SI Article: Howtofix the Hawks.

[KB21]

I don't deal with hypothetical situations.

The Nene and Voshon Lenard for Al Harrington deal was a terrible deal for the Hawks. I wanted absolutely no part of Ron Artest, ever. He'd been JR Rider all over again. The Hawks would have gotten little to nothing out of the proposed Chicago deal at the deadline when Malik Allen and Michael Sweetney were about the only pieces Chicago had on the table for the Hawks. Troy Murphy for Al Harrington was a terrible deal for the Hawks. I would have traded him for Jamaal Magloire only if Milwaukee included a 1st round pick, because Magloire is a one year and done player. With Indiana, I liked Jeff Foster, just not enough to take on Jamaal Tinsley's contract as well.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

I don't deal with hypothetical situations.

---

W

[phoostal]

How does everyone seem to know every deal offered? How do you know there weren't other offers on the table?

I just am amazed at how everyone thinks they know every offer that was out there. Maybe, just maybe there were other deals that no one knows about. If so, maybe they were better than what we were hearing.

How do we know that the deals everyone discusses are the actual deals? Maybe they weren't. Maybe there were players included or not included that no one knows about.

I just love how everyone on this site is a so called expert on all the behind the scenes stuff that takes place with the Hawks.

P

[Jdawgflow]

Quote:

---

I don't deal with hypothetical situations.

---

I am assuming that you mean this only in the context of basketball. Otherwise, I have absolutely no idea how you got this far into Med school.

This is not meant to be mean, just trying to clarify.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

How do we know that the deals everyone discusses are the actual deals?

---

The same way we knew about the Al to Indy deal a month before it actually happened. When a deal is mentioned repeatedly by the national and local media it is a safe bet it is a legit deal.

Plus some people here go to season ticket holder meetings with BK and Bernie.

[KB21]

Medicine is based on science, and science is not hypothetical.

[Jdawgflow]

I have been in Med School for less than a month, yet I have still seen multiple hypothetical cases (those dealing with mock patients in a clinical setting as well as different case analysis of hypothetical patients). Your school teaches different I guess? So everything that you have learned about or studied dealing with patients has been with live, or at least, previously seen patients? And no one has ever asked you "what if this happened, what would you do?" dealing with a patient? If this is honestly the case, it must be nice. For me, however, I would have a really hard time feeling prepared for the real world if I had never had the chance to practice dealing with hypothetical situations.

And with your quote,

Quote:

---

Medicine is based on science, and science is not hypothetical.

---

this is very debateable, IMHO. Most of what I have learned over the years in science classes fits the dictionary definition of hypothetical. This definition is:

1. assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.

2. of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis: hypothetical reasoning.

3. given to making hypotheses.

4. Logic. a. (of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.

I don't know about you, but the scientific method was what I was taught in science classes. And that method hinges on hypotheses. As a matter of fact, the thing that scientists continued to ingrain in us was that experimentation cannot prove anything true, it can only prove things false.

In the case of medicine, doctors continue to use the scientific method (ie. formulating hypotheses) daily to hopefully find ways to better understand our bodies. That is how we continue to further our "present knowledge". And the reason it is "present" is because another hypothesis usually comes along that makes more sense.

Finally, and I know this is off-topic (and I know I will probably get flamed and called an idiot by you), but why do you always seem to say everything as an absolute? Do you really believe that your ideas and ways of doing things are always right? And why do you feel the need to put everyone down so much?

I am sorry if those questions are offensive. It just seems odd to me that you won't just admit sometimes that you don't have all the answers. Also, you usually have some great points when you make arguments for or against stuff that the Hawks do. Why not just let those points stand for themselves without you needing to bash people (I am not saying that you did this lately because, to be honest, I have not had the opportunity to read the board as much...but I do know you have often done this in the past). Anyways, flame away. It justs seems to me, again IMU(neducated)HO, that showing some humility would really cause MORE people to respect your opinion rather than less.

[Swatguy]

Quote:

---

Anyone ever find out what unpardonable sin that Ken Norman ever committed to be banished by Wilkins?

---

Snake had a bad back. You know a bad back can be very difficult to diagnose. The question might be, What sin did Wilkens commit. Every time i saw Snake he was smilling, well dressed and well paid. Al Henderson got the same back thing, right after Snake (hehe) retired.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Finally, and I know this is off-topic (and I know I will probably get flamed and called an idiot by you), but why do you always seem to say everything as an absolute? Do you really believe that your ideas and ways of doing things are always right? And why do you feel the need to put everyone down so much?

---

The answer to your questions is really quite simple. KB needs a checkup from the neck up.

For example (hypothetical scenario) if BK traded JJ for Homey the Clown KB would say it was a great move since Homey the Clown don't play around.

[Final_quest]

You are basically wasting your time Jdawg.

Besides KB doesn't come here to read what anyone has to say. He posts because we need him to post, to receive his knowledge and insight. His words not mine.

[KB21]

Quote:

---

I have been in Med School for less than a month, yet I have still seen multiple hypothetical cases (those dealing with mock patients in a clinical setting as well as different case analysis of hypothetical patients). Your school teaches different I guess? So everything that you have learned about or studied dealing with patients has been with live, or at least, previously seen patients? And no one has ever asked you "what if this happened, what would you do?" dealing with a patient? If this is honestly the case, it must be nice. For me, however, I would have a really hard time feeling prepared for the real world if I had never had the chance to practice dealing with hypothetical situations.

---

Those situations you speak about are situations that your professors have actually experienced, therefore they are not hypothetical situations. Even with that said, you don't start to actually learn this stuff until you get to your third year rotations and actually experience it. That's when it starts to stick. You can practice as many H&P's as you want to in so called hypothetical situations, but you don't really get a grasp for it until you are on the floor getting the information from a new admit.

Quote:

---

And with your quote, Medicine is based on science, and science is not hypothetical.

this is very debateable, IMHO. Most of what I have learned over the years in science classes fits the dictionary definition of hypothetical. This definition is:

1. assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.

2. of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis: hypothetical reasoning.

3. given to making hypotheses.

4. Logic. a. (of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.

I don't know about you, but the scientific method was what I was taught in science classes. And that method hinges on hypotheses. As a matter of fact, the thing that scientists continued to ingrain in us was that experimentation cannot prove anything true, it can only prove things false.

In the case of medicine, doctors continue to use the scientific method (ie. formulating hypotheses) daily to hopefully find ways to better understand our bodies. That is how we continue to further our "present knowledge". And the reason it is "present" is because another hypothesis usually comes along that makes more sense.

---

A hypothesis is nothing more than an educated guess. It's what the scientist sets out to prove. The experiment that happens proves whether the hypothesis was correct or not. If proven, the hypothesis then becomes a theory. When Amylin came out with their new diabetic drugs Byetta and Symilin, they didn't get approval from the FDA based on their hypothesis that these drugs will help lower blood sugar as good as the combination of metformin and sulfonylureas or the hypothesis that it helps patients lose weight. The approval came about because of the extensive studies that were done and the results those studies produced.

Quote:

---

Finally, and I know this is off-topic (and I know I will probably get flamed and called an idiot by you), but why do you always seem to say everything as an absolute? Do you really believe that your ideas and ways of doing things are always right? And why do you feel the need to put everyone down so much?

I am sorry if those questions are offensive. It just seems odd to me that you won't just admit sometimes that you don't have all the answers. Also, you usually have some great points when you make arguments for or against stuff that the Hawks do. Why not just let those points stand for themselves without you needing to bash people (I am not saying that you did this lately because, to be honest, I have not had the opportunity to read the board as much...but I do know you have often done this in the past). Anyways, flame away. It justs seems to me, again IMU(neducated)HO, that showing some humility would really cause MORE people to respect your opinion rather than less.

---

First of all, I could really care less if the people I target with my comments respect my opinion or not. [censored] them. Secondly, I don't think I'm the one on this message board that needs to admit that I don't have all the answers. The ones that constantly criticize everything the Hawks do and continue to say that Billy Knight is making mistakes are the ones that need to step up and say that they don't have all the right answers. The reality of that will hit when you have to go into the room with a patient and tell them that they have pancreatic cancer.

Unlike them, I know that there are different ways that things could be accomplished.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Secondly, I don't think I'm the one on this message board that needs to admit that I don't have all the answers. The ones that constantly criticize everything the Hawks do and continue to say that Billy Knight is making mistakes are the ones that need to step up and say that they don't have all the right answers.

---

I posted a heading, "10 moves I like that BK has done". I asked others to post what they did or didn't like based upon whether they didn't like or did like BK overall. I posted it for everyone to acknowledge the fact that regardless of our overall opinion of him, we can agree to respect both sides by acknowledging the wrong and right of his tenure. I asked everyone to respond including you. Your response? "BK has made no mistakes. I love everything he has done."

Despite the fact we all know that to be untrue, given you HATED SW and loved Roy before BK picked differently, you ARE the ONLY person who hasn't admitted you don't have all the answers and the very one who has the least.

W

P.S. With your mindset, your patients will tell you to [censored] off. Medicine is increasingly evidenced based, but decreasingly science. There is a difference. Evidence is what the pharmaceutical, medical device, and often physicians themselves put forth as science. I can make just about any statistical analysis work with enough chi square this and MANOVA that. "Evidence" may be the best method we've got, but its fast becoming abused.

[joannes3000]

Once again, anyone that even mentions the Diaw trade in the context that the article put it in is a moron. I dismissed the article at that point.

1. Really? Now that's outside-the-box thinking.

2. How about sticking with JJ because he IS a star. And as much as a "fill the arena" type of star would help with ticket sales (and as much as I like the idea of bringing in AI), are we willing to disrupt team chemistry with a "me first" type of star at the same time?

3. Again, Hawks fans have been saying this for years!

4. Agreed.

5. I've seen worse, mainly old Astros jerseys.

[phoostal]

All I am trying to see is that it would be foolish to think that we are getting the whole story behind all the trades and dealings that are going on behind the scenes.

Why would the team reveal everything to the media or fans? They lose leverage in deals by taking that approach.

I don't think everything always appears what they seem. Yet, most think what they see or hear is the absolute truth.

P