Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 81 to 99 of 99
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by evrdukie View Post
    Jumbo, I believe you already provided the answer earlier today. I'm pretty sure it's in here somewhere (time well spent, by the way):
    Keep it up, Tiger. You're really distinguishing yourself. Taliek Brown, A.J. Granger and Craig Forth. Still waiting. Tick, tock. Tick, tock.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Jumbo View Post
    Keep it up, Tiger. You're really distinguishing yourself. Taliek Brown, A.J. Granger and Craig Forth. Still waiting. Tick, tock. Tick, tock.
    Who in the hell is A.J. Granger? And for that matter, Craig Fark? Does the tick tock sound seem to be coming from inside your head?

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by evrdukie View Post
    OK, you got me on substance and I take it all back. But do me a favor. Jettison the "Dude", the quotations sprinkled around your posts and the parenthetical "ha, ha" business. This is a Duke board and your prose style is bringing us down.
    Didn't your parents teach you to speak for yourself and not cower behind the "us"? Your thin skin, easily "depressed" temperament (snicker), and rush to sidle up to imaginary allies speaks poorly of you, and so my guess is Duke would not want YOU to speak for them.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    evr,

    A.J. Granger and Craig Forth were starting centers on teams that recently won NCAA championships. Neither was even in the same zip code as elite centers.

    Without putting too fine a point on it, this is known as using an example to refute someone else's point. Folks do it on a regular basis.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Jumbo View Post
    Translation: I really have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'm going to try to deflect the issue with mindless rambling again.

    I'll make it simple for you: How did UConn win the 2004 NCAA title with Taliek Brown at point guard? How did Syracuse win the 2003 NCAA title with Craig Forth at center? How did Michigan State win the 2000 NCAA title with A.J. Granger at center? Let's start with those simple examples before moving on to anything more complex.
    it's beyond comprehension that you actually think teams can win a nc without a good pg. brown may not have been hurley but in the biggest game of his life -- the national championship game -- he played 37 minutes with 4 assists and 2 turnovers (in addition to 9 points and 6 rebounds). it also wasn't like he was playing against a chump. jack was en feugo at the end of 2004 and he was held to 3 assists and 5 turnovers. dump on brown all you want but that is exactly the kind of game i would want from a pg in nc game. we can only wish for that kind of performance on both ends of the court out of our current pg when we go up against a top team with an nba quality pg.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Jumbo View Post
    Keep it up, Tiger. You're really distinguishing yourself. Taliek Brown, A.J. Granger and Craig Forth. Still waiting. Tick, tock. Tick, tock.
    I've had an exchange this evening with Troublemaker and Jumbo and there's a point I'd like to make about it before the thought police prevent me from further posting, which is likely to happen pretty soon now if the prior practice on this board is any evidence.

    There’s always an interesting divergence on this board between what I think of as the cheerleader fans and the critical fans. If the point of the board is to foster boundless approval of everything to do with Duke’s basketball program, there’s nothing wrong with that, if that's what most people want. Even so, it's a little troublesome that some of the moderators believe their role is to serve as censors whose primary responsibility is to ensure that nothing but orthdoxy and uncritical approval of everything to do with the coach and the basketball program is permitted. One aspect of that approach involves a tolerance for, and even encouragement of, intimidation, condescending and nasty remarks and general snarkiness. It would be better if there were room on the board for fans who are interested is seeing Duke’s basketball team do well, but who, for whatever reason, choose to preserve their critical faculties. In other words, there would be room for both faith based posters and the others. Of course, achieving that would mean that the cheerleader fans, including some of the moderators, would have to give up their practice of trying to excommunicate everybody else. The overall quality of the board would be much improved.

    It seems to me that one additional point is worth making. Larding several paragraphs of nonsense with basketball jargon, tortured statistics, and sports clichés isn’t the same as providing analysis. Every reader can form his own opinions about such junk, but all the readers shouldn't be pressured to treat such crap as the only legitimate standard for participating in the board.

    If this note marks me as an apostate who should be banished from participating, I expect to be able to deal with it. I'm not a basketball expert, just a fan like most of the rest of you. From that perspective, I've very much enjoyed reading many excellent posts by any number of very well informed observers. To all those, my thanks.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by dukie8 View Post
    it's beyond comprehension that you actually think teams can win a nc without a good pg. brown may not have been hurley but in the biggest game of his life -- the national championship game -- he played 37 minutes with 4 assists and 2 turnovers (in addition to 9 points and 6 rebounds). it also wasn't like he was playing against a chump. jack was en feugo at the end of 2004 and he was held to 3 assists and 5 turnovers. dump on brown all you want but that is exactly the kind of game i would want from a pg in nc game. we can only wish for that kind of performance on both ends of the court out of our current pg when we go up against a top team with an nba quality pg.
    Come on, Dukie8. You know better than that. Didn't you say you were a New Yorker at one point? If so, you know Brown never lived up to his billing, was routinely ripped by his own fans, and had an undistiguished career at UConn. One game does not a season make. As a senior he averaged 6.3 ppg, made one three-pointer and shot 55.3% from the line. He did have a nice A/TO ratio, but he was far from an elite PG. He wasn't even above average. And the poster has made it clear that you can't win without both "an elite PG and an elite big man."

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Didn't your parents teach you to speak for yourself and not cower behind the "us"? Your thin skin, easily "depressed" temperament (snicker), and rush to sidle up to imaginary allies speaks poorly of you, and so my guess is Duke would not want YOU to speak for them.

    There you go again with all those quotation marks and parentheticals. By the way, you're very believable. You definitely seem to be the snickering type.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Jumbo View Post
    Come on, Dukie8. You know better than that. Didn't you say you were a New Yorker at one point? If so, you know Brown never lived up to his billing, was routinely ripped by his own fans, and had an undistiguished career at UConn. One game does not a season make. As a senior he averaged 6.3 ppg, made one three-pointer and shot 55.3% from the line. He did have a nice A/TO ratio, but he was far from an elite PG. He wasn't even above average. And the poster has made it clear that you can't win without both "an elite PG and an elite big man."
    Well, Jumbo, since Duke doesn't have either one, the argument is probaby academic anyway for the time being.

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by evrdukie View Post
    I've had an exchange this evening with Troublemaker and Jumbo and there's a point I'd like to make about it before the thought police prevent me from further posting, which is likely to happen pretty soon now if the prior practice on this board is any evidence.

    There’s always an interesting divergence on this board between what I think of as the cheerleader fans and the critical fans. If the point of the board is to foster boundless approval of everything to do with Duke’s basketball program, there’s nothing wrong with that, if that's what most people want. Even so, it's a little troublesome that some of the moderators believe their role is to serve as censors whose primary responsibility is to ensure that nothing but orthdoxy and uncritical approval of everything to do with the coach and the basketball program is permitted. One aspect of that approach involves a tolerance for, and even encouragement of, intimidation, condescending and nasty remarks and general snarkiness. It would be better if there were room on the board for fans who are interested is seeing Duke’s basketball team do well, but who, for whatever reason, choose to preserve their critical faculties. In other words, there would be room for both faith based posters and the others. Of course, achieving that would mean that the cheerleader fans, including some of the moderators, would have to give up their practice of trying to excommunicate everybody else. The overall quality of the board would be much improved.

    It seems to me that one additional point is worth making. Larding several paragraphs of nonsense with basketball jargon, tortured statistics, and sports clichés isn’t the same as providing analysis. Every reader can form his own opinions about such junk, but all the readers shouldn't be pressured to treat such crap as the only legitimate standard for participating in the board.

    If this note marks me as an apostate who should be banished from participating, I expect to be able to deal with it. I'm not a basketball expert, just a fan like most of the rest of you. From that perspective, I've very much enjoyed reading many excellent posts by any number of very well informed observers. To all those, my thanks.
    Since you dislike cliches, I just wanted you to know that this post of yours is cookie-cutter playing-the-victim tripe. Once I saw your first line, I could've written the rest of it for you. Your cheerleading/critical-thinking false dichotomy is well-covered ground here that I just don't have the patience to discuss again right now but my guess is Jumbo will (can't spell Jumbo without Job!). In fact, there was a pinned thread dealing with more or less this exact subject that received a couple hundred replies over the course of several days, maybe weeks earlier this season. Maybe a mod can link it.

    I'll just say this:
    (1) You've been asked to argue using examples and counterexamples. You've refused and said that your points are "self-evident". How is that promoting critical thinking?
    (2) You've been as snarky as anyone, making you a ridiculous hypocrite.

  11. #91
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by evrdukie View Post
    There’s always an interesting divergence on this board between what I think of as the cheerleader fans and the critical fans. If the point of the board is to foster boundless approval of everything to do with Duke’s basketball program, there’s nothing wrong with that, if that's what most people want.
    Funny, I don't think anyone feels that way. That you see things in such a Bushian, black/white way says more about you than it does the board.

    Quote Originally Posted by evrdukie View Post
    Even so, it's a little troublesome that some of the moderators believe their role is to serve as censors whose primary responsibility is to ensure that nothing but orthdoxy and uncritical approval of everything to do with the coach and the basketball program is permitted.
    Troublemaker is not a moderator, so I have no idea why you mentioned him. Jim Sumner isn't either. I'm a moderator, and I don't think my job is to "ensure that nothing but orthdoxy and uncritical approval of everything to do with the coach and the basketball program is permitted." That sounds lovely, but a couple of weeks ago, posters were telling me I was too critical of Gerald Henderson. So, apparently, I'm both too critical and too anti-criticism. Got it.

    Quote Originally Posted by evrdukie View Post
    One aspect of that approach involves a tolerance for, and even encouragement of, intimidation, condescending and nasty remarks and general snarkiness.
    I know you love cliches, so, "Pot, meet Kettle." Here is the body of your work as a poster. It's simply stunning. I'll let the other posters judge for themselves, but a convincing argument can be made that you are a troll. Some lovely examples:

    "No, Troublemaker, you don't understand. You have to do what I say. By the way, I thought you were ending your participation in this particular thread. Anyway, your views are always welcome." -evrdukie, 3/16/07

    "Thanks, Troublemaker. Consistency seems to be your long suit. As usual when analysis fails, you can always fall back on insults. As to getting older and inevitably better, which seems to be a fixation of yours, have you wondered at all why many of the Duke players got older and more experienced between last October and this week--and didn't get any better? In fact, were demonstrably worse. Definitely something for you to think about." -evrdukie, 3/17/07

    "Sorry to dash your hopes, Troublemaker. It won't be easy, but I'll probably just have to live with your disappointment. Get a good night's sleep and you'll probably feel better in the morning." -evrdukie, 3/17/07

    Oddly, after suddenly appearing during Duke's late-season collapse and providing the bulk of your posts after the VCU game, you disappeared until (with two exceptions)... the Pitt game. Hmmm. Since then...

    "If we play UNC the way we played tonight, we'll lose by 25 points." -evrdukie, 12/20/07

    "Your principal point, which is jaw dropping, is that tonight's game was a good loss. That's preposterous." -evrdukie, 12/20/07

    "I've changed my mind. Yes, it was the best loss ever--or at least among the top two or three. I'm glad I was able to see it. And to think, we almost let the loss get away from us!" -evrdukie, 12/20/07

    "If you want to be even more depressed, contrast the Duke/Cornell game with the UNC/Clemson game now in progress." -evrduke, 1/6/08

    And, of course, there's everything else you've posted in this thread. You're right -- you haven't been condescending, snarky or nasty at all. Gotcha. In reviewing your posts, I'm hard-pressed to find one positive contribution you've made to this board.


    Quote Originally Posted by evrdukie View Post
    It would be better if there were room on the board for fans who are interested is seeing Duke’s basketball team do well, but who, for whatever reason, choose to preserve their critical faculties. In other words, there would be room for both faith based posters and the others.
    There's room for both on this board. In fact, most posters employ both qualities.

    Quote Originally Posted by evrdukie View Post
    Of course, achieving that would mean that the cheerleader fans, including some of the moderators, would have to give up their practice of trying to excommunicate everybody else. The overall quality of the board would be much improved.
    Not even close. Again, we allow for plenty of criticism. We offer it ourselves. All we ask is that people support what they say, make well-reasoned arguments, and generally debate in good faith. Which leads me to...

    Quote Originally Posted by evrdukie View Post
    Larding several paragraphs of nonsense with basketball jargon, tortured statistics, and sports clichés isn’t the same as providing analysis. Every reader can form his own opinions about such junk, but all the readers shouldn't be pressured to treat such crap as the only legitimate standard for participating in the board.
    That is so obnoxious, so pathetic and so fundamentally wrong that I actually don't know how to respond. Wait, yes I do: This is a basketball board. "Basketball jargon" and statistics (whether you feel they've been to Gitmo or not) are part of analysis. They don't represent analysis in its entirety, but to quote the motto of another fine institution, "Knowledge is Good."

    More to the point, let's come up with a hypothetical example. Say some poster decides to pronounce some grand theory of basketball. Say he/she decides that you can't be a great team "without an elite PG and an elite big man." Maybe -- just maybe -- it's incumbent on that poster to, I dunno, support that contention? I know that's a revoluationary idea in the art of debate, but if I were to decide that a theory is "self-evident," then watch multiple posters question it, maybe I'd conclude that it might not be as "self-evident" as I originally thought. Maybe I'd take a step back and reconsider my views. Maybe I'd search for examples to support them. And then if some poster completely knocked them down, I wouldn't write something like, "Who in the hell is A.J. Granger? And for that matter, Craig Fark? Does the tick tock sound seem to be coming from inside your head?" -evrdukie, 1/8/07

    You know, just hypothetically speaking and all.

    Quote Originally Posted by evrdukie View Post
    If this note marks me as an apostate who should be banished from participating, I expect to be able to deal with it. I'm not a basketball expert, just a fan like most of the rest of you. From that perspective, I've very much enjoyed reading many excellent posts by any number of very well informed observers. To all those, my thanks.
    No, you're not a fan like the rest of us. You're a fan who doesn't debate in good faith, who only seems to show up after losses, who makes grand pronouncements without any support behind them and who -- despite an admitted lack of basketball expertise -- refuses to back down when contrary evidence is offered. So, no, you aren't like the rest of us at all. Because this is a board where qualities that are the very antithesis of what you've demonstrated are prized, and whose posters contain them in spades. It's what makes this board great. You're the one who needs to adapt, not the rest of the board.

  12. #92
    Here it is, the "Culture of DBR" thread I referenced earlier: http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/...ead.php?t=4642

    It's a great thread that maybe you should read. Of course, it's not like you're REALLY interested in discussing that subject in good faith. From where I sit, it seems to me that you ran into a dead-end when pushed to give examples substantiating your points, and as a last resort, you decided to play the victim card. For someone who hates cliches, it must suck to be a walking one.

  13. #93

    EvrDukie Please seek counseling

    I'm usually a read-only participant as a break from the daily drudgery. But sometimes I interject when someone performs the foot-to-mouth maneuver with extraordinary precision and then obstinately protects ego to the end.

    Sure you have a better chance to win it all with both a top tier center and point guard. Certainly you'd have a better shot to win it all with all five positions top tier, two deep. But we have, count 'em, EIGHT Mikie D's. Are you bagging on Duke's recruiting or coaching?

  14. #94
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Jumbo View Post
    Come on, Dukie8. You know better than that. Didn't you say you were a New Yorker at one point? If so, you know Brown never lived up to his billing, was routinely ripped by his own fans, and had an undistiguished career at UConn. One game does not a season make. As a senior he averaged 6.3 ppg, made one three-pointer and shot 55.3% from the line. He did have a nice A/TO ratio, but he was far from an elite PG. He wasn't even above average. And the poster has made it clear that you can't win without both "an elite PG and an elite big man."
    i never said he was elite but when you have the best player in college, okafur, and probably the 3rd or 4th best player, gordon, your job is to run the offense, play d and not make stupid mistakes. they weren't relying on him to score so his low ppg is not that big of a deal. uconn fans may see him as their version of king rice, in terms of not living up to expectations, but he had a great game in the championship. my point was to counter your point that he was a chump. chumps don't have great nc games on both sides of the court.

    and, yes, i do live in new york but i'm not sure how that has any relevance here.

  15. #95
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama

    Identity

    Getting back to the topic, I would like to throw my $.02 into the ring. I think the real issue, for lack of a better word, is team identity. Everyone has been asking for a deeper rotation the last few years and we seem to have our wish granted this year. The underside to a deep rotation is that it can take players longer to determine their role. Here are some examples that I am seeing right now:

    1. Paulus- He was brought in last year as a pure, pass first, point guard. I remember reading DBR gush about how he saw passing lanes that other guards just didnt see. Unfortunately, it turns out that his strength, right now, comes from his outside shooting. He is one of our better, if not best, three point threats. His ability to get in the lane and create shots for others simply isnt there right now. This dilemma leads us to:

    2. Henderson and Nelson: Because our point guard is not breaking down defenses, we are relying on our wings to do most of our penetration. In my opinion, this is not a bad thing. We have two devastating wings who can get into the lane. Right now, Nelson is excelling. Henderson is still working on when to pull up, when to go to the rim and when to pass. Again, only 12 games into his second season. It's a learning process.

    3. King- 12 games into his college career and he is still struggling with what kind of player is he. Obviously, he can be lights out from anywhere on the court, but sometimes you can see it in his eyes that he has made up his mind to shoot before he even catches the ball. Right now, he is trying to think his way through the game, instead of reacting to it. Again, 12 games as a college player, he will learn his role and he will get his shots.

    4. Singler- Our best "big", but is better with the ball in his hands facing the basket. Given that our offense thrives with wing penetration, Singler is sometimes out of position. Plus, if he is facing up, that puts a lot of pressure on Henderson and Nelson to rebound missed shots, which they are doing a pretty decent job.

    Again, I think these are identity issues. Scheyer has responded quickly to his role off the bench, but he still seems unsure of when to shoot, when to drive and when to pass. This team will take some time to gel as players get used to each other, know what their shot is, and how to get a teammate his shot.

    The other aspect is the speed of the game. We want to play fast, and when our defense is creating turnovers, we have some success. I would say that our lack of a true rebounder slows us down some. The fact that Nelson and Henderson have to rebound makes it harder for us to execute a fast break off a missed shot. Right now our break is inconsistant, but I expect it will get better.

    Again, I think becuase of the small number of games which this team has played together, the inconsistency is normal. If these issues have not been worked out by the second half of ACC play, I would be worried.

  16. #96
    I am a little wary of interjecting myself in between Jumbo/troublemaker and evrdukie/dukie8 but here goes. At one time, a team may have needed an elite big man plus an elite pg to win the national title although it is not clear from my memory. My perception is that the college game has transformed during the last fifteen years and having an elite big man is desired but not a necessary condition. IMO, having a good pg is still important but it is not necessary that he be an “elite” player (see Blake, Brown, Green and others). There is no strict formula for success although talent is a pretty good start (some have suggested that you need 3 players who will play in the NBA to be a title contender but I don’t know if the data backs this up).

    By the way, Brown was a nice player, IMO. He was quick, took care of the ball and got his team into their offense, although my most distinct memory of him is a negative one. Connecticut played Oklahoma in a nationally televised game in the early 2000’s and I believe that Packer was doing the color. Oklahoma was a good team and they had a wonderful college player, Hollis Price, at pg. Brown was very quick and had a nice spin move to get by the opposition. My recollection is that Packer was very complementary about Brown’s ability to break Oklahoma’s press. Well, Brown was quick but Price was quicker. Twice, while at top speed, Brown tried his spin move on Price and both times Price reacted and took a charge in the middle of his chest. They were exceptional defensive plays and it wasn’t even close to being a block per the replays. To this day, I consider those defensive plays by Price to be among the best I’ve seen.

    gw67

  17. #97
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by dukie8 View Post
    i never said he was elite but when you have the best player in college, okafur, and probably the 3rd or 4th best player, gordon, your job is to run the offense, play d and not make stupid mistakes. they weren't relying on him to score so his low ppg is not that big of a deal. uconn fans may see him as their version of king rice, in terms of not living up to expectations, but he had a great game in the championship. my point was to counter your point that he was a chump. chumps don't have great nc games on both sides of the court.

    and, yes, i do live in new york but i'm not sure how that has any relevance here.
    I think you missed the first part of the argument. I was countering the idea that you need "an elite PG and an elite big man" to win. Clearly, by both our definitions, Brown wasn't elite. I mentioned the NY thing only because being up here, we were both exposed to tons of Brown-bashing among UConn fans.

  18. #98
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Jumbo View Post
    Funny, I don't think anyone feels that way. That you see things in such a Bushian, black/white way says more about you than it does the board.



    Troublemaker is not a moderator, so I have no idea why you mentioned him. Jim Sumner isn't either. I'm a moderator, and I don't think my job is to "ensure that nothing but orthdoxy and uncritical approval of everything to do with the coach and the basketball program is permitted." That sounds lovely, but a couple of weeks ago, posters were telling me I was too critical of Gerald Henderson. So, apparently, I'm both too critical and too anti-criticism. Got it.



    I know you love cliches, so, "Pot, meet Kettle." Here is the body of your work as a poster. It's simply stunning. I'll let the other posters judge for themselves, but a convincing argument can be made that you are a troll. Some lovely examples:

    "No, Troublemaker, you don't understand. You have to do what I say. By the way, I thought you were ending your participation in this particular thread. Anyway, your views are always welcome." -evrdukie, 3/16/07

    "Thanks, Troublemaker. Consistency seems to be your long suit. As usual when analysis fails, you can always fall back on insults. As to getting older and inevitably better, which seems to be a fixation of yours, have you wondered at all why many of the Duke players got older and more experienced between last October and this week--and didn't get any better? In fact, were demonstrably worse. Definitely something for you to think about." -evrdukie, 3/17/07

    "Sorry to dash your hopes, Troublemaker. It won't be easy, but I'll probably just have to live with your disappointment. Get a good night's sleep and you'll probably feel better in the morning." -evrdukie, 3/17/07

    Oddly, after suddenly appearing during Duke's late-season collapse and providing the bulk of your posts after the VCU game, you disappeared until (with two exceptions)... the Pitt game. Hmmm. Since then...

    "If we play UNC the way we played tonight, we'll lose by 25 points." -evrdukie, 12/20/07

    "Your principal point, which is jaw dropping, is that tonight's game was a good loss. That's preposterous." -evrdukie, 12/20/07

    "I've changed my mind. Yes, it was the best loss ever--or at least among the top two or three. I'm glad I was able to see it. And to think, we almost let the loss get away from us!" -evrdukie, 12/20/07

    "If you want to be even more depressed, contrast the Duke/Cornell game with the UNC/Clemson game now in progress." -evrduke, 1/6/08

    And, of course, there's everything else you've posted in this thread. You're right -- you haven't been condescending, snarky or nasty at all. Gotcha. In reviewing your posts, I'm hard-pressed to find one positive contribution you've made to this board.




    There's room for both on this board. In fact, most posters employ both qualities.



    Not even close. Again, we allow for plenty of criticism. We offer it ourselves. All we ask is that people support what they say, make well-reasoned arguments, and generally debate in good faith. Which leads me to...



    That is so obnoxious, so pathetic and so fundamentally wrong that I actually don't know how to respond. Wait, yes I do: This is a basketball board. "Basketball jargon" and statistics (whether you feel they've been to Gitmo or not) are part of analysis. They don't represent analysis in its entirety, but to quote the motto of another fine institution, "Knowledge is Good."

    More to the point, let's come up with a hypothetical example. Say some poster decides to pronounce some grand theory of basketball. Say he/she decides that you can't be a great team "without an elite PG and an elite big man." Maybe -- just maybe -- it's incumbent on that poster to, I dunno, support that contention? I know that's a revoluationary idea in the art of debate, but if I were to decide that a theory is "self-evident," then watch multiple posters question it, maybe I'd conclude that it might not be as "self-evident" as I originally thought. Maybe I'd take a step back and reconsider my views. Maybe I'd search for examples to support them. And then if some poster completely knocked them down, I wouldn't write something like, "Who in the hell is A.J. Granger? And for that matter, Craig Fark? Does the tick tock sound seem to be coming from inside your head?" -evrdukie, 1/8/07

    You know, just hypothetically speaking and all.



    No, you're not a fan like the rest of us. You're a fan who doesn't debate in good faith, who only seems to show up after losses, who makes grand pronouncements without any support behind them and who -- despite an admitted lack of basketball expertise -- refuses to back down when contrary evidence is offered. So, no, you aren't like the rest of us at all. Because this is a board where qualities that are the very antithesis of what you've demonstrated are prized, and whose posters contain them in spades. It's what makes this board great. You're the one who needs to adapt, not the rest of the board.
    Jumbo, why don't we just let it go before your wheels come off?

  19. #99
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    For whatever it's worth, Everdukie, not that I'm unbiased, but I think Cornell beats Clemson. Grey "you don't have to run faster or jump higher, just be there at a different time to beat your man" beard

Similar Threads

  1. Duke MBB vs. Cornell Pre-Game and In--Game Thread
    By JBDuke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 01-06-2008, 07:02 PM
  2. Duke MBB v. Barton College - In-Game and Post-Game Thread
    By JBDuke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 11-06-2007, 12:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •