sturt

Must be a browser problem (?). I keep getting this instead.

I'm not generally one to admire something Adam Silver says, but that's more often than not been a product of his contentment to politicize his league's presentation of itself. In this case, at first glance anyway, I think there's substance to what he's saying... though, let's face it, any comparison with the NFL--a game that people will spend a week between games discussing both players' athleticism and coaches' strategic decisions--is inherently going to fall flat because the strategic element isn't as easy to diagnose... ie, what are they doing different this time down the floor as opposed to the last time or 5 minutes ago or at the beginning of the game or earlier in the season... and isn't as easy to assess... ie, what's the rationale for the decisions the coaches made, and why is that rationale smart or not so much? There are other big elements missing in these quotes, though maybe touched on in the broader conversation. For instance, that the NBA plays so many games that, like MLB, the build-up for any given game inherently can't be all that attention-getting. And also like MLB, that seems to lend itself to a whole lot less interest for Joe and Jane Fan beyond his/her own team. So. Yeah. It's complicated. And the only safe conclusion I come to is that if the NBA wants to grow so much as to challenge the NFL a generation from now, there would need to be some large-scale... and thus, risky... changes attempted that go pretty far beyond merely adding an (ill-conceived) in-season tournament.

To the contrary, life is good, @kg01.... to the contrary, don't fear the reaper... the "other side" is nice, calm, sweet.

Feels weird to reply to a Spud post, but I can't help but observe that we live in a culture that will cancel me if I paint my face black to portray a black guy... does it work the other way around???... pardon me, I'm only curious. I'm guessing it's all good. Then again, does Kevin still identify as a white Canadian? Maybe not. Maybe that's the angle Spud can use, besides the fact he lives in the Bay area where I'm sure fewer people are sensitive to that kind of thing. I'm sure.

Nah. That's a good way to think of me these days. Not dead as-in non-existent. Just selectively haunting the place at times of my own choosing, and never having anything to do with the current team as-if a living fan.... hehe.

Happened on this. Pardon, New York is calling in... Foul. Flagrant 1. The Nate hate just comes too easy to people. At least, Jay, have the scruples to set-up the quote within the context it was said. Then, you have license to be critical to your heart's content. Nate defines what "development" means as he is using it. This was a team that had, for years, "put them out there and let them play"... to "give minutes" as opposed to demanding a player earn minutes. This was, at that point, a team that had recently turned the corner from development to gunning for a championship. Virtually every one of us, you included, bought into that same vision or none of us would have been so upset when the 2021-22 and 2022-2023 teams fell short of... our expectations. Indeed, there routinely were covid-related, reasonable explanations for his major decisions. (In that vein, it's absurd how some people so conveniently forgot how green Jalen was in his rookie season, unlikely to contribute, though wearing rose-colored glasses now, sliding past any consideration of the fact he'd literally played something like 25 games of organized basketball at any level since his junior year of high school. I personally wished Nate would have taken the chance and inserted Jalen into the rotation after JC went down with the finger injury; and, I think Nate quite possibly would have been rewarded though I cannot be certain of it. None of us can. At the same time, I understood why Nate made the choice he did, and I could only argue it was the wrong decision with any certainty if the team had failed after all to make the post season. But they did.) Where you're not wrong is that Nate erred on the side of trusting in and playing his vets, as had been his history. No question. He wanted a trophy. We all did. His motivation was beyond criticism. He believed the best way to get there was to lean on experience, as most head coaches do, but sure, arguably he tended to lean more than most... and that strategic paradigm (not motivation) deserves some criticism, I agree. But my point is it's misleading to make it sound like Nate had no justification for saying what he said. Our memories are too short, and our judgmental attitudes too sharp-edged... in my opinion.

Which is fine, but not without the green from the Pistol Pete unis.

Begs the question... who's driving that train behind closed doors. Until this year, it hadn't been apparent that Yeka was pushing it b/c, at least as far as I ever saw, the ones using it were a couple or three teammates, Nate, and Travis... and/but mostly Hawks social media employees who, one might be inclined to figure, truly might not know that there is a real Big O. Suspicious to me that Yeka apparently said at some point (... not sure I read this first hand... think someone here had claimed to have read it, and I took their word for it... ) that he'd been given the nickname when he was in middle school... easy to make the connection, then, that he may have shared that with one of his teammates, who then began calling him that, and others latched on as well. But if none of that is true after all, it makes it more plausible to think it just originated with someone on the team, without Yeka's implicit endorsement.

It's funny to learn... maybe everyone else knows this, but I didn't... that Oscar was apprehensive about "Big O" at first b/c he knew that if he didn't perform well, he'd quickly become known as the Big Zero.... hehe. Go ahead. Ask him, Onyeka. Don't be shy. Who knows. Maybe he'll tell you he's kind of tired of the brand at this point anyway, and would rather hand it off to someone else to have to live up to. Why not?

So, at least there is some semblance of a substantive response to give reply... I'm big on seeing glasses half full. So, this is just great. Appreciate the effort. Unfortunately, we covered this at some point, iirc.... and even if we didn't, surely what I'm about to say isn't new to you, or if it is, may I suggest to you Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl. It will very possibly change your life. For the better. 1. If what is right is to be measured by what things are relative to how other things are, then you're what we call a relativist... so in current events terms, "It's not like Onyeka is a member of Hamas and slashed babies heads off... so, given that, whoever is holding Onyeka accountable for disrespecting an old man who has lived a full life and now needs to just be content with the pasture... those people need to lighten up." Relativist thinking is great. It lets us all off the hook because there is almost always someone who has done something that is worse. We love relativist thinking, at least as long as someone doesn't do something to us... then we yell and scream for justice, whether it's that guy who double parked and made me have to walk 100 extra yards to get into Walmart, or that guy who did that thing I would never do at work in order to get promoted, or [insert offense here]. Accountability really only matters depending on "how does it impact me." 2. If what is right is to be measured by what things are popular to promote or to condemn, then you're what we call a populist... so, in current events terms, "We're members of Hamas, and tomorrow morning, we're taking a paraglider over the Gaza walls... and while we know the world outside will take a dark view of the offense once the news breaks, all that actually matters is that our own people either support what we're about to do, or are apathetic about what we're about to do. So given that, unless there is outrage among fans of the Hawks about this stolen valor thing, it's all good. Populist thinking is great. It lets the majority off the hook because, well, they're the majority. There is never a minority opinion that is ethically valid. We love populist thinking, at least as long as we're in the majority, and in fact, some of us even bend our ethics to consistently fit with whatever the majority opinion happens to be on Issue X or Y or Z. Accountability really only matters depending on "how many people agree with me." The notable common denominator in those two? It's all about who? "Me." The relativist "me". And/or the populist "me". But either way... "me." Ironic. So ironic. But I don't make the rules, I only know what they are, and I don't pretend they don't exist. The very person who stands up for an old man's honor in this dialogue... and just being fair to me since no one else appears to be especially inclined to do so... the very person who actually gets nothing for his trouble other than the satisfaction that the issue is being raised enough that a few more people are prompted to think about the ethics of all this (... aside: possibly sports' greatest value, in fact, is that it sometimes forces people who otherwise wouldn't think about ethics to think about ethics... ) ... is the person who gets maligned... in this case, not just by the unemployed comics seeking to make their mark but by legitimate relativists and populists... the "we measure ethic according to how me is affected" people. The center is what is best for self. Empathy be damned. Irony, or hypocriticism? Dunno. And it doesn't matter anyway because even illuminating that just makes it more unlikely that any of those people will be moved to reconsider their thinking. Self-assessment (or "accountability") not a priority. (Who knew?) Changing gears, at least slightly, there are a lot of visitors to this site. Don't fool yourself. Not everyone posts. Not everyone re-visits threads they've already read, so not everyone even expresses themselves emoji-ly (... yes, that's a word, or it is now ). So. To you stuck on the populist paradigm, who cannot figure out if it's murder unless someone else calls it murder first... and even then, require a vote... let it comfort you that, no, I'm not alone. I can safely say that much. Very safely. There is an ethical adult audience here, plural, and, at least some, either have enjoyed or are still enjoying how this is going. Some usernames you might know, some you probably don't. (Remember, some of us go back to the very start.) No surprise, I will continue to speak primarily to them when I post on this topic.... if I ever do... let's see if Onyeka figures it out, though. I like to think most people have a general inclination to live by the four-way test.

That said, @AHF, I'm not as completely dismissive of the unserious posts as I've let on. There is an implicit sadness that people appear to be so persuaded... and this doesn't just apply to posters on this board, but in political circles, too... that they have no power to have any influence. They excuse themselves from doing what they can, as a consequence. They quit caring. They are quick to presume things don't matter, perhaps even as a way to justify to themselves that they point fingers at everyone else but themselves. I just got back a month ago from spending time with my wife's family. The poverty there (Philippines) is crushing. Few poor Americans live under those conditions. Can't help but feel we take far too much for granted. The malaise... the apathy... some there feel is so much more justified, and yet, of those I know anyway, they don't get sucked into that and let it dominate their opinions of what is important, what they should care about. Admirable. Probably something for the Politics & Religion forum ultimately.

(like I said above, @AHF ... when people tell me they're not serious, that they have nothing to offer a conversation, I believe them. Nothing to me, tho amusing I suppose in some small way that it matters to them so much to try as hard as they do as persistently as they do.)

To which, Gray, I say... exactly. The confusion is unnecessary. And to which I say, too... please chew on your thinking a little here... the analogy you've chosen suggests equivocation (there is not, since one is vastly superior to the other) and an absence of any ethical concern (there is not, since most of us who appreciate/honor those due appreciation/honor consider that to be an ethical value all ought to embrace, not just some)... that, it's just a matter of an older version and a newer version. But the confusion is less the issue than the ethics... this has never been attempted, and it's never been attempted for reason. Why are you wanting to defend this? I don't understand.

Not my audience. But I wish those kids great orgasms. Nothing to me.

Thanks for asking a legit question. The point of it here, I suppose, is that (a) yes, some people here appear to not just be yanking someone else's chain in order to achieve their own form of orgasm, and I'm led to that conclusion because they actually have attempted on occasion to make an argument to that conclusion. And one is left to presume that that hasn't changed for those individuals since they've not come back to a thread to talk about why/how they've changed their minds. Then, (b) more publicly, Hawks social media have pushed the brand strikingly as-if unaware/uninformed. And (c) strikingly, players continue to occasionally reference the young pup by that, so there's acceptance there. (As did the former GM and former head coach... not being one to watch pressers anymore, I cannot speak with any confidence about the current ones either way.) The point, then, going along with your own paradigm, Soth, is that Hawks fans have it in their power to either actively go along, endorsing the immature kid's unprecedented attempt to wear a legend's brand... passively go along, leaving the impression it's all okay no matter what degree of conflicted feelings they have about it... or actively, pointedly, reject his pursuit in clear terms, whether out of a motive of affection for legends in general or real Big O specifically, or whether out of a motive of... and get this... saving the kid from himself... because as you suggest, Soth, if/when he would ever become good enough that anyone outside of Hawkdom notices, there's going to be what amounts to a public spanking of Onyeka by national NBA media for having the balls to do what he's doing. So. Look. Speaking to every person reading this, if you're one who wants to be and is going to be helpful, right now is that moment, not later. Yeka's on the precipice of becoming a starter in the opinion of many. He will become a figure of derision if he doesn't figure it out and change course, and same idea but from his own positive perspective, he has it in his power like any NBA player does to build his own brand. To the degree he insists on persisting with Big O, that's not going to go well. It really will be that much worse, in my opinion, than just going after any other NBA legend because there is an inherent ungratefulness implicit with a young man imposing on, not just a great player, but a person whose life has achieved great things for all NBA players off the court (free agency), and in particular, black players (civil rights work). He's going to get scoured. How hard is it to see that? For his own good, his family, his agent... and you, his fans... need to correct what has already gotten too far out of hand, as demonstrated by his using the media day as his coming-out party, where he clearly wanted to begin promoting himself under someone else's brand. That's why it's important. It's not super important. But it is important. At least, that is, to anyone who sees what Soth sees... this is going to end up being yet another reason that media and fans outside of Hawks-dom will have to look down on Hawks-dom... in so many words, it will go something like "Look at those inferior idiots who don't have any better scruples than that. And if any of them did see it coming, they chose to be silent... they didn't even bother to merely post on the most popular Hawks internet board to discourage the bad faith on Okongwu's part. Ridiculous."

Of course you have. And it's terribly arrogant for me to point out, but since when have I ever been concerned about that... people get frustrated when they have a conclusion they prefer, and/but someone is able to support a different conclusion pretty solidly, and worse, able to surgically take apart whatever objections they've raised. That's why they complain. Hey. I could complain. Right? Couldn't I? Aren't I the one taking all the meaningless insults? I'm the one being mocked. And I'm the one, still, being complained about because the insults and mockery don't appear to have any effect... that darn sturt just won't be knocked off his laser focus on substance. It bothers people, I'm sure. Enough that the frustration causes them, eventually not seeing any of the desired reaction, take it to a higher court. I could complain. I don't complain. Because I understand that while there is an audience for all the silly crap, that's not my audience. That other audience defines themselves by their behavior. For the audience I look to appeal to, they recognize the difference between themselves and the rest... I have no need to draw those lines, they're vivid enough for the perceptive to pick up on. You say that. But that's up to Onyeka, not me. Not you, either. And "status quo" is opaque... likely to be stretched to mean whatever the complainers will want it to mean. If there is new news, though, there is new news. Onyeka has not already kicked this up to the volume he potentially could decide to kick it up to, nor the Hawks as an organization. If I may, AHF... this is different than complaining that Poster X is disrespecting Poster Y and other insiders, openly derisively insulting him as a liar. Those were/are valid complaints. That got personal, and there was a whole lot of excuse-making, and no pretense of remorse going on. This isn't anything like that. Arguments have been attacked, but no persons (... well, again... except for you know... me). I have not insulted any person. I have aggressively taken aim and fired at what few challenges were fired at my conclusion and support for my conclusion. Not people. Arguments. So, look. I'm not the boss of you or anyone else here. Pardon the observation but I'm not persuaded you've thought very far ahead on this, and rather, that you're reacting to complainers who are complaining because their attempts at using mockery and very little in the way of substance as a counter to my posts have proven so impotent that it's half frustrating, half embarrassing to them. You're trying to cool the mob. But the next time Onyeka ratchets up this issue, will the title of this thread necessarily call attention to how he chose to ratchet it up? Probably not. "The Big O (real, not fake)" is a thread created to achieve what it did achieve... as demonstrated... people readily understood, "Damn... it's pretty absurdly ridiculous that a 4th year non-starter wants to force someone with that resume' to share his brand." For instance, let's say it's announced that the NBA is going to re-allow players just for the new mid-season tournament to wear jerseys with their nicknames. And, predictably, Onyeka makes it apparent he will wear Big O. Sorry but that's unavoidably news. That's new news. That's ratcheting things up to a new level. Hiding the conversation inside an old thread under such a generic title is exactly what the complainer mob will want to happen, though. What's the right thing to do? Probably appeal to the complainer mob. I get it. I don't have to like it. And I don't have to be scared to point out they are who they are, and that situation would be what that situation would be. First part last, we both know that the previous conversation was killed off, and maybe for a variety of reasons... I wasn't privy to your admin discussions, of course, and I don't even think I was paying attention to the thread when that decision was made... if memory serves, it was days if not a week later before I even knew it'd been shut down. But that's all okay. I'm not really angry about that. I presumed at the time that some posters got unhinged, and of course, the title was inflammatory to some. At the same time... repeating myself because obviously it merits repeating... why this topic and not myriad others that get overlapped and overlapped literally within a page or two of each other? I'm just one of those people that believe, until you establish a generic standard that is grounded in being unbiased toward anyone or any topic, all you're really accomplishing by issuing this edict is to affirm that complaints don't need to have any actual merit in order for complainers to achieve the desired outcome. I've done nothing wrong here. Is 5x (assuming that number is right) in a year excessive to reintroduce the conversation? How many threads are there in a year? What is the ratio? Dunno. But regardless, I argue the right number is... the same as whatever the "right number" is for any other discussion... it's a matter of how often something came up to prompt the conversation. That's how it should be. For all people, for all topics. G'nite.

I don't know about 5, but maybe if you go back 12 months, you'll find 5. Maybe. Possible. I'm thinking it's 4, but whatever. I do know that the only time in recent memory that a thread was started, it got shut down. (I've let you know privately my thoughts on that decision, and let it go as far as this board is concerned. In fact, you'll be pleased to know that some of what you'd suggested resonated with me, and prompted me to ascend to the idea that... (a) though the King Kong thing may catch on with non-Hawks fans (who have no pre-set affinity for OO, obviously) and (b) may have hit OO squarely between the eyes in making the point that if you, OO, can't respect others worthy of respect, then it is also true that you are not worthy of respect in that vein... and too, (c) that I consider the only way for us to get past this kind of crap as a society is to actually stop being so presumptively allergic to avoid terms that, by our actual allergy, we are helping to sustain racist concepts (!) over the generations (!!!)... it would drive Hawks fans away unnecessarily because of the acutely sharp nature of the term. So, for our purposes here, counterproductive in a way that it wouldn't be counterproductive elsewhere necessarily.) All due respect, did you prefer I go dig up a thread from 6 months ago, and resurrect that? Just trying to put myself in the shoes of a mod/admin, I just don't get the reaction here. It's one thread. Among dozens. And for the most part, it's been kept within some guardrails of appealing to substance (... though, I cannot speak for any mods' modifying work, of course). If that's going to be the strict standard, then if consistently applied, that's going to have a much broader affect than just this topic... on any given day that one visits the board, comparing, say, even just two pages worth of threads, there's some significant overlap in topics that such a standard would have demanded threads be eliminated. So, just being forthright and honest... this almost certainly won't be the last, unless (a) OO gets a blessing from Oscar to use his brand, (b) OO decides to embrace something else after all, or decides simply to tell those in his circle to stop using it, or (c) you and your friends in authority make it that way, and put the censoring hex on any further conversation... of those, one sticks out as far more likely than the other two... and yet, all I can ask is that you and your friends in authority to exercise discernment. You generally have always gotten kudos from me for your discernment, with a couple of notable exceptions the details of which I've mostly forgotten about on-purpose. But I also get the plausible point that it matters that my Hawks fandom is on hiatus until the owner sells the team or that there is explicitly visible and overwhelming evidence that the hamster wheel conclusion has been proven incorrect after all.... one's input is less welcome under those circumstances, and when others complain, no doubt, mods/admins feel they have to act in favor of those who make the board viable. Well taken, if that's so.

True. False. And that you present it that way is so ironic, because it demonstrates the problem... you... dismissed... the rationale/logic presented... rather than wrestle with the substance of the response that came back, you feel you can just dismiss it as "because it doesn't align with your opinion." No, RE. I said that it was fine for the kid OO to do that. I asserted that that all changes when you actually ascend to the being in the big leagues. I supported that conclusion, by simple logic... there is no ground for Oscar Robertson to get upset that a kid who doesn't even play in the NBA is enjoying the aplomb of borrowing the Big O brand. But then, simply logically, the analogy is stout that there would be nearly-unanimous mocking if a kid that had been referenced as the Human Highlight Film over his HS and college career came into the NBA and made an explicit effort to try to continue to promote himself as that... it never happens, and it never happens for-reason... such a move would be considered by those who knew about it, and especially us Hawks fans, and maybe most especially by Nique himself... as immature and disrespectful... but/and at the same time, weird... like, why would you even want to do that when there are so many other options... you can own your own brand (!). Why be so stubborn to hold on to what, you knew when you were a kid, had been attached for eternity to someone else? [Insults deleted] Rather, what I offered was substantive reasoning... deserving of either agreement (like that would ever happen, I know. I know), or disagreement supported by substance. Address what was said, or don't. But mischaracterizing it is evidence you're just that tightly-gripped to your preferred conclusion, and see that as your only alternative since you see no better way to respond... and certainly aren't going to let yourself be able to separate the person you dislike from the conclusion you don't want to agree with. Of the two of us, I speak down to other arguments/conclusions presented. I take issue with the issue. You're welcome to consider that nefarious, but I don't (obviously). It's kinda, to me, the main thing we do on internet boards. And to the degree we keep things about the issue... (aside, a hallmark of this board through the decades, and that's thanks to all of us, and maybe me least of all if you go back and read things I posted when I was younger and more immature... ) we do discussion well. [Moderator - Insulting other people is not allowed on the site so we are not defending insults to others] So, in that spirit, I leave you with this vivid example. I've not insulted you here. I've called out how you've responded, but that's different than calling you stupid or dumb or disingenuous. It just is. [As we've previously discussed, calling someone's post fake is not ok here. Critiquing their ideas is fine.] But yeah, it's your right. You can interpret whatever however you feel led to interpret, and conclude accordingly. And it's okay for me (or anyone else) to choose to stick to substance. I highly recommend it [Streamline] All I've got is some healthy respect for education, for sound reasoning, and for some widely-held principles/virtues like honoring those who are due honor and disrespecting disrespectful behaviors by those who choose not to. That's my right. (I really do have to get to work on my honey-do weekend project now, so by all means, crucify me if I come back to read anything else this weekend.)

Um. How did we go from "no one would ever confuse Onyeka with Oscar"... to this? Dunno. But yeah, if people want to sign over their own capacity to reason to the morality of a soul-less machine that... if you do your homework you understand... is just manufacturing its outputs according to trillions and trillions of binary code... that's their call. Not me (obviously). Pick your favorite argument your Chat GPT friend has made... I'm up for it, and won't even accuse you of falling for the cheese, nor accuse you of being self-absorbed... it's not my way. EDIT: I should add, however, I probably don't have any more time to spare today on any of this, and probably not until Tuesday or Wednesday at the earliest. But I'm altogether content to engage whatever point you feel the machine makes that is especially important... and who knows, might even agree with the machine. Intellectual humility being something I aspire to, anyhow, even if I occasionally fail.

[Post focused on other posters removed]

Bro, if you're going to judge every discussion by how popular the discussion is... that also has some implicit downstream undesirable consequences. That's your right, but it's definitely a difference between how the two of us think about what is important to think about. Momentary popularity of an issue or prospective issue has little to do with my calculus. To me, your view is in its essence the equivalent of saying "What's the big deal if some people got killed and some others got taken hostage.... I mean, it's the real world, it happens with some regularity." That's absolutely true. But the implications of some murders and some hostage-taking can have bigger implications downstream, depending on the context. To be fair to your point, this discussion is indeed almost completely confined to us in Hawks fandom because, well, hardly anyone in the US population beyond us even know that Onyeka Okongwu is a professional basketball player. And even among the NBA population, he's not a household name. And then, even among those who know who he is and how much/little he's accomplished, not that many know he's staked claim to the brand of an NBA legend. To be fair to my point... well, I don't even need to be fair to my point... my point is well laid out above. It matters for the reasons I've outlined. The popularity of the issue is irrelevant to any of the points made... which might be why you choose to highlight popularity, given that there's no good way to debunk/de-legitimize anything outlined above... you have a preferred conclusion, so... with all due respect, and I do respect you as a matter of routine... you don't bother with the substance, but argue with some peripheral something that has no relevance to the points made.

And not just physically, now that he's been so public these last few weeks that he wants to be called that. Look. To Soth's point, yes, no one mistakes him for Oscar. Or ever will. And so... begs hard the question... why does he choose, referencing AHF's common point that is maybe most salient of all the points made, not to endorse/embrace a brand that he can forever claim for himself, given that there is an entire universe of other options... ie, why limit his own marketability for all time... why presume "Well, I'll never be good enough anyhow to be all that marketable anyways." [Insults deleted] And to my point, why be that disrespectful so as to presume you're not offending an irrefutable legend?... I mean, let's get real, I completely lose interest in this conversation the moment that we learn that Onyeka respected Oscar enough to approach him and gain real Big O's blessing. At that point, who would have any grounds for accusing Onyeka of immaturity?... or circling back to where this began... of labeling him, accurately both in terms of (relative to others at his position) stature and in terms of (relative to other civilized, educated, morally-coded human beings) character... The Small O? No one. That's what this is all about, for me at least. It's just a moral imperative to me that we honor people worthy of honor, no matter who they are or what uniform they ever wore... and perhaps especially if it's someone older, who easily gets looked down upon as too old to matter... and perhaps especially especially if it's someone who, not only was a champion on the court, but who blazed a trail for others in support of their financial advancement (ie, Onyeka makes a big salary today in large part because of Oscar's work decades ago)... and their social advancement (ie, Onyeka, as a black man, enjoys an undeniably-more-equitable/diverse/inclulsive America because of those, like Oscar, who stood very publicly for the civil rights movement and continued to do so throughout his life). I mean, the entire social construct of caring about a professional sport is rooted in the idea that some people are, by any definition, "great" at it... George Herman Ruth, aka "The Babe"... Walter Payton, aka "Sweetness"... Wayne Gretzky, aka "The Great One"... or not even at that level of achievement but important to a lot of us... Dominique Wilkins, aka "The Human Highlight Film"... we would know knee-jerk to mock anyone who ever even barely tried to adopt one of those brands as his own... yet, here we are, having to have this conversation... makes no sense, and never has... If you're not going to give the "greats" their proper regard in every way but particularly the most simple ways such as granting a great's brand as his exclusive brand... what are we even doing here?!?!?!?!? None of it matters if we're going to throw greats into the pile with all the everymans and lesser. None of it. If honor becomes that disposable, that temporary, then it's all just flaky hyperbole... all BS... all a considerable nothing burger. [Insults removed] [Treat the man and the name with the respect it deserves.]

In case there would be any confusion [especially for anyone] hired by Hawks to do social media. As far as I would know (which isn't saying much, I admit), the new GM, the new HC, and the TV broadcast crew have only referred to Onyeka as.... wait for it... Onyeka. Thankfully, some Hawks people understand well the absurdity of the hubris here [given Oscar Robertson's historic role in the NBA]. Education is key. It always is.

Never mind me, but I can't help but remind... the Bey as a back-up PF experiment back when I was a Hawks fan was about as tragic a defensive fail as we ever see in the NBA. He was repeatedly roasted in that role, though yes, not excellent in the SF role defensively either. Good luck with that, tho.