New mentality for Hawks fans.

[frankthetank966]

Nice post, but dont get too cocky there my friend. We have all seen how quickly this team can go from 6-0 to .500

[sturt]

ex, it's okay.

You truly did answer ALL (...what, 10? 12? 15?...) of my questions with just the remark credited earlier. No need for any further attempts at explaining. Consider yourself completely understood. Completely.

[sturt]

Nice post, but dont get too cocky there my friend. We have all seen how quickly this team can go from 6-0 to .500

Indeed, I think we can count on hitting a period where doubt gets rekindled sometime during the season. Will we emerge from that or will we disintegrate? My guess is that that depends on to what degree the period of doubt is also a period of injury.

Right now, I think we're either a player away or a year away from serious contention.

Unfortunately, I don't see much room to maneuver for acquiring other talent, though that can change as teams give up on 2008-09.

Fortunately, we have a couple of young players whose upside can still turn-out to be significant, though maybe not substantial (Law, and I would put Solo in that category, too).

[exodus]

ex, it's okay.

You truly did answer ALL (...what, 10? 12? 15?...) of my questions with just the remark credited earlier. No need for any further attempts at explaining. Consider yourself completely understood. Completely.

So do i take it by your silence that you now finally see where the "phantom" exodus appeared in your post?

[sturt]

So do i take it by your silence that you now finally see where the "phantom" exodus appeared in your post?

Since you asked...

I think it's clear to anyone reading this that what we have here is just a misunderstanding.

You're correct that your name "ex" does appear in the quote that I quoted.

I'm correct that in the post I wrote, I neither referred to you, nor did I target you in my response.

Frankly, and truly, I didn't even consciously think about the previous quote mentioning you; rather I was only intrigued by the question, gave it a minute of thought, and began responding to the question posed.

Given our history, it was not odd for you to have reacted to my post in the way that you did--that's to say, it would not be inconsistent for me to have responded and to have had you in my crosshairs as I wrote it.

However, since I did not do that, it has been and is still my position that you overreacted. If not in the first post, in the ones that followed, I feel I made it clear that what you thought was there was not there, whether in terms of the actual words written or the intent behind those words.

So... hope that is a satisfactory response. I'm quite sure it is an accurate one.

And at the risk of further ruffling feathers, my silence was not so much a commentary on any new revelation to me from you as much as it was a commentary on the futility of expecting you to answer questions when the answers clearly would require more candor and even self-deprication than your ego allows you to put forward. You were in a corner, and seeing that "yes" or "no" got you nowhere, you effectively answered "present" by posting merry-go-round answers, by leaping to a completely different discussion about BK's record, and by simply ignoring that certain questions were even voiced.

That's all.

[exodus]

Since you asked...

I think it's clear to anyone reading this that what we have here is just a misunderstanding.

You're correct that your name "ex" does appear in the quote that I quoted.

I'm correct that in the post I wrote, I neither referred to you, nor did I target you in my response.

Frankly, and truly, I didn't even consciously think about the previous quote mentioning you; rather I was only intrigued by the question, gave it a minute of thought, and began responding to the question posed.

That's all.

When you originally asked why i took your post as being at least partially directed at me i simply referred you to the post you quoted. I thought that would be the end of that but obviously i was wrong. For some strange reason you have continued to pursue the issue even though the answer very clear.

If you had just made the post without quoting someone who was speaking directly to me then there wouldn't have been an issue.

And at the risk of further ruffling feathers, my silence was not so much a commentary on any new revelation to me from you as much as it was a commentary on the futility of expecting you to answer questions when the answers clearly would require more candor and even self-deprication than your ego allows you to put forward. You were in a corner, and seeing that "yes" or "no" got you nowhere, you effectively answered "present" by posting merry-go-round answers, by leaping to a completely different discussion about BK's record, and by simply ignoring that certain questions were even voiced.

If you really want me to regurgitate old arguments i certainly can. For example there was the time you comically clung to the belief that moving down on lottery day surely was bad luck, completely ignoring (or not understanding) the actual lottery probabilities.

Or i could talk about how you went on and on about BK having a plan and sticking to it, but then trying to rationalize the fact that BK brought in key guys (Shelden and Speedy) who didn't fit his plan at all.

Or i could go back to your laughable defense of BK's draft record. I especially liked how you were able to come up with three different draft criteria for 3 consecutive drafts, each time leading to drafting the wrong player. None of your explanations made sense at all.

But frankly I am tired of those arguments. The board saw your posts and ridiculed them. I don't really feel the need to revisit them.