HAWKS ARE NOT LOOKING TO TRADE!!

[sturt]

4 minutes ago, Diesel said:

bucket hat references

 

[Diesel]

2 hours ago, sturt said:

But to your question... yes... you get me it would seem... in essence, we assign credibility based on reputation of a person... not letters behind their name. Letters help. Letters do not on their own convey to me, "Trust this guy, he knows what he's talking about." And, for reasons according to you, as far as I can tell, I've already used too many words to explain.

It is a new day and time my friend...  You have to catch up.   Expertise and success is no longer about what you have earned in an academic environment.

Shannon Sharp, Jeff Teague, and Draymond Green can become "New Media" and hold more weight among those who want to know about the sport than any Northwestern trained Journalist.   So you can no longer attack the source... you have to deal with the source's output.  Thus, when you went after the author and not what he said, there's very little justification for your position.   I mean you can stand there and piss in the wind, but you will probably get pissy. 

[shakes]

25 minutes ago, sturt said:

I don't know what that means. And I'm sure that shakes, like me, is scared to ask.

oh I know what it means.   He's trying to fashion shame me.  Won't work @macdaddy , I'm proud of my bucket hats.    

 

can  you eat soup out of any of your hats in a pinch??  Didn't think so.

[sturt]

22 minutes ago, Diesel said:

you have to deal with the source's output. 

 

Damn.

Read, Diesel.

At least when I write a lot, I write to support a point.

This thing of repeating yourself (... lots of words... ) because you don't even ascertain that your refrain long ago was put to bed.... how do I put this in a way that a mod would accept... that's not you being your best self today. ... yeah, that's the ticket.
 

Quote

 

Mind you, the leading reason for disregarding this blogger's work is not his lack of regard educationally or professionally. You do a disingenuous disservice to the conversation to pretend that that's all I laid out. (To be fair to you, it was the first thing I laid out, so it I get it why you'd give that the focus you do... but I only went there first because I started with where the blogger started rather than where he ended up.)

The leading reason for disregarding the blogger's work is contained in the quote immediately above... he gave us no substantiation whatsoever that would allow us to see where he got his numbers.

That's not my fault, nor yours.

But finishing up, you need to be more discerning... you're too easily misled in a world that is full of internet bloggers anxious to persuade you to empty conclusions. This one, not nefarious, but a lot of them are (risking stating the obvious).

 

 

[Spud2nique]

43 minutes ago, Gray Mule said:

Hawks haven't pulled off

Like cagey used to PULL OUUUTTT  

[Diesel]

3 hours ago, sturt said:

At least when I write a lot, I write to support a point.

[Diesel]

This is every squawker's reaction when they run across a long post that tries to support a point with overwriting...

Spoiler

 

[sturt]

If that's the best you can do, that's the best you can do.

Me, I feel a lot better about either (a) reading... or (b) not reading, and respectfully telling the other person I just don't have the time... or (c) reading some part, responding to that part, and then telling the other person I just don't have the time to get into the rest of it... or (d) scanning... and apologetically telling the other person I scanned.

 

I feel a lot better about those options because none of them bite me in the ass later. None of them come across as convenient excuse-making if/when it becomes apparent that I didn't read............. ..... pardon the observation, but pretty sure you do, given what's just transpired here.

 

But maybe even more than that... I try to read if I possibly can... because I genuinely, authentically want to spend my time writing something relevant in response, not misguided... and genuinely, authentically am oriented to try to nudge the conversation as best I can toward agreement, or at least, stronger understanding.

Which is a qualitatively different concept than trying to accomplish rhetorical masturbation and orgasm... in which case, actually comprehending well what the other person is saying is decidedly more optional... thus, making reading more optional.

 

Closing, more macro, thought... in a world where we all get to choose whether our conclusions and supports for those conclusions will be misunderstood because we just didn't explain it well enough, just felt short-arming it was sufficient... versus... we explained it too well, and others just decided of their own volition to tune out... me, I prefer being able to blame others for the errors committed rather than be responsible for it myself. Twitter be damned. If it were all just about expressing an opinion, what a simple-minded world we would occupy. Opinions are nothing... as the cliche' goes, they're like ass holes, everyone has one. Rather, well-supported opinions are everything.

 

[AHF]

People - macdaddy already asked you to return to talking basketball and stop talking about other people's posting.  Please do so.  If people aren't interested in this topic anymore, then that is fine.  No need to fill space with personal commentary.

[sturt]

5 minutes ago, AHF said:

People - macdaddy already asked you to return to talking basketball and stop talking about other people's posting.  Please do so.  If people aren't interested in this topic anymore, then that is fine.  No need to fill space with personal commentary.

Didn't see this before I posted what I posted... no disrespect intended.

So, delete what I just wrote if you choose, but pardon me that I remain curious about the reason for imposing on this area of discussion... it's a legitimate meta area of conversation that is relevant to the overall interest of good, smart, rational basketball conversation. No one's getting stupid silly angry, nor is there indication it's headed toward that.

 

[Diesel]

9 minutes ago, sturt said:

If that's the best you can do, that's the best you can do.

Me, I feel a lot better about either (a) reading... or (b) not reading, and respectfully telling the other person I just don't have the time... or (c) reading some part, responding to that part, and then telling the other person I just don't have the time to get into the rest of it... or (d) scanning... and apologetically telling the other person I scanned.

 

I feel a lot better about those options because none of them bite me in the ass later. None of them come across as convenient excuse-making if/when it becomes apparent that I didn't read............. ..... pardon the observation, but pretty sure you do, given what's just transpired here.

 

But maybe even more than that... I try to read if I possibly can... because I genuinely, authentically want to spend my time writing something relevant in response, not misguided... and genuinely, authentically am oriented to try to nudge the conversation as best I can toward agreement, or at least, stronger understanding.

Which is a qualitatively different concept than trying to accomplish is rhetorical masturbation and orgasm... in which case, actually comprehending well what the other person is saying is decidedly more optional... thus, making reading more optional.

 

Closing, more macro, thought... in a world where we all get to choose whether our conclusions and supports for those conclusions will be misunderstood because we just didn't explain it well enough, just felt short-arming it was sufficient... versus... we explained it too well, and others just decided of their own volition to tune out... me, I prefer being able to blame others for the errors committed rather than be responsible for it myself. Twitter be damned. If it were all just about expressing an opinion, what a simple-minded world we would occupy. Opinions are nothing... as the cliche' goes, they're like ass holes, everyone has one. Rather, well-supported opinions are everything.

 

Honestly, I apologetically scanned this last post.   or did I?

Point is.. in most forum, succinctness is appreciated more than verbosity.  It just makes for better conversation.  Not that anyone is incapable of going through the long diatribes that may be very enlightening.   It's only that when you spend the time going through them, you find yourself somewhat disappointed at the end because you realize that the same thing could have been stated succinctly.  That's all. 

 

 

[sturt]

14 minutes ago, sturt said:

Me, I feel a lot better about either (a) reading... or (b) not reading, and respectfully telling the other person I just don't have the time... or (c) reading some part, responding to that part, and then telling the other person I just don't have the time to get into the rest of it... or (d) scanning... and apologetically telling the other person I scanned.

Respectfully, Diesel, I don't know what you just wrote, only that I got a notification... and I don't have the time, largely because I admit I also don't have any further interest, and that's directly related less to the mods' consternation, more to how you decided to respond in your previous posts.

Next.