guy when he is down.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Missing the playoffs 2 out of 17 years = Big Lotto. Kevin Garnett missed the playoffs from 04-06. Garnett = Lotto Ticket? Deron Williams missed the playoffs in his rookie year. Small Lotto?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Chan said:


> Missing the playoffs 2 out of 17 years = Big Lotto. Kevin Garnett missed the playoffs from 04-06. Garnett = Lotto Ticket? Deron Williams missed the playoffs in his rookie year. Small Lotto?


I know it wasn't planned, but that almost sounds like a Ballscientist post.

Had a good laugh.


I do agree though. Shaq shouldn't be called the Big Lotto. But at the same time, I don't fault HKF for calling him that. It is something Shaq would call someone, even if they were as ill deserving of it as he is.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

MrJayremmie said:


> I'm a Blazer fan and I have no problem with anything he said. He is right on the money, imo. Shaq, Howard and Ming are in a class of their own, and Oden is just a rook that needs to earn his way there.
> 
> I also agree with Shaq when he said (a while ago) that Oden needs a go-to move and to gain his athleticism back (which he will of course probably by next year) and he will be a great center.
> 
> ...


Shaq's not even in Yao and Dwight's class this year


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*



R-Star said:


> No offense taken. People like me on here, pretty much everyone hates you. You're envious. That's fine, and understandable.


They like you the same way they like the trashed guy at the college party who graduated 4 years ago.

I'm not here to be liked, so i could give a rats ***. I'm here to discuss basketball and other topics. Everyone here hating me wouldn't mean a thing, because most of the people here are lame anyway. You don't like me because I won't kiss your *** and pump you up, that's cool.

But to sit here and say Shaq's humor is lame when you always use the same tired act to jack threads is downright laughable.

I'm not even a fan of Shaq and the things he said, but this particular one was amusing.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

Keep this going, beats the Wade thread.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

And Shaqs numbers this season are misleading. They changed up their whole game plan to suit Shaq and get the ball to him. He's doing well individually but the team overall has suffered. Hence why I maintain Shaq is not even in Yao and Dwight's league this season. His numbers show improvement and put him as the third best center, but for two teams just as injury plagued the Rockets have managed to play extremely well on Yao's back, and the Magic are still surviving and beat Boston a few nights ago. Injury plagued boston, but a boston team that was still beating lesser teams.

Plug Yao or Dwight in that team and they're thick in the playoff hunt.

Yao
Dwight

















Shaq.


And lol @ Chan still being sour. 

I think HKF, the Big Lotto fits. He never said Shaq was a loser, but every year Shaq gives himself a new nickname for the year. This year his name is and should be the Big Lotto. Ride his back to an early vacation! No one is taking away from his career. I personally think he's top 5 center all time easy. But this season his numbers deceive.


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 2, 2006)

Shaq the Big Lotto!?

So what do we call Jamal Crawford..... who has never been on a playoff team.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

HKF isn't talking about the pre-07 Shaq or something, he's saying since that season he has been essentially not that good (and this is his 3rd season of lottery if you want to be fair since the technicality of being traded last season shouldn't count, but whatever). And look at his numbers this year and the players he has around him; Richardson, Nash, Barbosa, Hill, etc. There's really no reason the Heat should have the record they have if Shaq actually had much impact on the game anymore. He's a shell of his former self, and the "Big Lotto" moniker is just a way of teasing the Big Porkshake.

EDIT: I am sorry for offending Shaq's fans. I'll be more sensitive to your strong feelings for the Big Loveable next time around.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

He made the playoffs last year. This year, he's coming in one spot out of the race. Implying he's lottery-prone is a stretch.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)




----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> He made the playoffs last year.


Nah, he really didn't. Suns make the playoffs without him pretty easily.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Blue Magic said:


>


Bahaha, that's actually pretty good.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Cap said:


> Nah, he really didn't. Suns make the playoffs without him pretty easily.


The Suns made the playoffs in 2008. Using this argument to prove 'Shaq = Big Lotto' is a setup for failure.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*



Tragedy said:


> They like you the same way they like the trashed guy at the college party who graduated 4 years ago.
> 
> I'm not here to be liked, so i could give a rats ***. I'm here to discuss basketball and other topics. Everyone here hating me wouldn't mean a thing, because most of the people here are lame anyway. You don't like me because I won't kiss your *** and pump you up, that's cool.
> 
> ...


Its just honestly hilarious for you to say "I don't care what anyone thinks, they're all lame anyways!"
Why do you ****ing come here then?

*EDIT*


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Tragedy said:


> And Shaqs numbers this season are misleading. They changed up their whole game plan to suit Shaq and get the ball to him. He's doing well individually but the team overall has suffered. Hence why I maintain Shaq is not even in Yao and Dwight's league this season. His numbers show improvement and put him as the third best center, but for two teams just as injury plagued the Rockets have managed to play extremely well on Yao's back, and the Magic are still surviving and beat Boston a few nights ago. Injury plagued boston, but a boston team that was still beating lesser teams.
> 
> Plug Yao or Dwight in that team and they're thick in the playoff hunt.
> 
> ...


You do understand your arguments are a joke right? "Shaq sucks! The team runs their whole system around him and they arent in the playoffs?"

Really? If Shaq sucks, why is a team running their game around him? Change Shaq with Raef, and are they running plays for him?

Im not going to argue that Shaq is going downhill, and hes not the dominant 5 teams are building a championship around. Hes still a top 5 center though. People are acting like Shaq sucks, and unless you're a hater, its obvious that is not the case.


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

Whatever I always laugh when NBA players trash talk in interviews and I don't even like Shaq but his quotes are always funny 
If KG or Artest or even Kobe said the same thing I would've still laughed.... "low level ninja" is funny no matter what...


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*

R-Star,It's pretty simple when I say I come here to discuss basketball and other topics. Don't be so hurt that I'm not in tour fan club and I call it how I see it, and how it is. 

Say I'm on your dick to make yourself feel better, if you didn't have your fans here you'd probably end yourself. 

Fact remains, it's pretty ironic you diss shaq for his sense of humor when yours is at least equally bad.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

R-Star said:


> You do understand your arguments are a joke right? "Shaq sucks! The team runs their whole system around him and they arent in the playoffs?"
> 
> Really? If Shaq sucks, why is a team running their game around him? Change Shaq with Raef, and are they running plays for him?
> 
> Im not going to argue that Shaq is going downhill, and hes not the dominant 5 teams are building a championship around. Hes still a top 5 center though. People are acting like Shaq sucks, and unless you're a hater, its obvious that is not the case.


I never said he was anything less than top 3. At the same time to say he's elite is false. Yao and dwight are elite. Shaqs been good, but no longer elite. Simple.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*

EDIT- Get back on topic


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Tragedy said:


> I never said he was anything less than top 3. At the same time to say he's elite is false. Yao and dwight are elite. Shaqs been good, but no longer elite. Simple.


The league has been pretty sparse as far as quality centers go. I agree, its Yao and Dwight, then a huge drop off. That being said, not sure why that would make Shaq suck. Just because hes not MDE anymore doesn't mean he isn't still a quality big.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*

EDIT- Get back on topic


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

R-Star said:


> The league has been pretty sparse as far as quality centers go. I agree, its Yao and Dwight, then a huge drop off. That being said, not sure why that would make Shaq suck. Just because hes not MDE anymore doesn't mean he isn't still a quality big.


Never have I said he wasn't. But he's no longer elite and for all the crap he talks he can take some from us lowly posters.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

R-Star said:


> The league has been pretty sparse as far as quality centers go. I agree, its Yao and Dwight, then a huge drop off. That being said, not sure why that would make Shaq suck. Just because hes not MDE anymore doesn't mean he isn't still a quality big.


You do know that no one said that Shaq sucks, right? It's something you pulled out of the air and began to argue against. The weirdest thing is you actually agreed with what Tragedy was saying about Shaq but continued to argue because you substituted his real opinion for one you conjured up.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Coatesvillain said:


> You do know that no one said that Shaq sucks, right? It's something you pulled out of the air and began to argue against. The weirdest thing is you actually agreed with what Tragedy was saying about Shaq but continued to argue because you substituted his real opinion for one you conjured up.


Im a little lost here Coates. So Shaq is good, and the 3rd best center in the league? Whats your argument?


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Im a little lost here Coates. So Shaq is good, and the 3rd best center in the league? Whats your argument?


No one even inferred that Shaq sucked in this thread, but you argued against it.

All posts aren't arguments. I just made an observation and pointed it out. You were agreeing with Tragedy while disagreeing with him. I mean, I know why you did it but it's interesting nonetheless.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Coatesvillain said:


> No one even inferred that Shaq sucked in this thread, but you argued against it.
> 
> All posts aren't arguments. I just made an observation and pointed it out. You were agreeing with Tragedy while disagreeing with him. I mean, I know why you did it but it's interesting nonetheless.


I'm still not following Coats. If you have no argument, then what is your _point_ in your posts in this thread?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

I see some people trying to justify calling Shaq the Big Lotto, which is statistically futile. I see Cap saying Shaq is 'trying to stay relevant' on page 2. I see Tragedy saying the center ranking is Howard/Yao then Shaq, but no one is arguing that. It's better this way. The last time around you made the same comment Cap did, and I called you out on it. You responded by defending your context multiple times and then asking for a mod to shut down the thread. Way to learn from yourself. You go, girl.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Chan said:


> I see some people trying to justify calling Shaq the Big Lotto, which is statistically futile. I see Cap saying Shaq is 'trying to stay relevant' on page 2. I see Tragedy saying the center ranking is Howard/Yao then Shaq, but no one is arguing that. It's better this way. The last time around you made the same comment Cap did, and I called you out on it. You responded by defending your context multiple times and then asking for a mod to shut down the thread. Way to learn from yourself. You go, girl.


Thats what I'm not following. All the sudden its "No no, I didn't say Shaq sucks. Hes one of the best in the league still." "We don't have to have an argument here, we're all just having a discussion."
Really? Then what the **** is this whole thread about?


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Thats what I'm not following. All the sudden its "No no, I didn't say Shaq sucks. Hes one of the best in the league still." "We don't have to have an argument here, we're all just having a discussion."
> Really? Then what the **** is this whole thread about?


you went on the rag when I said your post dissing shaqs humor was ironic. Then chan jumped on his rag like a little biatch, with the nerve to call me a girl when he never went back to that other shaq thread. 

All I ever said was not to group shaq with Yao and dwight, two men who've been carrying their respective squads, both teams with injuries to all star second options. Chan gets *****y because I don't want to have shaq there, rstar because I dissed his humor

This is what has happened. We're discussing THIS SEASON and you idiots only want to talk about shaqs career. THIS SEASON he's a second tier center. PERIOD. this season he's the featured player of a team lottery bound. PERIOD. 

And yea, they are going to shaq because he's shaq. But he's not their best chance to win. It has been this way since Miami the year they won the title. They should have featured amare and have shaq anchor the team. But they were assbackwards.

And LOL @ chan. That's all you get from me. 

Dwight
Yao










Shaq


----------



## SlamJam (Nov 27, 2004)

shaq is better at putting people on blast than the people in here.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

I can't call any team with a 500 plus record in the West a lottery team, especially when teams out East are getting into the playoffs with a sub 500 record.

The Phoenix Suns are 40-32 so far this season, That's better than the Heat and a game or so behind the Hawks. If the Suns are a lottery team, than the Hawks/Heat and down the standings in the East can all be considered lottery teams as well.

As far as Shaq goes, well the Magic, and Rockets have a better roster, hence their better records, even with Nelson, and McGrady going down. Remember the Suns lost their only young star in Amare this year too. Shaq has had an excellent season.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

^ How the hell can you call the Hawks and Heat lottery teams if they're going to be in the playoff? That just doesn't make any sense, in the past there have been teams in the East that didn't get into the playoffs even though a team in the West may have gotten in with a worse record.

And come on, the Magic are not that talented outside of Dwight and Jameer, Hedo's not the same player as he was last year, and it's pretty clear that he's never going to be that player again. Lewis is decent, but he's not that much better then what Shaq had to work with.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Bottomline, even if Shaq is 32 keyboard rows below Yao and Dwight, it's a lot better than what he looked like last year. I wouldn't have been shocked to see him retire at the end of last year, that's how bad he looked (especially in Miami)...and he turned it around with one more quality season. I can't say anything for the people overrating him, but it's always nice to see people have late career resurgences, no matter who they are. Every rational person that's in his corner, that's all we're saying.

I think we *all* realize this but let his quotes or whatever overshadow the situation, and because of his personality and his numbers being far below his prime production you utilize the right to **** on him.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Tragedy said:


> you went on the rag when I said your post dissing shaqs humor was ironic. Then chan jumped on his rag like a little biatch, with the nerve to call me a girl when he never went back to that other shaq thread.
> 
> All I ever said was not to group shaq with Yao and dwight, two men who've been carrying their respective squads, both teams with injuries to all star second options. Chan gets *****y because I don't want to have shaq there, rstar because I dissed his humor
> 
> ...


So your whole point in coming to this thread was to point out that Shaq is the 3rd best C but a tier under Yao and Dwight? Strange, Im not sure who mentioned anything to the contrary.

Getting a little pouty aren't we little fella? I've come to expect that from you though.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

VanillaPrice said:


> ^ How the hell can you call the Hawks and Heat lottery teams if they're going to be in the playoff? That just doesn't make any sense, in the past there have been teams in the East that didn't get into the playoffs even though a team in the West may have gotten in with a worse record.
> 
> And come on, the Magic are not that talented outside of Dwight and Jameer, Hedo's not the same player as he was last year, and it's pretty clear that he's never going to be that player again. Lewis is decent, but he's not that much better then what Shaq had to work with.


Yup your exactly right Minstrel, and we all know your going to give a fair unbiased account for Shaq and his team. :sarcasm:

And thanks being the first poster to respond to one of my post in this thread, it's obvious you care and missed me so much, that you wanted to jump all over it, and share your brilliant insight, regarding how the Magic don't have a better team around Dwight Howard compared to what the Suns put around Shaq. Because hedo is just not the same plays as last year, and Lewis is decent, i mean who can handle that riveting insight.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> The Suns made the playoffs in 2008. Using this argument to prove 'Shaq = Big Lotto' is a setup for failure.


It's perfectly legit to say he's done impact-wise looking at this year and last. Calling him Big Lotto is poking fun at a once great C going into his 2nd straight lotto season. Makes plenty of sense.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

He's done? How about without Shaq they wouldn't sniff the playoffs? 

Some of you LA guys are *irrational* with the hate.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

^ Did I say Shaq had zero impact or that he was solely responsible for going lotto this year and last? I said he's done impact-wise, clearly referring to the game he _used to have_. He plays with Richardson, Nash, Hill, Barbosa, etc., which in years past would have been more than enough for Shaq to lead a team deep into the postseason. Now the Suns aren't even going to make the playoffs, and hell he may not even get much closer than 3 games out of the 8th spot. He's so done an anonymous Suns exec said they would trade back for Marion. Shawn freaking Marion, who at this point in his career isn't even that good, so much so that Heat fans like Jamario Moon over him. 

Has nothing to do with LA or that other nonsense in that crappy Lakers thread you started, dude is straight up done and smart fans have known it for 2 years now.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

R-Star said:


> So your whole point in coming to this thread was to point out that Shaq is the 3rd best C but a tier under Yao and Dwight? Strange, Im not sure who mentioned anything to the contrary.
> 
> Getting a little pouty aren't we little fella? I've come to expect that from you though.


lol my whole point was summed up in my very first post. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. The End.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Cap said:


> ^ Did I say Shaq had zero impact or that he was solely responsible for going lotto this year and last? I said he's done impact-wise, clearly referring to the game he _used to have_. He plays with Richardson, Nash, Hill, Barbosa, etc., which in years past would have been more than enough for Shaq to lead a team deep into the postseason. Now the Suns aren't even going to make the playoffs, and hell he may not even get much closer than 3 games out of the 8th spot. He's so done an anonymous Suns exec said they would trade back for Marion. Shawn freaking Marion, who at this point in his career isn't even that good, so much so that Heat fans like Jamario Moon over him.
> 
> Has nothing to do with LA or that other nonsense in that crappy Lakers thread you started, dude is straight up done and smart fans have known it for 2 years now.


:laugh: You maaaaaaad...I wasn't even talking about that thread.

And because a player isn't able to replicate his prime production he doesn't have any impact? You remember that statement when Kobe falls off. 

What the hell is the difference between saying he's "done impact-wise" vs. having "zero impact"? You tell me. Please.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Dre™ said:


> :laugh: You maaaaaaad...I wasn't even talking about that thread.
> 
> And because a player isn't able to replicate his prime production he doesn't have any impact? You remember that statement when Kobe falls off.
> 
> What the hell is the difference between saying he's "done impact-wise" vs. having "zero impact"? You tell me. Please.


I cannot help you if you do not see the difference between the two statements. And since I'm letting you know they have different meanings (both by my intention and the rules of English), nothing should be unclear.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Tragedy said:


> lol my whole point was summed up in my very first post. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. The End.


Ohhh, so your point is you have sour grapes? Not sure why you're in this thread then. If you were worth my time, I'd throw a few insults your way as well, but I mean ****, you're Tragedy.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

shaq is funny. i hope he pokes at every player alive, because he's spot on.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Ohhh, so your point is you have sour grapes? Not sure why you're in this thread then. If you were worth my time, I'd throw a few insults your way as well, but I mean ****, you're Tragedy.


lol. If I were worth your time?

Let's see... 14 posts by you in this thread, at least 10 directly towards me....you fail dude. 

You're a lame, give it up. Get a job dude.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Tragedy said:


> lol. If I were worth your time?
> 
> Let's see... 14 posts by you in this thread, at least 10 directly towards me....you fail dude.
> 
> You're a lame, give it up. Get a job dude.


:lol: The whole "angry poster" persona is hilarious. Keep it up buddy. You're right, my life is terrible. Poor R-Star, go **** your hot wife while sleeping off another hangover from another awesome night with friends.

You're too much little fella.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Tragedy said:


> you went on the rag when I said your post dissing shaqs humor was ironic. Then chan jumped on his rag like a little biatch, with the nerve to call me a girl when he never went back to that other shaq thread.


The last time we talked about Shaq, I said he was the third best center in the league while you said he was irrelevant. I showed you the stats he has this year. I said there isn't better center than Shaq, after Yao and Howard. You responded by stretching your original statement, saying he's 'lottery-bound' and '2nd tier', and how he's still 'good but not elite'. Notice how far he is from being 'irrelevant', yet you keep acting like your original point didn't matter. You were proven wrong, yet you can't seem to accept it. So you change your point and you dodge criticism because you can't handle being called out for your own words. You even wanted a thread to be shut down because you couldn't win an argument. It's cowardly, Tragedy. A man stands behind his words. You don't.

And Cap, the Suns made the playoffs last year. You could put it however, and it still doesn't change the fact that Shaq is the best center after Howard and Yao. They're one spot out of the playoffs, so calling him 'Big Lotto' is a stretch. Only folks with a grudge against Shaq would think it's an appropriate label.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> And Cap, the Suns made the playoffs last year. You could put it however, and it still doesn't change the fact that Shaq is the best center after Howard and Yao. They're one spot out of the playoffs, so calling him 'Big Lotto' is a stretch. Only folks with a grudge against Shaq would think it's an appropriate label.


It's a funny moniker, that's all. Reading more into it than that is, obviously, just inference.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Chan said:


> The last time we talked about Shaq, I said he was the third best center in the league while you said he was irrelevant. I showed you the stats he has this year. I said there isn't better center than Shaq, after Yao and Howard. You responded by stretching your original statement, saying he's 'lottery-bound' and '2nd tier', and how he's still 'good but not elite'. Notice how far he is from being 'irrelevant', yet you keep acting like your original point didn't matter. You were proven wrong, yet you can't seem to accept it. So you change your point and you dodge criticism because you can't handle being called out for your own words. You even wanted a thread to be shut down because you couldn't win an argument. It's cowardly, Tragedy. A man stands behind his words. You don't.
> 
> And Cap, the Suns made the playoffs last year. You could put it however, and it still doesn't change the fact that Shaq is the best center after Howard and Yao. They're one spot out of the playoffs, so calling him 'Big Lotto' is a stretch. Only folks with a grudge against Shaq would think it's an appropriate label.


Tragedys a punk. He's always going into a thread doing his whole mad at the world act, then throws a hissy fit when it turns out hes either wrong, or everyone thinks hes an idiot.

At the very least its good for a laugh or two.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Cap said:


> I cannot help you if you do not see the difference between the two statements. And since I'm letting you know they have different meanings (both by my intention and the rules of English), nothing should be unclear.


No, I can't see the difference between saying someone is done impact wise and saying they have no impact. I guess I'm missing something :whoknows:

Can anyone help decipher this for me? 

I will rep anyone who can tell me the difference between someone being "done impact-wise" and "having no impact". 

I will let you put whatever avatar you want in my profile for a month if you can sway me.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

Chan said:


> The last time we talked about Shaq, I said he was the third best center in the league while you said he was irrelevant. I showed you the stats he has this year. I said there isn't better center than Shaq, after Yao and Howard. You responded by stretching your original statement, saying he's 'lottery-bound' and '2nd tier', and how he's still 'good but not elite'. Notice how far he is from being 'irrelevant', yet you keep acting like your original point didn't matter. You were proven wrong, yet you can't seem to accept it. So you change your point and you dodge criticism because you can't handle being called out for your own words. You even wanted a thread to be shut down because you couldn't win an argument. It's cowardly, Tragedy. A man stands behind his words. You don't.
> 
> And Cap, the Suns made the playoffs last year. You could put it however, and it still doesn't change the fact that Shaq is the best center after Howard and Yao. They're one spot out of the playoffs, so calling him 'Big Lotto' is a stretch. Only folks with a grudge against Shaq would think it's an appropriate label.


In case you are wondering, shaq is also not literally a cactus or any sort of plant for that matter


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

^ Haha, so you're going to incorrectly quibble over "done" and "zero"? Good for you Cam'ron.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Cap said:


> It's a funny moniker, that's all. Reading more into it than that is, obviously, just inference.


If being wrong is 'funny', I guess being retarded is downright adorable.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Cap said:


> ^ Haha, so you're going to incorrectly quibble over "done" and "zero"? Good for you Cam'ron.


"The juice is done."

"There is zero juice in the cup."

I'm not really looking to drink out of that cup either way, no ****.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> If being wrong is 'funny', I guess being retarded is downright adorable.


"Retarded" is defending Shaq's stupidity on a consistent basis because of what he did as a player years ago. Or pretending calling him the Big Lotto is anything but a harmless comment for a (soon to be a 2nd consecutive) lotto season for him. Not all his fault of course, just something that wouldn't have happened to the Big Guy when he was actually anywhere near as good as he used to be.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Dre™ said:


> "The juice is done."
> 
> "There is zero juice in the cup."
> 
> I'm not really looking to drink out of that cup either way, no ****.


And people don't finish their meals yet they still say they're "done" eating. Come on, seriously. :laugh:


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

Chan said:


> If being wrong is 'funny', I guess being retarded is downright adorable.


WORD lol


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Back this all the way up. Flesh out your point for me one more time without the whole zero vs. done thing.

You're saying he isn't completely worthless, but he might as well be considered done because his impact doesn't equate to his prime production, even though that production was good enough to get him into the all-star game. That's illogical.

And regarding your discussion with Chan, what's this second straight lotto stuff about? Did the Suns not make the playoffs last year? Or are you trying to pin the Heat's failure on him too?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Cap said:


> "Retarded" is defending Shaq's stupidity on a consistent basis because of what he did as a player years ago. Or pretending calling him the Big Lotto is anything but a (soon to be a 2nd consecutive) lotto season for him. Not all his fault of course, just something that wouldn't have happened to the Big Guy when he was actually anywhere near as good as he used to be.


Cap, I don't think we're on the same page. The Suns made the playoffs in 2008. I know it's tough for you to wrap your head around that concept, but at least make some effort. You can continue to deny it, but it would just make you look even less credible. I advise you to accept reality.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Look what I found:

http://www.nba.com/playoffs2008/series/index.html


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Dre™ said:


> Back this all the way up. Flesh out your point for me one more time without the whole zero vs. done thing.
> 
> You're saying he isn't completely worthless, but he might as well be considered done because his impact doesn't equate to his prime production, even though that production was good enough to get him into the all-star game. That's illogical.


You said the Suns wouldn't sniff the playoffs without him, something I didn't refute because obviously he has _some_ impact on the game, he isn't Brian Scalabrine or something. But he's done impact-wise _compared to what he used to be_. The fact that he got into the All Star game means nothing, not everyone who plays in the All Star game has the same impact on ball games.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> Cap, I don't think we're on the same page. The Suns made the playoffs in 2008. I know it's tough for you to wrap your head around that concept, but at least make some effort. You can continue to deny it, but it would just make you look even less credible. I advise you to accept reality.


I explained this pages ago, I'm sorry you didn't like what I had to say about your boy.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Cap, you haven't explained anything. You could argue against reality, but you would look like a fool doing it.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

^ Simple to understand if you're honest; he played 28 games for a team that was already going to make the playoffs going away. Trade me (literally) from last year's Heat to the Suns for 28 games and put me on the bench and yeah, sure, I guess I would have "made" the playoffs too. Point is he didn't contribute and got bailed out of Miami.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Cap said:


> You said the Suns wouldn't sniff the playoffs without him, something I didn't refute because obviously he has _some_ impact on the game, he isn't Brian Scalabrine or something. But he's done impact-wise _compared to what he used to be_. The fact that he got into the All Star game means nothing, not everyone who plays in the All Star game has the same impact on ball games.


That's just a dumb argument. You have some kind of agenda and it's skewing your argument.

Don't try that "the all-star game is a worthless popularity contest" BS right here, because players who merely "aren't Brian Scalabrine" don't make the all-star game, you have to have some kind of substantial impact to be selected, especially by the coaches. 

People just want to underestimate every subjective thing the NBA does for some reason, but the fact that he made it means a good deal, because he sure as hell hadn't made it the year before (in a weaker conference for Centers). 

And if 18 and 8 is "done" on any standard, you have illogically high standards and you don't know how to evaluate basketball.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Cap said:


> ^ Simple to understand if you're honest; he played 28 games for a team that was already going to make the playoffs going away. Trade me (literally) from last year's Heat to the Suns for 28 games and put me on the bench and yeah, sure, I guess I would have "made" the playoffs too. Point is he didn't contribute and got bailed out of Miami.


Tell Amare he didn't contribute when he was gushing about having the least amount of attention on him he had had since his rookie year. He was going crazy right after Shaq got there, and he said as much. I wish I could find the quote.

And that's a bull**** argument. He didn't finish the season, he didn't even play a lot of games in Miami, so I'm wondering how he can be attributed to the breakdown of a roster he barely played on and was traded away from halfway through the season. 

But then again, I see your location and it's pretty obvious what's going on here. Don't even deny it.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Cap, you're not going to make the playoffs on an NBA roster. Comparing yourself to an NBA player's production is no way to win an argument. Mr Reed Richards, you need to stop stretching.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

R-Star said:


> I'm still not following Coats. If you have no argument, then what is your _point_ in your posts in this thread?


My point was to post my observation. I asked a question that wasn't answered, and at the end of the day it's no sweat off my back. I'm good.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Dre™ said:


> That's just a dumb argument. You have some kind of agenda and it's skewing your argument.
> 
> Don't try that "the all-star game is a worthless popularity contest" BS right here, because players who merely "aren't Brian Scalabrine" don't make the all-star game, you have to have some kind of substantial impact to be selected, especially by the coaches.


Read what I wrote; _compared to what he used to be_. Him making the All Star game last month does not mean he is what he used to be. Get it yet?



> People just want to underestimate every subjective thing the NBA does for some reason, but the fact that he made it means a good deal, because he sure as hell hadn't made it the year before (in a weaker conference for Centers).
> 
> And if 18 and 8 is "done" on any standard, you have illogically high standards and you don't know how to evaluate basketball.


You just didn't read what I wrote, I'm sad to tell you. _What he used to be_. I apologize for not bolding it and including it in my original post, I didn't know you'd be so sensitive about it. 

And on a side note, 18 and 8 doesn't necessarily mean jack. Shareef Abdul Rahim put up 18 and 8 for his career. Tell me, how many All Star games did he make?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Yes, Cap. Shaq isn't as good as he used to be. Who's arguing with you?


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Cap said:


> Read what I wrote; _compared to what he used to be_. Him making the All Star game last month does not mean he is what he used to be. Get it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


GTFOH Houdini. You're like one of those BS _Law & Order_ defense attorneys. You're squirming out of your argument and you know it. 

I read what you wrote quite well and I rebutted that, then you try to switch up your intent to have me rebut that, then you'll probably switch it back to something else. I'm not going in circles with you.

Bottomline, you have no real point because noone is saying Shaq is as good as he once was.

I am saying he's not done, and 18 and 8 as a measure of production from the Center position doesn't really qualify as "done", not to anybody with basketball knowledge. In fact, I'll put up a poll to that effect.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Cap said:


> Read what I wrote; _compared to what he used to be_. Him making the All Star game last month does not mean he is what he used to be. Get it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Shareef Abdul Rahim will be remembered as an allstar quality play when he is looked back and remembered upon.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Dre™;5920796 said:


> Tell Amare he didn't contribute when he was gushing about having the least amount of attention on him he had had since his rookie year. He was going crazy right after Shaq got there, and he said as much. I wish I could find the quote.
> 
> And that's a bull**** argument. He didn't finish the season, he didn't even play a lot of games in Miami, so I'm wondering how he can be attributed to the breakdown of a roster he barely played on and was traded away from halfway through the season.
> 
> But then again, I see your location and it's pretty obvious what's going on here. Don't even deny it.


I don't give a crap what Amare said or how he played because that was never my point; my point was that Shaq was headed lotto with the Heat and then is traded to the Suns last season for 28 games, a team that obviously was going to make the playoffs had they kept Marion. He might as well have been on the bench. I get that it's not technically lotto, I said so on page 3. 

And you'll be hard pressed to find many Heat fans that thought Shaq was legitimately out with injury and not tanking his last few moments with the Heat (part tanking, part injury, part laziness, etc.). It's funny that you think that's somehow relegated to LA fans. Try Miami fans and old school Magic fans. Hell, try anonymous Suns executives. :laugh:


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> Cap, you're not going to make the playoffs on an NBA roster. Comparing yourself to an NBA player's production is no way to win an argument. Mr Reed Richards, you need to stop stretching.


Thanks for that brilliant revelation kiddo. You have crushed my dreams of NBA dominance.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Dre™;5920805 said:


> GTFOH Houdini. You're like one of those BS _Law & Order_ defense attorneys. You're squirming out of your argument and you know it.
> 
> I read what you wrote quite well and I rebutted that, then you try to switch up your intent to have me rebut that, then you'll probably switch it back to something else. I'm not going in circles with you.


You inferred something that wasn't there. Fine. I'm sorry you're that sensitive about it. 



> Bottomline, you have no real point because noone is saying Shaq is as good as he once was.
> 
> I am saying he's not done, and 18 and 8 as a measure of production from the Center position doesn't really qualify as "done", not to anybody with basketball knowledge. In fact, I'll put up a poll to that effect.


I said that he was done impact-wise and you saw fit to reply to that by saying that the Suns this season wouldn't sniff the playoffs without him, something I never refuted in the first place since clearly he doesn't have _zero_ impact on the game. I explained what I meant since you inferred incorrectly and now you're getting all defensive because I expanded on what I originally wrote. That's pretty much the gist of it.

EDIT: rofl, and put up all the polls you like, I would vote yes that an 18/8 C is not done. But that was never my point. For Shaq, yeah, it's done. Especially if you watch the guy, his actual impact (stepping outside statistical analysis for a second) is probably noticeably worse seeing as how his D is horrid and how much they try to force feed him.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Cap said:


> I don't give a crap what Amare said or how he played because that was never my point; my point was that Shaq was headed lotto with the Heat and then is traded to the Suns last season for 28 games, a team that obviously was going to make the playoffs had they kept Marion. He might as well have been on the bench. I get that *it's not technically lotto*, I said so on page 3.
> 
> And you'll be hard pressed to find many Heat fans that thought Shaq was legitimately out with injury and not tanking his last few moments with the Heat (part tanking, part injury, part laziness, etc.). It's funny that you think that's somehow relegated to LA fans. Try Miami fans and old school Magic fans. Hell, try anonymous Suns executives. :laugh:


Well now that we have that cleared up...you can stop saying it's his second straight lotto season, someone new might come on here and think you have no idea what you're talking about :yes:


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Cap said:


> You inferred something that wasn't there. Fine. I'm sorry you're that sensitive about it.


I didn't infer anything but what I gleaned from the literal text. I left nothing up to interpretation, I used your exact words against you. 




> I said that he was done impact-wise and you saw fit to reply to that by saying that the Suns this season wouldn't sniff the playoffs without him, something I never refuted in the first place since clearly he doesn't have _zero_ impact on the game. I explained what I meant since you inferred incorrectly and now you're getting all defensive because I expanded on what I originally wrote. That's pretty much the gist of it.


I'm actually defensive because I think you believe that's a legitimate argument.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Dre™ said:


> I didn't infer anything but what I gleaned from the literal text. I left nothing up to interpretation, I used your exact words against you.


Yet you gave up on that terrible "done" vs. "zero" juice comparison that I responded to with my own example? Like I said, you inferred something that wasn't there. I don't blame you necessarily, you just jumped the gun. 



> I'm actually defensive because I think you believe that's a legitimate argument.


It is I'm afraid.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Dre™ said:


> Well now that we have that cleared up...you can stop saying it's his second straight lotto season, someone new might come on here and think you have no idea what you're talking about :yes:


Or they could have read my post on page 3


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

This is your first post:



Cap said:


> It's sad seeing Shaq still trying to stay relevant. Poor guy.


You spend the next few pages to justify calling him the "Big Lotto", saying how his last season was a lotto season even though the Suns 'technically' made the playoffs. 

The next few pages after that, your main point becomes "Shaq isn't as good as he used to be".

Your original post was ignorant. Your next argument does not coincide with reality. Your new argument is a painfully obvious fact that you're defending from no one in particular. Damn, Cap. This is just awful posting.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Cap said:


> Yet you gave up on that terrible "done" vs. "zero" juice comparison that I responded to with my own example? Like I said, you inferred something that wasn't there. I don't blame you necessarily, you just jumped the gun.


Dude, I only dug you out of _that_ hole because I felt like arguing.

There's no difference between "being done" and having "zero impact". 

Moral of the thread.

**** it I might just make a poll about that and see what the people think :yes:


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Man. This was more fun when Tragedy was running around making an *** out of himself. Of course that doesn't bother him, because he doesn't care what any of you think. He'll tell you how it is, that's just who Tragedy is.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Dre™ said:


> Dude, I only dug you out of _that_ hole because I felt like arguing.
> 
> There's no difference between "being done" and having "zero impact".
> 
> ...


rofl. Come on, this is getting sad. I expanded on it for you and you got your panties in a bunch. Have some cake.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> This is your first post:
> 
> 
> 
> You spend the next few pages to justify calling him the "Big Lotto", saying how his last season was a lotto season even though the Suns 'technically' made the playoffs.


Right, I said "to be fair". And it is fair for the reasons stated. 



> The next few pages after that, your main point becomes "Shaq isn't as good as he used to be".


Dre took a few words of mine ("done impact-wise") and inferred it meant something it didn't. So I expanded on it. Nothing wrong with that. 



> Your original post was ignorant.


It was an accurate post based on his history of insecurity, actually, a debate you'd lose 100 times out of 100. But continue. 



> Your next argument does not coincide with reality.


I said "to be fair" and admitted that he technically made the playoffs, all in the same post on page 3. But continue. 



> Your new argument is a painfully obvious fact that you're defending from no one in particular.


I expanded on a statement I made. Perfectly reasonable. 



> Damn, Cap. This is just awful posting.


I'm sorry, but you're just not very good at this.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

Chan said:


> Cap, you're not going to make the playoffs on an NBA roster. Comparing yourself to an NBA player's production is no way to win an argument. *Mr Reed Richards, you need to stop stretching.*


:lol:


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Cap said:


> rofl. Come on, this is getting sad. I expanded on it for you and you got your panties in a bunch. Have some cake.


We can war with condescending, sarcastic posts all night but you and I both know who's full of **** :yes:


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

oh snap he didnt


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Dre™;5920828 said:


> We can war with condescending, sarcastic posts all night but you and I both know who's full of **** :yes:


Yes, because juice is both "done" and "zero" at the same time, I forgot. 

Frankly, you'd have to be slightly mentally handicapped to think anyone believes Shaq has _zero_ impact on the game of basketball, even at his advanced age. If I have at any point in my past said something like that before, then I misspoke. But I certainly didn't in this thread, that's for sure.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Cap said:


> Right, I said "to be fair". And it is fair for the reasons stated.


So you admit Shaq made the playoffs in 2008 on page 3, yet you said he's the 'Big Lotto' because that playoff 'didn't count'. It is not your call what does and doesn't count. The fact remains that he made the postseason in 2008. Check one.



> Dre took a few words of mine ("done impact-wise") and inferred it meant something it didn't. So I expanded on it. Nothing wrong with that.


He is definitely not "done impact-wise" because he leads the league in FG%, and is game planned for every night.



> It was an accurate post based on his history of insecurity, actually, a debate you'd lose 100 times out of 100. But continue.


It was an ignorant post based on his current production. You want to put that on a poll, Cap? "Is Shaq relevant right now?", yes or no. 



> I said "to be fair" and admitted that he technically made the playoffs, all in the same post on page 3. But continue.


Yet it doesn't keep you from calling him 'Big Lotto'. Your reason for calling him that is because he's one spot out of the playoffs this year. You could say that for every player who misses the postseason.



> I expanded on a statement I made. Perfectly reasonable.


To the point where you repeat the words, "what he used to be" twice in a post. Yes, Shaq isn't what he used to be. Is that your main point, Cap? Because not a single person here thinks Shaq is as good as he was back then. I thought you would've figured that out by now.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> So you admit Shaq made the playoffs in 2008 on page 3, yet you said he's the 'Big Lotto' because that playoff 'didn't count'. It is not your call what does and doesn't count. The fact remains that he made the postseason in 2008. Check one.


I never denied that he technically made the playoffs and was very clear when I said "to be fair". You feel you're scoring points by pointing out a blatantly obvious fact that the Suns made the postseason last year. Good for you, that's something I acknowledged on pg. 3. Based on my reasonable criteria, calling him the Big Lotto fits. You don't agree. Good for you. 



> He is definitely not "done impact-wise" because he leads the league in FG%, and is game planned for every night.


Compared to his previous impact he absolutely is. And teams aren't as concerned about Shaq as they are about the rest of the Suns running them off the floor. FG% by itself means nothing in this conservation, that's a poor argument. 



> It was an ignorant post based on his current production. You want to put that on a poll, Cap? "Is Shaq relevant right now?", yes or no.


Did I mention his current production when I said he was trying to stay relevant? Come on, keep up bro. We can have a discussion about my very first post if you want, but I'm sure you'd just say I'm making a "new" argument if I mention that that post was about his years of public insecurity, among other things. 



> Yet it doesn't keep you from calling him 'Big Lotto'. Your reason for calling him that is because he's one spot out of the playoffs this year. You could say that for every player who misses the postseason.


I get that you don't like the term, I get that you don't believe people should call Shaq names. I'm still not sure what you don't get about poking fun at a player that missed the postseason two consecutive years _if you want to be fair_. The fact that you don't think it's funny is your prerogative, and I couldn't care less. You know exactly why he's being called that, and you don't like it. Meh. 



> To the point where you repeat the words, "what he used to be" twice in a post. Yes, Shaq isn't what he used to be. Is that your main point, Cap? Because not a single person here thinks Shaq is as good as he was back then. I thought you would've figured that out by now.


Sadly, you haven't followed the conservation closely if you think I ever said that anyone here believes Shaq is as good as he used to be. 

You want me to keep going kiddo?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Cap said:


> I never denied that he technically made the playoffs and was very clear when I said "to be fair". You feel you're scoring points by pointing out a blatantly obvious fact that the Suns made the postseason last year. Good for you, that's something I acknowledged on pg. 3. Based on my reasonable criteria, calling him the Big Lotto fits. You don't agree. Good for you.


Your criteria is him missing the playoffs this year. It is not reasonable to anyone else other than yourself.



> Compared to his previous impact he absolutely is. And teams aren't as concerned about Shaq as they are about the rest of the Suns running them off the floor. FG% by itself means nothing in this conservation, that's a poor argument.


There you go again with 'compared to his previous impact'. Who's comparing him to his past? You really have to know what you're arguing here. 

And from watching the Suns, you would know that opponents game-plan around Shaq on almost every possession. When you can draw guys to front and double team you, that means the other team is planning the game around you. It's less basketball basics and more common sense. 

Shaq leading the league in FG% means he is a threat, right? Meaning when he gets the ball, he's very likely to score, yes?



> Did I mention his current production when I said he was trying to stay relevant? Come on, keep up bro. We can have a discussion about my very first post if you want, but I'm sure you'd just say I'm making a "new" argument if I mention that that post was about his years of public insecurity, among other things.


In sports, a player stays relevant through his production. Shaq production makes him the 3rd best C in the league. You said he is 'trying to stay relevant', which is clearly not evident to anyone who keeps up with basketball.



> I get that you don't like the term, I get that you don't believe people should call Shaq names. I'm still not sure what you don't get about poking fun at a player that missed the postseason two consecutive years _if you want to be fair_. The fact that you don't think it's funny is your prerogative, and I couldn't care less. You know exactly why he's being called that, and you don't like it. Meh.


He didn't miss the playoffs for 2 straight years. 



> Sadly, you haven't followed the conservation closely if you think I ever said that anyone here believes Shaq is as good as he used to be.
> 
> You want me to keep going kiddo?


That's it, Cap. Nobody thinks that. You made the same point twice, about how Shaq isn't as good as he used to be. Nobody is arguing with you when you make painfully obvious statements.

You're like Tragedy. You make a point, and then you change the context of it. You did that with your first post about Shaq's relevancy. You call Shaq the 'Big Lotto' basing on last year, a playoff year, and this year, 1 spot out. Of course you can keep justifying it with your own 'reasonable criteria', but your 'reasonable criteria' isn't taken seriously by anyone. Instead of winning an argument, you end up being the stubborn loser who clings on to his Shaq-grudge like it's precious.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> Your criteria is him missing the playoffs this year. It is not reasonable to anyone else other than yourself.


Huh? Betting the Suns miss the playoffs this year is not reasonable? To each his own. 



> There you go again with 'compared to his previous impact'. Who's comparing him to his past? You really have to know what you're arguing here.


That was my expanded explanation of a post I made. Feel free to review the discussion in detail again since you're still confused. 



> And from watching the Suns, you would know that opponents game-plan around Shaq on almost every possession. When you can draw guys to front and double team you, that means the other team is planning the game around you. It's less basketball basics and more common sense.
> 
> Shaq leading the league in FG% means he is a threat, right? Meaning when he gets the ball, he's very likely to score, yes?


FG% is one barometer of offensive efficiency, nothing more. Had you said TS% or PER or something else, then I wouldn't have said anything, but FG% by itself doesn't mean a hell of a lot without knowing how efficiently the points are scored overall and their context (i.e. scrubs like Andris Biedrins with 60% FG%). 

And while Shaq is still indeed a good scorer despite his precipitous decline, teams don't game plan for him any more than any other borderline All Star big. Saying he gets fronted and doubled is probably a bit exaggerated, especially him being "doubled". He gets soft doubles (once he puts the ball on the floor and barrels in) because he's so slow that it's very effective. Of course, game planning for a player doesn't mean they still aren't done compared to their previous impact, especially since he's so bad at D, which is half the game after all. 



> In sports, a player stays relevant through his production. Shaq production makes him the 3rd best C in the league. You said he is 'trying to stay relevant', which is clearly not evident to anyone who keeps up with basketball.


A player's current production is not the only thing that determines relevance, otherwise Michael Jordan probably wouldn't consistently be a top jersey seller 6 years after retirement now would he? Clearly there is some nostalgia there, a legacy there, something Shaq is very aware of and wants to protect (he has literally said so in interviews). And that's just it, Shaq can't recapture his glory Magic/Laker days and sees that he's very likely going lotto again this year, so it's no surprise that he has been more vocal these last 1-2 years than he probably ever has, the overwhelmingly obvious reason being his insecurity. This has been written about constantly in (for example) Heisler articles in the Times and his former and longest tenured coach, Phil Jackson, in _The Last Season_, about just how much the guy cared about what other people thought of him. It's who the guy is, it's why he acts out. He was always insecure, but the amount of jabbering and antics in recent years shows a guy that is probably feeling more irrelevant as time passes, partly because his production has declined and his team is going lotto. 



> He didn't miss the playoffs for 2 straight years.


I'll repost it in case you missed it: "You know exactly why he's being called that, and you don't like it. Meh."



> That's it, Cap. Nobody thinks that. You made the same point twice, about how Shaq isn't as good as he used to be. Nobody is arguing with you when you make painfully obvious statements.


Right, and I didn't expect anyone to, nor have I said that anyone did, so I'm not sure why you continue to harp on it. I can only imagine that you get some sort of sad pleasure in nitpicking posts. Something, not surprisingly I suppose, you're exceedingly poor at. 



> You're like Tragedy. You make a point, and then you change the context of it.


I didn't "change" anything, I added more information. Of course, we all know you couldn't prove otherwise if your life depended on it, which is exactly why you'll puss out of any more substantive debate on that topic. Of course, I could be pleasantly surprised here, maybe you'll man up. 



> You did that with your first post about Shaq's relevancy. You call Shaq the 'Big Lotto' basing on last year, a playoff year, and this year, 1 spot out. Of course you can keep justifying it with your own 'reasonable criteria', but your 'reasonable criteria' isn't taken seriously by anyone. Instead of winning an argument, you end up being the stubborn loser who clings on to his Shaq-grudge like it's precious.


rofl, your posts remind me of that dog in an old Gary Larson cartoon that never heard anything but what he wanted to hear. You know, a person says "Here's what I mean", and all Chan hears is "Blah blah I R WINNAR blah blah I R WINNAR".


----------



## Nightmute (Apr 12, 2007)

I don't get how it's not funny to poke fun at Shaq in the same fashion he jabs at everyone else.

And is the poll really necessary?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Nightmute said:


> I don't get how it's not funny to poke fun at Shaq in the same fashion he jabs at everyone else.
> 
> And is the poll really necessary?


How dare you bring logic in here. The fact that Shaq can say whatever he wants and yet someone impugns Shaq just a little bit and everyone goes nuts. I can't call him the Big Lotto because he's won some titles in the past, but Shaq can call Yao Ming racist things because he's just being Shaq. :idea:


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Cap said:


> Huh? Betting the Suns miss the playoffs this year is not reasonable? To each his own.


To call a player out based on his first year of missed playoffs since 93, it takes more than a passing ambivalence. Yes, calling him 'The Big Lotto' because he missed the playoffs this year is your prerogative. It's the internet and you can call him what you want. You just look like a fool doing it. The fact is, his resume (because life doesn't exist in a vacuum) proves otherwise.



> FG% is one barometer of offensive efficiency, nothing more. Had you said TS% or PER or something else, then I wouldn't have said anything, but FG% by itself doesn't mean a hell of a lot without knowing how efficiently the points are scored overall and their context (i.e. scrubs like Andris Biedrins with 60% FG%).


Biedrins gives a consistent 10/10. You set your own standards for players, and that's your choice. It just makes you look less credible.



> And while Shaq is still indeed a good scorer despite his precipitous decline, teams don't game plan for him any more than any other borderline All Star big. Saying he gets fronted and doubled is probably a bit exaggerated, especially him being "doubled". He gets soft doubles (once he puts the ball on the floor and barrels in) because he's so slow that it's very effective. Of course, game planning for a player doesn't mean they still aren't done compared to their previous impact, especially since he's so bad at D, which is half the game after all.


There isn't a better center other than Yao and Howard. That's point you've been trying to argue, and you've went nowhere. If you don't disagree with this statement, then there's not much to argue.



> A player's current production is not the only thing that determines relevance, otherwise Michael Jordan probably wouldn't consistently be a top jersey seller 6 years after retirement now would he? Clearly there is some nostalgia there, a legacy there, something Shaq is very aware of and wants to protect (he has literally said so in interviews). And that's just it, Shaq can't recapture his glory Magic/Laker days and sees that he's very likely going lotto again this year, so it's no surprise that he has been more vocal these last 1-2 years than he probably ever has, the overwhelmingly obvious reason being his insecurity. This has been written about constantly in (for example) Heisler articles in the Times and his former and longest tenured coach, Phil Jackson, in _The Last Season_, about just how much the guy cared about what other people thought of him. It's who the guy is, it's why he acts out. He was always insecure, but the amount of jabbering and antics in recent years shows a guy that is probably feeling more irrelevant as time passes, partly because his production has declined and his team is going lotto.


Then 'relevancy' is your own cosmic definition, one that you can twist later on to suit whatever need. You could try to analyze Shaq's psychology from behind the computer screen, but you wouldn't be a relevant source.

The most relevant fact about Shaq is that he's the 3rd best C in the league, and a globally recognized figure for almost a decade. To say he's 'trying to stay relevant' is absurd.



> I'll repost it in case you missed it: "You know exactly why he's being called that, and you don't like it. Meh."


Right. Because you're bitter. That long stretch on wordplay wouldn't come otherwise.



> I didn't "change" anything, I added more information. Of course, we all know you couldn't prove otherwise if your life depended on it, which is exactly why you'll puss out of any more substantive debate on that topic. Of course, I could be pleasantly surprised here, maybe you'll man up.





Cap said:


> It's sad seeing Shaq still trying to stay relevant. Poor guy.


The keyword here is 'relevant'. I think being a top 3 player at his position, and being one of the most recognized players in his sport makes him relevant. A thread about Shaq has been going on for 8 pages. I consider that relevant. I think that's a reasonable definition. I think most posters will agree that's a good case for 'relevancy'. 

When asked about relevancy, you responded with some story about Phil Jackson's book. Which definition of relevancy will you change to now? 

A statement's no good if it can't stand on its own. Your original post couldn't, so you keep 'adding information' to define it in your favor. I can't read your mind, Cap. I can't argue with someone who can arbitrarily redefine their argument.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

keep it up, entertaining ;p


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

HKF said:


> How dare you bring logic in here. The fact that Shaq can say whatever he wants and yet someone impugns Shaq just a little bit and everyone goes nuts. I can't call him the Big Lotto because he's won some titles in the past, but Shaq can call Yao Ming racist things because he's just being Shaq. :idea:


I don't have a problem with it, but I mean there has to be a balance. How much credit have you given him this year? Just about every post I've seen you make about Shaq is ****ting on him for some quote he makes, but you're nowhere to be found otherwise. 

The feeling I get when I see all these people so quick to lash out at one of his quotes as opposed to saying, "wow, an all-time great is having a nice comeback year" (in the appopriate threads) makes it seem like you guys are just letting your agenda skew your opinion. 

So what he makes demeaning quotes...does that overshadow his season to the point where all you can characterize this season as is a bitter old man realizing he's on the way out? That's not fair to him, and that's not a truthful evaluation. 

I mean that's your prerogative, we don't have any subject quotas or anything, but it's annoying, and just like you have the right to think up nicknames, I have the right to call it how I see it.


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

Shaq said:


> “I’m going to be on a mission. I’ve handled my personal vendettas and handled them well. Every challenge you put in front of me, I’ve handled it, dismantled it – ate them, dropped them off in the bathroom and flushed them away.”
> 
> “I wouldn’t. I would just go home. I’d fake an injury or something.” (When asked how he would defend against himself.)
> 
> ...


Anyone that takes what Shaq says serious enough to be offended is...well...special. Especially if those people aren't even the ones Shaq mentions. Very special.

Shaq does have a lot of truth behind what he says sometimes though. He is easily the third best center in the NBA and Greg Oden isn't even in the same tier. Oden has spent more time on the bench than on the court while failing to average a double-double or double digits in any category. If his first two years are any indication the Trailblazers are screwed as is Oden.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> To call a player out based on his first year of missed playoffs since 93, it takes more than a passing ambivalence. Yes, calling him 'The Big Lotto' because he missed the playoffs this year is your prerogative. It's the internet and you can call him what you want. You just look like a fool doing it. The fact is, his resume (because life doesn't exist in a vacuum) proves otherwise.


You said it's not reasonable to anyone but myself that the Suns are going to miss the playoffs this year. Again, no one can help you if you don't think it's likely. Hell, maybe they do make the playoffs and Shaq avoids the Big Lotto moniker. As is, he's well on his way. You're offended by people legitimately poking fun at his decline. Gee wiz. 





> Biedrins gives a consistent 10/10. You set your own standards for players, and that's your choice. It just makes you look less credible.


Defending Biebrins instead of addressing the topic just shows you'd rather deflect than address. Speaks for itself. 



> There isn't a better center other than Yao and Howard. That's point you've been trying to argue, and you've went nowhere.


I haven't argued that point I'm afraid to tell you. Reread this thread you're still confused. 



> If you don't disagree with this statement, then there's not much to argue.


This is the weakest era of C's in a while and you're saying he's the 3rd best. Doesn't address anything other than a point you'd like to make, nothing I've ever refuted. 



> Then 'relevancy' is your own cosmic definition, one that you can twist later on to suit whatever need. You could try to analyze Shaq's psychology from behind the computer screen, but you wouldn't be a relevant source.


I never claimed this wasn't a subjective issue, so your above paragraph is merely more unnecessary posturing. You're the one that made the mistake of questioning my OP, calling it ignorant without detail and are now (predictably) wimping out of explaining why. Precisely why you can't possibly address the inaccuracy of your contention that current production makes players relevant while ignoring that MJ is still a top (for years leading) jersey seller years after retirement. 



> The most relevant fact about Shaq is that he's the 3rd best C in the league, and a globally recognized figure for almost a decade. To say he's 'trying to stay relevant' is absurd.


You make statements well, but you lack substance. 



> Right. Because you're bitter. That long stretch on wordplay wouldn't come otherwise.


Feel free to address it. We know you won't. 



> The keyword here is 'relevant'. I think being a top 3 player at his position, and being one of the most recognized players in his sport makes him relevant. A thread about Shaq has been going on for 8 pages. I consider that relevant. I think that's a reasonable definition. I think most posters will agree that's a good case for 'relevancy'.


I didn't say he was irrelevant to the point that he's not still a good player at his position, or that he isn't recognized around the world, or that he isn't deserving of 9 pages on BBF.com. Those are your criteria. My criteria is what he says, how he acts, and the fact that it's well documented everywhere that he's insecure about his legacy and his decline. You don't like it. Again, good for you, not my concern, the record is clear. 



> When asked about relevancy, you responded with some story about Phil Jackson's book. Which definition of relevancy will you change to now?


What is being "changed" about the statement of mine that he's "trying to stay relevant", it's 4 words long? There's all sorts of room there to cite different words than those 4, so if by "change" you meant I'm using different words to describe the same concept, then yes that's change. 



> A statement's no good if it can't stand on its own. Your original post couldn't, so you keep 'adding information' to define it in your favor. I can't read your mind, Cap. I can't argue with someone who can arbitrarily redefine their argument.


A 4 word post has to stand on its own? Yeah, sure, we believe you buddy. The fact that you drew the conclusion it was an ignorant post is your fault and not mine. Don't call 4 word statements ignorant without at least asking what the poster meant by it. You're Tom Smykowski from Office Space; you're jumping to conclusions and you don't know how terrible you look in the process.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*



Dre™ said:


> I don't see anything wrong with what he said but I imagine there'll be a lot of people in here with their panties in a bunch ready to call him a scumball and some more...


yep. it'll be the exact same people who were praising him and admiring his every word back when he was putting up 40/20 on the regular.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

base on their respective sched, the allas avericks are more likely to miss the playoffs than the suns so calling shaq the big lotto is a bit premature and just downright hateful.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

So yeah you lost Cap.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

^ Nice wimp out.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Look at the top of the page and tell me who's right and who's wrong. I don't have to say anything else to you.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Me to you on pg. 8: 



Cap said:


> put up all the polls you like, I would vote yes that an 18/8 C is not done.


rofl.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Then why the **** did you say he was done? All this "relative to his prime production" stuff is BS.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Cap said:


> You're offended by people legitimately poking fun at his decline. Gee wiz.


A blatant straw man. At no point in this thread did anyone defend the decline of a 37 year old ball player.



> Defending Biebrins instead of addressing the topic just shows you'd rather deflect than address. Speaks for itself.


This topic is your unique standard of players. No intelligent basketball fan would consider 10/10 production a scrub. Only you would.



> I haven't argued that point I'm afraid to tell you. Reread this thread you're still confused.





> *This is the weakest era of C's* in a while and you're saying he's the 3rd best. Doesn't address anything other than a point you'd like to make, nothing I've ever refuted.


You say you don't argue, yet you find excuses to discredit. Oh, 'this is the weakest era of Cs'... oh, 'he's only borderline all-star'. None of it disproves the my original point that Shaq is the best center in the league not named Yao or Howard. If you're not arguing with me, what point are you trying to make? You are adding information without changing the outcome. It's just venting frustration.



> I never claimed this wasn't a subjective issue, so your above paragraph is merely more unnecessary posturing. You're the one that made the mistake of questioning my OP, calling it ignorant without detail and are now (predictably) wimping out of explaining why. Precisely why you can't possibly address the inaccuracy of your contention that current production makes players relevant while ignoring that MJ is still a top (for years leading) jersey seller years after retirement.


What is your definition of relevancy? I gave mine, and I expect most of the board to agree with that definition. Do you expect most of the board to agree with you?

Why are you talking about MJ? We're talking about Shaq's relevancy.



> You make statements well, but you lack substance.


That's no response. I just told you the reasons that most fans would think Shaq is relevant, thus disproving your statement in the eyes of the most fans. 

Instead of an attempted rebuttal, you post a statement that doesn't help your case in anyway. It doesn't defend you and it doesn't further any other points you have (aside from the bitterness). The above posted quote doesn't address any point, and it lacks substance.



> Feel free to address it. We know you won't.


Your bitter attitude to Shaq is painfully obvious. You've spent 9 pages talking about him.



> I didn't say he was irrelevant to the point that he's not still a good player at his position, or that he isn't recognized around the world, or that he isn't deserving of 9 pages on BBF.com. Those are your criteria. My criteria is what he says, how he acts, and the fact that it's well documented everywhere that he's insecure about his legacy and his decline. You don't like it. Again, good for you, not my concern, the record is clear.


Relevancy is not decided by a single poster named Cap. Relevancy is decided by the fans, the players, etc-- whether someone is 'relevant' is a common opinion. You can have your own definition of relevancy. Hell, you can have your own personal definition of any English word. The results will just reflect poorly upon you.



> What is being "changed" about the statement of mine that he's "trying to stay relevant", it's 4 words long? There's all sorts of room there to cite different words than those 4, so if by "change" you meant I'm using different words to describe the same concept, then yes that's change.


See above paragraph. I think most posters here will find my definition of relevancy appropriate. Yours? Find somebody.



> A 4 word post has to stand on its own? Yeah, sure, we believe you buddy. The fact that you drew the conclusion it was an ignorant post is your fault and not mine. Don't call 4 word statements ignorant without at least asking what the poster meant by it. You're Tom Smykowski from Office Space; you're jumping to conclusions and you don't know how terrible you look in the process.


See 2 paragraphs above. In this discussion, I haven't said anything that I would need to defend. You have.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> A blatant straw man. At no point in this thread did anyone defend the decline of a 37 year old ball player.


Yeah, that's a real stretch considering you claimed in another Shaq thread a few weeks ago that a journalist doesn't have the right to poke fun at Shaq because Shaq's career prior to the last couple years has been so successful. 



> This topic is your unique standard of players. No intelligent basketball fan would consider 10/10 production a scrub. Only you would.


Deflect away. Biedrins is on a terrible team so his stats are probably a little skewed but if it makes you feel any better, he's a super scrub. 



> You say you don't argue, yet you find excuses to discredit.


That's not an "excuse", that's reality. This is the ****test era of C's in god knows how long. Feel free to start a topic on that because no one sane will argue otherwise. 



> Oh, 'this is the weakest era of Cs'... oh, 'he's only borderline all-star'. None of it disproves the my original point that Shaq is the best center in the league not named Yao or Howard. If you're not arguing with me, what point are you trying to make? You are adding information without changing the outcome. It's just venting frustration.


Again, you are making a point about Shaq being the 3rd best C in the league, something I never argued. It's irrelevant to my original point, which apparently you still can't accept. 



> What is your definition of relevancy? I gave mine, and I expect most of the board to agree with that definition. Do you expect most of the board to agree with you?


Shaq is not nearly as relevant as he used to be, which, by _his_ definition (since my OP was talking about how _Shaq_ is starting to feel more irrelevant) is being not just in _playoff contention_ (slipping away by the day), but being in constant title contention, MVP contention, etc. Shaq isn't totally irrelevant like some bum like Brian Scalabrine. He's far less relevant, and it's why he's acting out more than ever (more insults in the last 2 years than much of his LA playing days). His antics at the All Star game have even increased a ton, even challenging LeBron for pre-game introduction creativity. His insecurity is well documented, so if you want to have a discussion about that (you don't), then we can continue talking about it. If not there's no point. 



> Why are you talking about MJ? We're talking about Shaq's relevancy.


I've said it a couple times now. 



> That's no response. I just told you the reasons that most fans would think Shaq is relevant, thus disproving your statement in the eyes of the most fans.


That's your conjecture. Most fans who actually know what they're talking about(LA, Heat and the few old school Magic fans among other people that have actually followed his career) know full well his history of insecurity. If you want to argue that his insecurity right now isn't being exacerbated by his precipitous decline in relevancy, I would disagree for plenty of well documented reasons. 



> Instead of an attempted rebuttal, you post a statement that doesn't help your case in anyway. It doesn't defend you and it doesn't further any other points you have (aside from the bitterness). The above posted quote doesn't address any point, and it lacks substance.


I've listed references for you to check out, Heisler and Jackson. You either won't or can't research those resources. Again, I can't help that, you're comfortable with your own ignorance. To each his own. 





> Your bitter attitude to Shaq is painfully obvious. You've spent 9 pages talking about him.


Is this some bad joke? What the hell have you been doing for 9 pages, talking about the weather? :laugh: I can just as easily make the accusation you're personally offended by pot shots at Shaq based on the exact same criteria. Get over it buddy, it ain't ending anytime soon. 



> Relevancy is not decided by a single poster named Cap. Relevancy is decided by the fans, the players, etc-- whether someone is 'relevant' is a common opinion. You can have your own definition of relevancy. Hell, you can have your own personal definition of any English word. The results will just reflect poorly upon you.


Again, you're just not addressing anything I've said regarding his history so your points become more moot with each passing post. 





> See above paragraph. I think most posters here will find my definition of relevancy appropriate. Yours? Find somebody.


And you're arguing something I never refuted. I didn't say he was irrelevant, I said he's trying to stay relevant, meaning he's trying to recapture the attention he got when he was younger. Not hard to understand and well documented by Jackson and Heisler among others. 




> See 2 paragraphs above. In this discussion, I haven't said anything that I would need to defend. You have.


rofl.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Dre™ said:


> Then why the **** did you say he was done? All this "relative to his prime production" stuff is BS.


No, it isn't. I explained why and you didn't like it. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

ah, I remember the days when I actually wasted some energy to respond to that guy EHL/Cap. 

ignore is great 


Shaq is still Top 3-5 among active centers in NBA, but he is a borderline problem in the locker room because when things don't go HIS way, he pouts. When he is happy though, he is an amazing asset to any team that uses him correctly.

Shaq can't be taken seriously, at all, about anything he talks about.

Shaq is top 3 Center of all time.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

ChrisRichards said:


> ignore is great


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

:laugh:


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

"****tiest era for C's" - 1999-2004

The C's are coming back baby, OH YEAH! :yay:


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Cap said:


> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony
> 
> :laugh:


Except if you had ignored him you wouldn't have seen that :|


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

^ Huh? Did I say I had him on ignore? Jesus you suck at reading.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Cap said:


> ^ Huh? Did I say I had him on ignore? Jesus you suck at reading.


You're just now figuring that out? Shame on you. :azdaja:


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

But I'm great at reading comprehension 'cause the implication of the word "irony" replying to a post about someone ignoring you is...what Cap?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

^ You serious or what? The implication being that the ignore function shields you from reading someone's posts, yet he said "ignore is great" in response to, guess what, my posts.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

:lol 0 votes.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

Prolific Scorer said:


> "****tiest era for C's" - 1999-2004
> 
> The C's are coming back baby, OH YEAH! :yay:


defensive and offensive 3 second rules have hurt Center's tremendously, imo.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Cap said:


> I didn't say he was irrelevant, I said he's trying to stay relevant, meaning he's trying to recapture the attention he got when he was younger.


A famous player like Shaq doesn't have to try to stay relevant, especially if he's still producing at a high level. Most fans would consider him relevant. You, however, have to define 'relevant' in your own way-- in terms of 'recapturing attention'. While that may be true, your definition of relevancy clearly differs from the norm (or Merriam-Webster). The consensus is that Shaq is still quite a relevant figure, and this fact is not changed no matter how bitter you are. Cap, I don't think anyone here agrees with you.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> A famous player like Shaq doesn't have to try to stay relevant, especially if he's still producing at a high level. Most fans would consider him relevant. You, however, have to define 'relevant' in your own way-- in terms of 'recapturing attention'. While that may be true, your definition of relevancy clearly differs from the norm (or Merriam-Webster). The consensus is that Shaq is still quite a relevant figure, and this fact is not changed no matter how bitter you are. Cap, I don't think anyone here agrees with you.


You just mis-interpreted what I wrote, I didn't say the guy wasn't recognized around the world, of course he is. Fact is, though, that isn't what I was talking about. You say people wouldn't agree with me there, coming from the same guy that claims I'm "not reasonable" for calling him Big Lotto because the Suns will miss the playoffs this season and because he lucked into a playoff team last year which he otherwise would have gone lotto. Yeah, OK, sure.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

I can't be at fault if your interpretations are unprecedented, Cap. I just go by common English vernacular. I thought that's what we were all doing.

I can't be at fault if you're so adamant about calling Shaq out either. Most fans don't hold a grudge against him. Fewer still are the ones who would call Shaq out for postseason ineptitude. I can only show you the facts, but I can't make you accept them. Your interpretations are unique; your opinions agreed upon by the very few. Most people don't take you seriously. You look ridiculous.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Yeah so this isn't the worst era for centers in sometime. The 10th best center today would of been top 3 in 2000-03 where it was Shaq, then Mutumbo 2nd, then Vlade 3rd???


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Also this crap about Shaq is out of control. Shows you how dominant he was to hear this type of talk.

Ewing
Robinson
Kareem
Hakeem

All played until they were 37. Shaq is better than all of them at the same age.

Poke fun of Wilt for being a corpse of a basketball player as well.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

I will say "Whatever" to the argument that's been going on since this thread started.

Some of you may argue about Shaquille O'Neal's production compared to his prime, but I don't see the point. He's still an effective player and considerably better than essentially a second-generation Will Perdue (Joel Pryzbilla) and his overhyped, constantly injured, marginally productive backup (Greg Oden). Unless there is an argument relevant to the initial post, I don't see why a good-but-past-his-prime player has to be defended for speaking out against a couple of scrubs.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> I can't be at fault if your interpretations are unprecedented, Cap. I just go by common English vernacular. I thought that's what we were all doing.
> 
> I can't be at fault if you're so adamant about calling Shaq out either. Most fans don't hold a grudge against him. Fewer still are the ones who would call Shaq out for postseason ineptitude. I can only show you the facts, but I can't make you accept them. Your interpretations are unique; your opinions agreed upon by the very few. Most people don't take you seriously. You look ridiculous.


Yawn. I said nothing that was inaccurate by common English vernacular and you know full well I'm not talking about general relevance (he's recognized all over the world, gee, no crap), you just can't accept that you jumped the gun by calling my statement ignorant and received an explanation you didn't like and still won't accept. That's your fault, not mine. You can't rebut my individual arguments so your resort to generalized insults because, as I predicted, you wouldn't be able to show otherwise if your life depended on it. Frankly, I think it's more than funny that you think I'm not taken seriously when you're the same guy that says I must be bitter about Shaq because I've talked about him for 10 pages, while you yourself have, uh, talked about him for 10 pages. You're the same guy that got all whiny about a writer making fun of Shaq's public idiocy based on the nonsensical idea that Shaq's prime production somehow excused those years of public idiocy. I guess you could be part of Shaq's actual crew, it would certainly explain why you've defended to the death an off-hand comment like Big Lotto. For 10 pages. That's funny more than anything, I just hope you won't get all snippy when I use the term again.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Insult you, Cap? I would never do that. I thought we were just having a fun 11-page discussion about a player who, as you said, was trying to stay relevant. I only had one point to make, and that's to tell you that most people don't agree with your definitions and opinions. Do you understand that, Cap? Nobody here agrees with your definition of relevancy.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

^ It's wonderful to see that you believe that in your heart of hearts, it's what makes you special Chan. I'm sure someone out there is like you and believes it's crazy to think the Suns will miss the playoffs despite being 3.5 games back with 9 to go, or that writers shouldn't insult Shaq nowadays because 5 years ago he used to be MDE. The whole board could believe those things, and they'd still be ridiculous. Either way, we are having fun, or at least I hope you are. After all, if your idea of fun isn't starting an 11 page message board battle over the precise accuracy of "Big Lotto", then you're just not living it up.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Cap said:


> The whole board could believe those things, and they'd still be ridiculous.


That's a stubborn attitude, Cap. I'm not sure calling out the board is the way to win an argument. The common opinion disagrees with the sentiment that Shaq is 'trying to stay relevant'. The common opinion is that Shaq is, in fact, very relevant. That's the main point of this argument, and you've chosen to that leave out of your last three posts. The most ironic fact is that we're arguing 'relevancy' for 11 pages-- you, because you have an unabashed grudge against some ball player. Me, because I enjoy calling out a poster's stupidity. You are entitled to your opinion, Cap. It's just that nobody agrees with them, and nobody takes you seriously. Like I said before, Cap-- I don't think anyone here agrees with you.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> That's a stubborn attitude, Cap. I'm not sure calling out the board is the way to win an argument. The common opinion disagrees with the sentiment that Shaq is 'trying to stay relevant'.


You may truly believe that, and whether that's true or not isn't actually an argument. 



> The common opinion is that Shaq is, in fact, very relevant. That's the main point of this argument, and you've chosen to that leave out of your last three posts.


My argument was never that Shaq didn't have some relevance. Again, it has already been explained several times, you just don't like hearing the answer again and again, that Shaq is in all likelihood feeling more irrelevant by the day as he toils on lottery teams, amassing just 1 playoff win since after June 2006. Shaq's well aware of exactly what's happening and his public antics show that. You don't agree with that and think the board is somehow the final say. You may get all warm and fuzzy believing the board is in agreement with you, but it's nothing more than deflection from an argument you've still yet to address. 



> The most ironic fact is that we're arguing 'relevancy' for 11 pages-- you, because you have an unabashed grudge against some ball player. Me, because I enjoy calling out a poster's stupidity. You are entitled to your opinion, Cap. It's just that nobody agrees with them, and nobody takes you seriously. Like I said before, Cap-- I don't think anyone here agrees with you.


And yet you're still here, still whining and moaning about the use of "Big Lotto" all because you deem it, uh, "stupid". For 11 pages. Gee, that's a lot of effort. The fact that you're still here pretending this is all about addressing "stupidity" says more about how you spend your time than it does me. I guess that's why you post 12+ times per day. 

So, like I said, believe what you will, you haven't been able to address any of my arguments about Shaq's well documented history of public antics and insensitivity. You won't because you can't, and that's fine. There's nothing wrong with waving the white flag.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Cap said:


> So, like I said, believe what you will, you haven't been able to address any of my arguments about Shaq's well documented history of public antics and insensitivity. You won't because you can't, and that's fine. There's nothing wrong with waving the white flag.


It's absurd that you would think you're winning this argument, given the fact that nobody here agrees with you. I haven't addressed your arguments about Shaq's public antics and insensitivity because they are straw men. Neither of the arguments refute the fact that Shaq isn't 'trying to stay relevant', because he is already immensely popular. It was your words, not mine. Given your perseverance and penchant for the absurd, Cap, let me ask you something: Do you think you have convinced anyone here that you're correct?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> It's absurd that you would think you're winning this argument, given the fact that nobody here agrees with you. I haven't addressed your arguments about Shaq's public antics and insensitivity because they are straw men. Neither of the arguments refute the fact that Shaq isn't 'trying to stay relevant', because he is already immensely popular. It was your words, not mine. Given your perseverance and penchant for the absurd, Cap, let me ask you something: Do you think you have convinced anyone here that you're correct?


They're not straw men, that would assume I changed my argument and went on to create a different one which, as I said pages ago, you couldn't actually point out, break down, and thoughtfully analyze if your life depended on it. That's because, in reality, it just doesn't exist. 

I also can't help that you continue to parrot argumentum ad populum fallacies. Sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn't, but on the whole the bottom line is that if it was so obvious in the first place it would be very simple to break down why. But you can't, because you are fundamentally not capable of admitting you jumped the gun and inferred something that didn't exist in my OP (an argument you switched to in mid-stream). I wouldn't necessarily think you were crazy for inferring it, but certainly wrong nonetheless, as I later explained. You don't like that a 4 word statement of mine meant something other than what you originally thought, claiming the argument "changed" because relevancy to _you_ means something different (no, it's not a question of English vernacular and you couldn't show otherwise with Merriam Webster definitions if you tried). 

And more than one poster both in this thread (and from the reps I got for those posts) certainly thought it's funny someone takes offense to term Big Lotto and this nitpicking nonsense about the term relevance. I get what you're saying with the "But people agree with me man, I must be right" stuff. But if you really believe in argumentum ad populum, then you'd either man up and prove it by addressing specific points, or you'd just give up and move on because you know you won't change my mind. The only case where you can really show that you're right is by arguing point-by-point (which you won't do).


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

I won't argue you point by point because you don't have any points, Cap. What is your point, anyway?

If someone is 'trying to stay relevant', it implies irrelevancy, and that's something that most English speakers would agree on. You wouldn't have had to defend your definition of relevancy if you were never called out. When writing, it is very important that you use the common definition, not some definition that exists in your head that you can twist can turn when called out. If you can't make a statement that stands on its own, then don't make it unless you want to look like an idiot. That reflects upon you poorly as a writer, and it reflects poorly upon your credibility as well.

According to Merriam Webster, relevant: 1a. having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand. I think Shaq fits that.

I haven't brought up the Big Lotto thing for the past few posts, because I wouldn't want to, as you say, nitpick. You can accept reality on your own terms, so I can't stop you from calling Shaq the 'Big Lotto'. I can only tell you how foolish you are for doing so. There's always going to be a community of Shaq-haters that will cradle you whenever you ever feel the need to be correct. 

My opinion is backed by Merriam Webster and the majority consensus. Your opinion is backed by your own cosmic definitions of English, zero credibility, and bitter anti-Shaq fans. My opinion (that Shaq doesn't need to try to stay relevant because he's a top 3 C) is accepted by the majority. Your opinion is accepted by the very few and mocked by the majority. Like I said, I can only show you the facts, but I can't make you accept them-- but I can mock you for refusing to accept them. I'm mocking you right now.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> I won't argue you point by point because you don't have any points, Cap. What is your point, anyway?


Your inference of my 1st and 2nd posts was incorrect, which has been documented for pages now. 



> If someone is 'trying to stay relevant', it *implies* irrelevancy, and that's something that most English speakers would agree on.


I bolded the important part. You inferred wrong. Nitpicking over the definition (incorrectly) tells everyone sane you're not interested in actually addressing anything of substance beyond your particular interpretation of that word, ignoring the context I was referring to (which you did not know at the time, and why I continue to accurately maintain you jumped to the wrong conclusion). There are indeed degrees of relevance, Shaq not being irrelevant, but certainly not being nearly as relevant as he used to be. If you don't agree with that and/or don't want to address that (since that was the intention of my OP you jumped the gun on), there's not much else to talk about on that point.



> You wouldn't have had to defend your definition of relevancy if you were never called out. When writing, it is very important that you use the common definition, not some definition that exists in your head that you can twist can turn when called out. If you can't make a statement that stands on its own, then don't make it unless you want to look like an idiot. That reflects upon you poorly as a writer, and it reflects poorly upon your credibility as well.


It doesn't reflect poorly on me at all, all it tells people is that you have poor reading and inference skills, not surprising given your age and education. I did not imply he was irrelevant, as you claimed, because when I said Shaq was trying to stay relevant, the act of trying _to stay_ relevant means his previous state of relevance was at a particular level, and that he's becoming _more_ irrelevant. There are different degrees and standards of relevance, it certainly isn't clear cut the way you make it out to be. Based on the standards of Brian Scalebrine, Shaq is quite relevant, but based on Shaq's standards Shaq's becoming more and more irrelevant by the day. 



> According to Merriam Webster, relevant: 1a. having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand. I think Shaq fits that.


You're not supporting your argument well here, this definition gives credence to the idea that there are degrees of relevance, a frame of reference. Your frame of reference is different from mine. It's like physics; someone can say they're moving at a 10mph and be correct in an inertial frame of reference but be totally wrong in a rotating frame of reference. That doesn't mean the original speed of 10mph is wrong, it just depends on the context. 



> I haven't brought up the Big Lotto thing for the past few posts, because I wouldn't want to, as you say, nitpick. You can accept reality on your own terms, so I can't stop you from calling Shaq the 'Big Lotto'. I can only tell you how foolish you are for doing so. There's always going to be a community of Shaq-haters that will cradle you whenever you ever feel the need to be correct.


Just as you feel I fit that description I feel you easily fit the description of someone who will always be a part of a community of Shaq apologists that don't like it when, for e.g., writers poke fun at him. 



> My opinion is backed by Merriam Webster and the majority consensus. Your opinion is backed by your own cosmic definitions of English, zero credibility, and bitter anti-Shaq fans. My opinion (that Shaq doesn't need to try to stay relevant because he's a top 3 C) is accepted by the majority. Your opinion is accepted by the very few and mocked by the majority. Like I said, I can only show you the facts, but I can't make you accept them-- but I can mock you for refusing to accept them. I'm mocking you right now.


I don't think you quite understand what's going on here. You still believe in this notion that the community is right (based on, entirely, the thoughts in your head), ignoring the well known argumentum ad populum fallacy. You then go on to conclude, based on your limited writing skills and education, that you must be right because you listed a definition from Merriam that you believe fits Shaq without actually mentioning the frame of reference I described in detail on previous pages (that is, Shaq's perspective on his relevance). You don't like talking about these frame of references, maybe because you don't understand them, maybe because protecting Shaq from criticism is important to you, maybe because you're bored and like nitpicking posts endlessly, maybe all of the above. But frankly, in the end, the people you truly believe back you up on this, so far, exist mostly in your head. And just because a few exist on this board doesn't mean you're right, a fallacy already adequately explained to you. 

I must say, though, your persistence in something as mundane as "Big Lotto" and "relevant" with no mention of context is quite incorrigible. Almost scary.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Where are the other 11 pages of this thread? I am only on page 4.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

As am I :yes:

50 PPP or die


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

Chan said:


> If someone is 'trying to stay relevant', it implies irrelevancy, and that's something that most English speakers would agree on.


"trying to _stay_ relevant" would actually imply you already are relevant, but fear becoming irrelevant. "trying to _become_ relevant" would imply irrelevancy. 


**** you dre, 45 ppp is the way to go


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Jamel Irief said:


> Where are the other 11 pages of this thread? I am only on page 4.


lol, this thread got outta control fast. :laugh:


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Pimped Out said:


> "trying to _stay_ relevant" would actually imply you already are relevant, but fear becoming irrelevant. "trying to _become_ relevant" would imply irrelevancy.


I don't think Shaq will become irrelevant any time soon.



Cap said:


> It doesn't reflect poorly on me at all, all it tells people is that you have poor reading and inference skills, not surprising given your age and education. I did not imply he was irrelevant, as you claimed, because when I said Shaq was trying to stay relevant, the act of trying to stay relevant means his previous state of relevance was at a particular level, and that he's becoming more irrelevant. There are different degrees and standards of relevance, it certainly isn't clear cut the way you make it out to be. Based on the standards of Brian Scalebrine,* Shaq is quite relevant, but based on Shaq's standards Shaq's becoming more and more irrelevant by the day*.


And nobody would argue that.

The mentioning of someone 'trying to stay relevant' would mean he is heading down the path of irrelevancy. I don't think Shaq will reach irrelevancy, because he is still one of the most talked-about players in basketball. If you had said, "he's trying to stay relevant, based on Shaq's standards", then there would not have been much to talk about. When you write, you're putting information out there and as it's your responsibility to make it clear. I learned that in Composition class, Cap. I thought you did too.



> I don't think you quite understand what's going on here. You still believe in this notion that the community is right (based on, entirely, the thoughts in your head), ignoring the well known argumentum ad populum fallacy. You then go on to conclude, based on your limited writing skills and education, that you must be right because you listed a definition from Merriam that you believe fits Shaq without actually mentioning the frame of reference I described in detail on previous pages (that is, Shaq's perspective on his relevance). You don't like talking about these frame of references, maybe because you don't understand them, maybe because protecting Shaq from criticism is important to you, maybe because you're bored and like nitpicking posts endlessly, maybe all of the above. But frankly, in the end, the people you truly believe back you up on this, so far, exist mostly in your head. And just because a few exist on this board doesn't mean you're right, a fallacy already adequately explained to you.


The 'frame of references' is a cop out, because it is the writer's duty to get his point across accurately. You different 'frame of reference' is no more than your failure to write a statement that could stand on its own. You could twist any subjective statement into anything you want, based on 'your different frame of reference'. 

For example, if I said "Duncan sucks".... using a different 'frame of reference', I could later squirm out of this ignorant statement by saying "Duncan sucks compared to his MVP years". That is exactly what you did. From a condescending post:



Cap said:


> It's sad seeing Shaq still trying to stay relevant. Poor guy.


To a defensive expansion: 



Cap said:


> Shaq is quite relevant, but based on Shaq's standards Shaq's becoming more and more irrelevant by the day


Without being called out, your comments would have stopped at your condescending first post. I set out to tell you that your first post was a foolish statement, and that your angle comes from a bitterness within. I feel like the board, with the exception of the anti-Shaq minority, understands that. Your goal, it seems, is to defend a statement that never stood on its own. A short sentence like that should never have to come with twelve pages of justification. It's just bad writing. I'm not here to convince the unintelligent, Cap. I'm just here to let the intelligent posters decide for themselves.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> And nobody would argue that.


No, you wouldn't argue that. 



> The mentioning of someone 'trying to stay relevant' would mean he is heading down the path of irrelevancy. I don't think Shaq will reach irrelevancy, because he is still one of the most talked-about players in basketball. If you had said, "he's trying to stay relevant, based on Shaq's standards", then there would not have been much to talk about. When you write, you're putting information out there and as it's your responsibility to make it clear. I learned that in Composition class, Cap. I thought you did too.


You should probably go ask your composition teacher this question, I'm sure he/she will say exactly what I've been saying; that I made a short statement, one that did not encompass every detail of my argument. She will tell you that my statement and accompanying explanation were reasonable, and that you jumped the gun on the inference. And again, just because someone agrees with me (or you) in this thread, doesn't actually mean either of us is right (I fall into that trap sometimes). 



> The 'frame of references' is a cop out, because it is the writer's duty to get his point across accurately. You different 'frame of reference' is no more than your failure to write a statement that could stand on its own. You could twist any subjective statement into anything you want, based on 'your different frame of reference'.
> 
> For example, if I said "Duncan sucks".... using a different 'frame of reference', I could later squirm out of this ignorant statement by saying "Duncan sucks compared to his MVP years". That is exactly what you did.


Very short statements are frequently open to interpretation, this is common knowledge in both speech and writing. As a Laker fan, for example, if I want to post "Man the Lakers suck" in game threads, apparently I may have to watch my back, because a poster may be so bored with their life that they would feel it's necessary to point out that hey, the Lakers have the 2nd best record in the league they don't suck. And of course, in that example, saying "Man the Lakers suck" in a game thread certainly might have something to do with the game they just played and not them sucking, overall, on the season. And it's not like you don't know all this. I fear you just don't like it when people challenge your poor, pre-conceived notions. 



> From a condescending post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Intelligent posters have already decided, what you believe that to be exists in your head. Calling a 4 word statement "bad writing" just shows that your standards for message boards are far, far too high. No one here writes entire essays with footnotes, references, and complete thoughts with absolutely zero room for interpretation in 100% of their posts. It just doesn't happen, and you're no exception. Everyone here will make a short and sometimes very short post. To nitpick for 12 pages says a lot more about you than it does me.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

shaq can be funny, but his insecurities get annoying. kinda funny to hear him talk about flopping these days, where he knows he has to be a little careful about what he says because of his d.howard flop. anyway, he's good for soundbites, but they'd be more amusing if they were coming from a more good-natured place.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

kflo said:


> shaq can be funny, but his insecurities get annoying. kinda funny to hear him talk about flopping these days, where he knows he has to be a little careful about what he says because of his d.howard flop. anyway, he's good for soundbites, but they'd be more amusing if they were coming from a more good-natured place.


not just his dwight flop, but he started flopping every now and then even when playing for Miami

hypocritical of him. when asked about that down here in MIA, he said something like he is getting older, so he has to get wiser


----------



## BlackNRed (Feb 9, 2005)

I can't count how many times i've heard "Shaq's very luck he didn't get a technical."

Shaq's a douche but he's a sly douche.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

kflo said:


> shaq can be funny, but his insecurities get annoying. kinda funny to hear him talk about flopping these days, where he knows he has to be a little careful about what he says because of his d.howard flop. anyway, he's good for soundbites, but they'd be more amusing if they were coming from a more good-natured place.


Shaq seems to think his salary equals his production or his relevance.

Yeah, Shaq's still good for 17-9 or whatever, but he is doing it on a team that is going nowhere. AFTER being traded by a team that was going nowhere.

Dude should just give it a rest, already. When you can walk the wlak, you can talk the talk. But Shaq is walking nowhere.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

OMGBaselRocks! said:


> :lol 0 votes.


it would be better if there were no votes for either option as both options are wrong.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Cap said:


> Intelligent posters have already decided, what you believe that to be exists in your head. Calling a 4 word statement "bad writing" just shows that your standards for message boards are far, far too high. No one here writes entire essays with footnotes, references, and complete thoughts with absolutely zero room for interpretation in 100% of their posts. It just doesn't happen, and you're no exception. Everyone here will make a short and sometimes very short post. To nitpick for 12 pages says a lot more about you than it does me.


I would never write a four word phrase that needs twelve pages of defense, Cap. Nobody would. You've mentioned 'nitpicking', and ironic is the fact that the last few pages have been mostly between 2 people. You have been 'nitpicking' as much as anyone. I pointed out your first post as a foolish and skewed notion-- one that is subjective to your bitterness towards the subject. I think that's blatantly obvious to everyone in this thread. Your opinion is fueled by the overwhelming hatred of one basketball player, and my point was to bring that bias to the understanding of everyone here. I don't think anyone would disagree.


----------



## Nightmute (Apr 12, 2007)

Chan said:


> I would never write a four word phrase that needs twelve pages of defense, Cap. Nobody would. You've mentioned 'nitpicking', and ironic is the fact that the last few pages have been mostly between 2 people. You have been 'nitpicking' as much as anyone. I pointed out your first post as a foolish and skewed notion-- one that is subjective to your bitterness towards the subject. I think that's blatantly obvious to everyone in this thread. Your opinion is fueled by the overwhelming hatred of one basketball player, and my point was to bring that bias to the understanding of everyone here. *I don't think anyone would disagree.*


That statement is an example of the bad English you have been quibbling about. It's a statement that can't stand on it's own because quite obviously people do disagree with you; and to say that no one does would take further explanation from you on the context in which you intended it to be used.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Nightmute, do you disagree when I say Cap is bitterly biased against Shaq?


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

Nightmute said:


> That statement is an example of the bad English you have been quibbling about. It's a statement that can't stand on it's own because quite obviously people do disagree with you; and to say that no one does would take further explanation from you on the context in which you intended it to be used.


That's bad logic, not bad English. The sentence is grammatically correct.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Petty bickering aside, the only irony I see here is someone talking trash after his team just got stomped by 20 - and if you watched the game, you know it wasn't as "close" as the final score would indicate.

It takes either a huge ego, a very small brain, or in this case, quite possibly both to talk smack immediately after your team just got dominated and for all practical purposes elminitated from the play-offs.

I can't wait to hear his thoughts on Spencer Hawes after losing to the lowly Kings.

Oh well, on the bright side, with his extended summer vacation Shaq will have even more time to dream up lame shogun/ninja analogies to share with reporters the next time his team gets pwned.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

*Re: Shaq puts Oden/Prybilla on blast*



JT said:


> yep. it'll be the exact same people who were praising him and admiring his every word back when he was putting up 40/20 on the regular.


You must be confusing Shaq with Wilt. Shaq has never come close to putting up 40/20 "on the regular" at any level, let alone in the NBA.

BNM


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> I would never write a four word phrase that needs twelve pages of defense, Cap. Nobody would. You've mentioned 'nitpicking', and ironic is the fact that the last few pages have been mostly between 2 people. You have been 'nitpicking' as much as anyone. I pointed out your first post as a foolish and skewed notion-- one that is subjective to your bitterness towards the subject. I think that's blatantly obvious to everyone in this thread. Your opinion is fueled by the overwhelming hatred of one basketball player, and my point was to bring that bias to the understanding of everyone here. I don't think anyone would disagree.


It doesn't "need" 12 pages of defense. You just happen to (incorrectly) find it inaccurate by common English vernacular, and still parrot the idea that because other people (and perhaps a majority, which is debatable of course) agree with you, that you're somehow right. I clearly showed that the statement was correct, gave plenty examples (which, of course, you really didn't address). So the fact that you *still* think the OP was incorrect just again shows the depth of your delusion. Unless you'd actually like to address any of the arguments, at this point it's pretty clear you still have this thing about protecting Shaq from criticism. To each his own.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

You mother ****ers are crazy. How did this go 13 pages? When I get into a debate, most of the time its locked by now.


----------



## Nightmute (Apr 12, 2007)

Sliccat said:


> That's bad logic, not bad English. The sentence is grammatically correct.


I was using the standards for English Chan was arguing about.


----------



## Nightmute (Apr 12, 2007)

Chan said:


> Nightmute, do you disagree when I say Cap is bitterly biased against Shaq?


He's more then likely biased, but bitter isn't something that I've noticed.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

Nightmute=Cap


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Cap said:


> It doesn't "need" 12 pages of defense. You just happen to (incorrectly) find it inaccurate by common English vernacular, and still parrot the idea that because other people (and perhaps a majority, which is debatable of course) agree with you, that you're somehow right. I clearly showed that the statement was correct, gave plenty examples (which, of course, you really didn't address). So the fact that you *still* think the OP was incorrect just again shows the depth of your delusion. Unless you'd actually like to address any of the arguments, at this point it's pretty clear you still have this thing about protecting Shaq from criticism. To each his own.


Remember the phrase "adding information"? That was you, not me. I made the mistake of arguing you post by post, because your main point varies with each post. I should have stuck to the main point. As a matter of fact, I didn't argue your first post until page 8. Reading back, I realized my first argument was never about your first post. Your ability to arbitrarily change your original interpretation has rendered any discussion about a subjective statement moot. We were talking about the 'Big Lotto' name, something you kept stressing, and something I kept saying was a stretch. You're good at squirming out of an argument, you. Here is what happened, starting page 3, when I first started to address you:

*Chan*:He made the playoffs last year. This year, he's coming in one spot out of the race. Implying he's lottery-prone is a stretch.

*Cap*: Nah, he really didn't. Suns make the playoffs without him pretty easily.

*Chan*: The Suns made the playoffs in 2008. Using this argument to prove 'Shaq = Big Lotto' is a setup for failure.

*Cap*: It's perfectly legit to say he's done impact-wise looking at this year and last. Calling him Big Lotto is poking fun at a once great C going into his 2nd straight lotto season. Makes plenty of sense.

*Cap (to Dre)*: ^ Did I say Shaq had zero impact or that he was solely responsible for going lotto this year and last? I said he's done impact-wise, clearly referring to the game he used to have. He plays with Richardson, Nash, Hill, Barbosa, etc., which in years past would have been more than enough for Shaq to lead a team deep into the postseason. Now the Suns aren't even going to make the playoffs, and hell he may not even get much closer than 3 games out of the 8th spot. He's so done an anonymous Suns exec said they would trade back for Marion. Shawn freaking Marion, who at this point in his career isn't even that good, so much so that Heat fans like Jamario Moon over him.

Has nothing to do with LA or that other nonsense in that crappy Lakers thread you started, dude is straight up done and smart fans have known it for 2 years now.

*Chan*: And Cap, the Suns made the playoffs last year. You could put it however, and it still doesn't change the fact that Shaq is the best center after Howard and Yao. They're one spot out of the playoffs, so calling him 'Big Lotto' is a stretch. Only folks with a grudge against Shaq would think it's an appropriate label.

*Cap*: It's a funny moniker, that's all. Reading more into it than that is, obviously, just inference.

*Chan*: If being wrong is 'funny', I guess being retarded is downright adorable.

*Cap*: "Retarded" is defending Shaq's stupidity on a consistent basis because of what he did as a player years ago. Or pretending calling him the Big Lotto is anything but a harmless comment for a (soon to be a 2nd consecutive) lotto season for him. Not all his fault of course, just something that wouldn't have happened to the Big Guy when he was actually anywhere near as good as he used to be.

*Chan*: Cap, I don't think we're on the same page. The Suns made the playoffs in 2008. I know it's tough for you to wrap your head around that concept, but at least make some effort. You can continue to deny it, but it would just make you look even less credible. I advise you to accept reality.

*Cap*: ^ Simple to understand if you're honest; he played 28 games for a team that was already going to make the playoffs going away. Trade me (literally) from last year's Heat to the Suns for 28 games and put me on the bench and yeah, sure, I guess I would have "made" the playoffs too. Point is he didn't contribute and got bailed out of Miami.

*Chan*: Cap, you're not going to make the playoffs on an NBA roster. Comparing yourself to an NBA player's production is no way to win an argument. Mr Reed Richards, you need to stop stretching.

*Cap*: Thanks for that brilliant revelation kiddo. You have crushed my dreams of NBA dominance.

And there you have it. Sarcasm- your defense mechanism. Misinterpretation and inference- your bread-and-butter. Not attributes I'd find in a credible person, but who am I to judge? To each his own.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

shaq has won 63 games, lost 65 games, the last 2 seasons. clearly he's in better shape this year and playing much better, but that's his teams record the last 2 years. 

i don't see why you're latching on to this so hard chan. calling shaq, the nickname king, the guy who gives himself nicknames all the time, big lotto is not such an affront. a pot shot nickname doesn't have to tell the entire story of his current value and production. is he still good? yes. is he going to the playoffs? probably not. 

here's shaq when he was traded to the suns: "I'm very upset. You just don't really want to get me upset. When I'm upset, I'm known to do certain things -- like win championships." 

the guy stepped on alot of people when he was on top. he continues to do so, even though he's not on top anymore. he can take a little bit.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> Remember the phrase "adding information"? That was you, not me. I made the mistake of arguing you post by post, because your main point varies with each post. I should have stuck to the main point. As a matter of fact, I didn't argue your first post until page 8. Reading back, I realized my first argument was never about your first post. Your ability to arbitrarily change your original interpretation has rendered any discussion about a subjective statement moot. We were talking about the 'Big Lotto' name, something you kept stressing, and something I kept saying was a stretch. You're good at squirming out of an argument, you. Here is what happened, starting page 3, when I first started to address you:
> 
> *Chan*:He made the playoffs last year. This year, he's coming in one spot out of the race. Implying he's lottery-prone is a stretch.
> 
> ...


A nice compilation of quotes, I'm not sure exactly what you think they say other than you believe it's "retarded" to think Shaq should be called Big Lotto because he's going to miss the playoffs this season and because he would have missed it last year had it not been for the technicality of being traded. Or that you still stand by your inference of my "relevant" post in this thread. Or that you still think that when someone adds information to a 4 word post that they're "changing" something. 

Bottom line; you like to nitpick and you like to do it endlessly and poorly. Meh.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Cap said:


> A nice compilation of quotes, I'm not sure exactly what you think they say other than you believe it's "retarded" to think Shaq should be called Big Lotto because he's going to miss the playoffs this season and because he would have missed it last year had it not been for the technicality of being traded. Or that you still stand by your inference of my "relevant" post in this thread. Or that you still think that when someone adds information to a 4 word post that they're "changing" something.
> 
> Bottom line; you like to nitpick and you like to do it endlessly and poorly. Meh.


I said it was a stretch, only logical to those with a grudge. It's curious you thought I was calling your idea "retarded", because I was merely referencing an Ed Wunsler Sr. quote. You _inferred_ wrong. In any case, you came back with an argument and failed to disprove what I said. You said you could have made the playoffs, meaning you'd have to have 12/10 production on 61% shooting. I told you how stupid that idea was, and your defense was a retreat into the gentle cradle of sarcasm. Yet you still think it's logical, bringing us back to the first sentence of this paragraph. What's it gonna be now?


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

LOL y'all are still going...you're obviously not going to agree.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> I said it was a stretch, only logical to those with a grudge.


It is logical, and only those with a pro-Shaq bias would argue otherwise. See, I can play the same inane game without actually saying anything of substance. That's what you're doing here. 



> It's curious you thought I was calling your idea "retarded", because I was merely referencing an Ed Wunsler Sr. quote. You _inferred_ wrong.


Haha, thing is I am willing to say that I inferred wrong here (assuming you aren't being sarcastic again here). But will I hear a similar sort of admission on your part about your poor inference of my first post? Yeah, woops. 



> In any case, you came back with an argument and failed to disprove what I said. You said you could have made the playoffs, meaning you'd have to have 12/10 production on 61% shooting.


I said the Suns would have made the playoffs without him last season (they were .680 team before he got there). Your inference that I'd have 12/10/61% is, again, something that exists in your head. 



> I told you how stupid that idea was, and your defense was a retreat into the gentle cradle of sarcasm. Yet you still think it's logical, bringing us back to the first sentence of this paragraph. What's it gonna be now?


Haha, you took that as a "retreat"? I'm sorry you didn't get the argument I was making; that I could have replaced Shaq on the Suns last season and they still would have made the playoffs. Who says I'd have to put up 12/10/61%, they'd just sit me on the bench. :laugh:


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Cap said:


> It is logical, and only those with a pro-Shaq bias would argue otherwise. See, I can play the same inane game without actually saying anything of substance. That's what you're doing here.


From a non-biased standpoint, one wouldn't go up making nicknames for other people. 



> Haha, thing is I am willing to say that I inferred wrong here (assuming you aren't being sarcastic again here). But will I hear a similar sort of admission on your part about your poor inference of my first post? Yeah, woops.


We're both using the inference argument here, but I'm not the one pulling alternate expansions out of nowhere. I wish I could say the same for me, but then I'd be slighting my source material. You wouldn't be.



> I said the Suns would have made the playoffs without him last season (they were .680 team before he got there). Your inference that I'd have 12/10/61% is, again, something that exists in your head.
> 
> Haha, you took that as a "retreat"? I'm sorry you didn't get the argument I was making; that I could have replaced Shaq on the Suns last season and they still would have made the playoffs. Who says I'd have to put up 12/10/61%, they'd just sit me on the bench. :laugh:


Yes, but this proves Shaq was still producing at a decent rate-- something that should be noted. He wasn't just some guy on the bench (this is where you come in with your 'but I never said he was just some guy, you inferred wrong, he just isn't as good compared to what he used to be, he's done impact-wise but he doesn't have zero impact, etc, etc'). Moving on.

At any rate, they would have still made the playoffs, but using that as an argument for 'Big Lotto' is a stretch. It's based on something that didn't happen: the Suns didn't miss the playoffs. To call a player on postseason ineptitude in 2008 is a stretch and a sure sign of bias, especially when he actually made the playoffs in 2008. Your attempt to make it seem like a logical, non-biased statement is a sure sign that you harbor an seething grievance against this player.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Chan said:


> From a non-biased standpoint, one wouldn't go up making nicknames for other people.


Something that has been pointed out 304987u308974 times in this thread - Considering Shaq has gone his whole career making up nicknames for not only himself, but other people.... 

I wouldn't call it bias, but fitting.

Get over it.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

^Fitting if you're biased.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Chan said:


> ^Fitting if you're biased.


If i'm bias, then you're bias against me being bias. Shaq must be bias for all the direspectful names he's given other players / teams. Nan-Nanny-Boo-Boo!

Sure pal.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

^I'm saying you're biased. You disagree?


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

I'm saying you've been reaching big-time the last 5+ pages. Does it really matter what I say? You don't see the point people are trying to come across, you're stuck in your own "technical" bubble.

Anyway, just thought I'd say that


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

I do see the point they're making. I'm saying that point is biased, and a majority of basketball fans don't agree with it.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

Chan said:


> I don't think Shaq will become irrelevant any time soon.


Oddly enough, what you think doesnt affect shaq's actions, thoughts, or opinions


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Pimped Out said:


> Oddly enough, what you think doesnt affect shaq's actions, thoughts, or opinions


The same goes for you. Why bring it up?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Let's just all agree this thread is on page 5 and Chan and R-star need to change their UserCP to view 50 posts per page.


----------



## Nightmute (Apr 12, 2007)

Everyone has a biased opinion towards Shaq. With such a strong personality it's kind of hard not to. So, Chan your as biased as the rest of us. It's just that your opinion happens to be wrong .


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Let's just all agree this thread is on page 5 and Chan and R-star need to change their UserCP to view 50 posts per page.


No way. That's way too many posts per page. I like a good 20 posts or so. Then if I have to leave I can say, "I left on page 7" not, "I left on post 98 on page 3". 

I know what I'm doing.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Chan said:


> I do see the point they're making. I'm saying that point is biased, and a majority of basketball fans don't agree with it.


what point is that chan?


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

Chan said:


> The same goes for you. Why bring it up?


Because you believe that Shaq isn't trying to stay relevant based on the fact that you think he is still a good basketball player which is irrelevant when discussing shaq's immaturity and insecurity.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Pimped Out said:


> Because you believe that Shaq isn't trying to stay relevant based on the fact that you think he is still a good basketball player which is irrelevant when discussing shaq's immaturity and insecurity.


You're analyzing a basketball player from a pure psychological standpoint. What is this, shrink forum? Far be it of me to defend the perceived negative image of someone I've never met, but that was never an agenda. I judge a player by his performance, like when he outplayed Yao last night.



kflo said:


> what point is that chan?


I'm saying that point is biased, and a majority of basketball fans don't agree with it.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Chan said:


> I'm saying that point is biased, and a majority of basketball fans don't agree with it.


i'm asking you what point is biased?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Big Lotto.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Chan said:


> Big Lotto.


really depends on how much you read into it and take it seriously. 

again, shaq calls himself Big anything. it's not such an affront to call him big lotto. it's not like he's calling him big sucks ***, or big should be retired, or big worse than curry, or big no-production. big lotto, for the guy who's played .500 ball for the last 2 years. shaq is big. fact. his team will likely be in the lottery. fact. big lotto. not so objectionable. would someone who likes shaq say it? probably not. not meant to be flattering.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Then every player who isn't in the lottery is liable to be called something like that. Nobody is doing that here, because we're not biased against all those guys- Lotto Granger, Lotto Carter, Lotto Bosh, etc. Someone who isn't biased against, or someone who doesn't care wouldn't call them that. A majority of basketball fans won't call them that. Or would you disagree?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Chan said:


> Then every player who isn't in the lottery is liable to be called something like that. Nobody is doing that here, because we're not biased against all those guys- Lotto Granger, Lotto Carter, Lotto Bosh, etc. Someone who isn't biased against, or someone who doesn't care wouldn't call them that. A majority of basketball fans won't call them that. Or would you disagree?


is greg oden a low level ninja? 

the title of this freakin thread is Shaq puts Oden/Przybilla on blast, and you're complaining for pages and pages about big lotto?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

kflo said:


> is greg oden a low level ninja?
> 
> the title of this freakin thread is Shaq puts Oden/Przybilla on blast, and you're complaining for pages and pages about big lotto?


I'm saying that point is biased, and a majority of basketball fans don't agree with it.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> From a non-biased standpoint, one wouldn't go up making nicknames for other people.


I make up nicknames for sorry players on my favorite team. I'm not sure why you think it's "biased". 




> We're both using the inference argument here, but I'm not the one pulling alternate expansions out of nowhere. I wish I could say the same for me, but then I'd be slighting my source material. You wouldn't be.


Again, I'm willing to admit that my inference was incorrect if you were making a cultural reference, while you on the other hand are not willing to admit your inference mistake. Of course, we all know you probably weren't actually making a cultural reference to Wunsler with the word retarded. You just can't argue based on merit, again. 



> Yes, but this proves Shaq was still producing at a decent rate-- something that should be noted. He wasn't just some guy on the bench (this is where you come in with your 'but I never said he was just some guy, you inferred wrong, he just isn't as good compared to what he used to be, he's done impact-wise but he doesn't have zero impact, etc, etc'). Moving on.
> 
> At any rate, they would have still made the playoffs, but using that as an argument for 'Big Lotto' is a stretch. It's based on something that didn't happen: the Suns didn't miss the playoffs. To call a player on postseason ineptitude in 2008 is a stretch and a sure sign of bias, especially when he actually made the playoffs in 2008. Your attempt to make it seem like a logical, non-biased statement is a sure sign that you harbor an seething grievance against this player.


Fact is you stated the following: "You said you could have made the playoffs, meaning you'd have to have 12/10 production on 61% shooting". I never said that and I wouldn't have had to, the Suns were 37-17 before Shaq arrived (interestingly, they were actually _worse_ after he got there record-wise). I'm not sure what's so hard for you to understand, he lucked into a playoff team. The fact that you still like to state that the Suns made the playoffs in 08 when I conceded that point like 10 pages ago tells everyone you're only interested in the voices in your head.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> I'm saying that point is biased, and a majority of basketball fans don't agree with it.


Except argumentum ad populum is a fallacy and it's speculation unless you stealth polled "basketball fans" when we weren't looking.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Cap said:


> I make up nicknames for sorry players on my favorite team. I'm not sure why you think it's "biased".


Because non-biased folk don't do it.



> Again, I'm willing to admit that my inference was incorrect if you were making a cultural reference, while you on the other hand are not willing to admit your inference mistake. Of course, we all know you probably weren't actually making a cultural reference to Wunsler with the word retarded. You just can't argue based on merit, again.


I didn't make up that Ed Wunsler, Cap. That's not out of nowhere. That's from TV.



> Fact is you stated the following: "You said you could have made the playoffs, meaning you'd have to have 12/10 production on 61% shooting". I never said that and I wouldn't have had to, the Suns were 37-17 before Shaq arrived (interestingly, they were actually _worse_ after he got there record-wise). I'm not sure what's so hard for you to understand, he lucked into a playoff team. The fact that you still like to state that the Suns made the playoffs in 08 when I conceded that point like 10 pages ago tells everyone you're only interested in the voices in your head.


To call a player on postseason ineptitude in 2008 is a stretch and a sure sign of bias, especially when he actually made the playoffs in 2008. Your attempt to make it seem like a logical, non-biased statement is a sure sign that you harbor an seething grievance against this player. 



Cap said:


> Except argumentum ad populum is a fallacy and it's speculation unless you stealth polled "basketball fans" when we weren't looking.


Argumentum ad populum is fallacy, in this context = "you're wrong, and even though the majority agrees with you, I am right". The most stubborn idiot can make that same statement about anything. Most basketball fans agree with my sentiment that calling Shaq the "Big Lotto" is a stretch and a biased point. If they don't agree, they can feel free to argue that with me.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

Chan said:


> You're analyzing a basketball player from a pure psychological standpoint. What is this, shrink forum? Far be it of me to defend the perceived negative image of someone I've never met, but that was never an agenda. I judge a player by his performance, like when he outplayed Yao last night.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that point is biased, and a majority of basketball fans don't agree with it.


You caught me, I'm not arguing his on court performance in regards to a thread about something he did off the court


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Pimped Out said:


> You caught me, I'm not arguing his on court performance in regards to a thread about something he did off the court


The only reason we'd ever talk about him is because of what he did on the court. People know Shaq as a basketball player, and anyone without an agenda would judge him as one.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Chan said:


> I'm saying that point is biased, and a majority of basketball fans don't agree with it.


and i'm saying it really depends on how much you read into it and take it seriously. he made up a name. 

don't agree with what??? that shaq is big and his team in the lottery? that the king of Big _____ nicknames, who dishes out insults, gets an unflattering nickname? what is there to disagree with? seriously.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Chan said:


> The only reason we'd ever talk about him is because of what he did on the court. People know Shaq as a basketball player, and anyone without an agenda would judge him as one.


so when shaq lashes out at a przybilla or a van gundy or the scores of others he's lashed out against in the past, it speaks nothing to him as a person? only someone with an agenda would actually give any thought to anything shaq actually says?


----------



## SlamJam (Nov 27, 2004)

kflo said:


> and i'm saying it really depends on how much you read into it and take it seriously. he made up a name.
> 
> don't agree with what??? that shaq is big and his team in the lottery? that the king of Big _____ nicknames, who dishes out insults, gets an unflattering nickname? what is there to disagree with? seriously.


i don't get it either


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

kflo said:


> and i'm saying it really depends on how much you read into it and take it seriously. he made up a name.
> 
> don't agree with what??? that shaq is big and his team in the lottery? that the king of Big _____ nicknames, who dishes out insults, gets an unflattering nickname? what is there to disagree with? seriously.


It doesn't depend on how much anyone reads into it, and it doesn't depend on how anyone takes it. If you call someone out, then you say "don't take it seriously", then what the hell is that? Player X is _____, but don't take it seriously. The ****? How does that make you credible?

If you carry the same bias against Shaq as you did every other player, then is Lotto Granger, Bosh, etc. Fans without an agenda wouldn't call out a player for playoff ineptitude, when that player hasn't missed the playoffs since 93. (Then here's where somebody says: but we're judging him by recent performance only!) I'd reply: if you didn't have an agenda, you wouldn't be stretching the topic of discussion to cover just the recent production of a 37 year old player. 



> so when shaq lashes out at a przybilla or a van gundy or the scores of others he's lashed out against in the past, it speaks nothing to him as a person? only someone with an agenda would actually give any thought to anything shaq actually says?


It has nothing to do with your bias. I'm not defending his comments, I'm saying calling him out for playoff ineptitude is something only a biased fan would do, given his history of winning.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

If this thread were a woman I would slap it. 





j/k




:uhoh:


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Chan said:


> It doesn't depend on how much anyone reads into it, and it doesn't depend on how anyone takes it. If you call someone out, then you say "don't take it seriously", then what the hell is that? Player X is _____, but don't take it seriously. The ****? How does that make you credible?


how the **** are you determining credibility on a freakin nickname? 

shaq's not a big lotto. he's not and nobody better say he is. he's a big diesel. a big diesel, dammit. 

and greg oden is a low level ninja.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

How is Shaq a diesel? He's a human being.

You're clearly biased.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Coatesvillain said:


> How is Shaq a diesel? He's a human being.
> 
> You're clearly biased.


Buwhahahahahahahaha!

R.I.P. Chan's sense of humor, July 2005 - July 2nd 2005.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Chan said:


> Because non-biased folk don't do it.


They absolutely do, and no one can help you if you truly believe otherwise. 



> I didn't make up that Ed Wunsler, Cap. That's not out of nowhere. That's from TV.


Right, and I'll repeat what I said: "I'm willing to admit that my inference was incorrect if you were making a cultural reference, while you on the other hand are not willing to admit your inference mistake."



> To call a player on postseason ineptitude in 2008 is a stretch and a sure sign of bias, especially when he actually made the playoffs in 2008. Your attempt to make it seem like a logical, non-biased statement is a sure sign that you harbor an seething grievance against this player.


Whether I harbor "seething grievance" is certainly debatable and, frankly, a deflectionary tactic considering I never claimed I was 100% neutral to begin with. Of course, given your recent posts defending Shaq in this thread and others (but especially this one), it's clear you have your own bias for Shaq as a protectionist of sorts. 



> Argumentum ad populum is fallacy, in this context = "you're wrong, and even though the majority agrees with you, I am right". The most stubborn idiot can make that same statement about anything. Most basketball fans agree with my sentiment that calling Shaq the "Big Lotto" is a stretch and a biased point. If they don't agree, they can feel free to argue that with me.


You can call it biased all you want, but based on the criteria I used and explained, which you didn't address, it's perfectly reasonable. Call it biased all you want, I never claimed I was 100% objective. And since you're not either you're fighting a losing battle.


----------

