Oohah, you know I love sparring with you, and this has been no exception, but if I wanted arguments that begin and end with "I can't discuss this with you because you are a hatter" I could have stayed at realgm or followed Papabear to Elba.
Go back and check who started that stuff. I'll give you a clue: "Poor Marbury". Okay, I'll tell you straight out. It was you. Don't call the kettle black when you start that business.
You've been nothing but hypocritical. You whine about words being put in your mouth, then tell me I blame Marbury for the weather. You say I'm wrong about Marbury starting camp declaring he would not come off the bench, when he did. And in spite of that you're STILL saying Marbury has done what's asked of him and has said all the right things!
Not as much fun when it happens to you I guess?
In regard to Marbury, he did not refuse to come off the bench. He said he
EXPECTED TO START. Then he backed off of that immediately and said he would do whatever the coach asked of him. Unfortunately this does not fit into your world view of Marbury as the devil, so you decided to twist and blatantly change what the facts actually are. By the way, this is not a new trick from you.
Now since you're hellbent on making this personal rather than discussing the issues, lets talk about you. You know damn well there is no right way to deal with Marbury, all coaches and GM have failed. He's probably the toughest nut to crack in the league. But because you didn't get the guy with the fade and the short-shorts, who's poster hangs over your bed (Mark Jackson,) you're coming up with all kinds of ways to denigrate D'antoni. "He's too Smarmy," "He can't handle the press," "He's a bully." You're also bitter that Marbury is benched in the first place. When we lost the first game of the season you convinced yourself we needed him, in site of the fact that without him the team has played more energized than it's been in years.
A) you made it personal first buddy, but as usual you can't handle your own medicine.
B) The thing is my opinion has nuance and yours has none whatsoever. I care about the Knicks winning. I don't have to like the coaches personality. I don't even care what he does with his players as long as the results are good. I can see good and/or bad in a person, player, or coach. All at the same time. I am even chewing gum while I type. I know it is crazy!
With you on the other hand, it is always extremes. Everything Marbury does is bad, even selling and giving away discount sneakers and donating scads of money! Anybody who might say that Marbury is not to blame for a given situation is saying "Poor Mabury" in the world of Blueseats. Pure fact.
The problem is, when someone is extreme, it ruins their ability to infer things. That is why you did the exact same thing with Holfresh above. You're blind with rage against Marbury man! That is all there is to it. Your opinion is completely set before you hear a fact.
C) For the record I do find D'Antoni to be quite smarmy as well as thin-skinned. I also think he's done a nice job coaching this team. What I really care about are wins, unlike yourself, who cares more about the drama.
I also found Thomas to be smarmy. I found Riley to be a bully. I found Van Gundy to be too wussy. They all had their good points as well.
This is known as having a "refined view". Step out of the world of black and white. You might enjoy it. However, I am not holding my breath. Your arguments resembles the people you're talking about. You're the one pulling a "RealGM", not me.
You're probably not self aware enough to realize it, but with your bitterness over Jackson not getting the nod you have a subliminal desire is to see D'antoni fail. That's why you want Marbury - the guy who on the first day of the new administration declared himself, once again, to be above the coach and the team - to once again be allowed to rule the roost.
I think I got it. The guy who started the "poor Marbury" business and is rabid with rage against Marbury etc. is calling me not self aware. You're too obsessive over this issue to look at yourself and see that you have no objectivity. well, Mr. Obsessive, I am sure you have every thread I posted on this topic bookmarked. Find the one where I said "Poor Marbury", thanks.
The thing is, I can define the difference between right and wrong, or who is at the root of a problem regardless of my personal opinion of them. Mike D'Antoni is at the root of the "Marbury Media Controversy Circa 2008". Because he won't shut up and he has been inconsistent in his handling of the matter. Sorry buddy, the facts back me up!
By the way, I have a high personal opinion of you. You're also wrong. I also don't think you're the devil. I think you're a swell fella! See how that works? Nuance!So don't try to pass this nonsense that I can't have a rational conversation about the topic. You've got an axe to grind with D', and are in denial about Marbury, and what you can't deal with is that I've done nothing but stay on topic and made my points with facts (which had eluded you) and logic, which you have no answer for. Thus, you try to make it about me, and David Lee, and "Stepehen Moonbury", the weather, the Kennedy assassination, and any other possible distraction you can muster.
Utter Rubbish. Nobody can talk to you when it comes to Marbury. If somebody even hints that Mabury is not at the root of any problem, you lose your mind and start putting words in their mouths. The facts are above in this thread. Get a grip.
It's been fun, but there's nothing else to discuss here.
On the contrary, I think there is something else to discuss: Marbury's role in Son of Sam, the Zodiac Killings, and his connection to the Unabomber. I await your 18 page dissertation!
oohah
11/24/2008 12:26 AM
