Personal Foray #1, from Blueseats:
"Why are you trying to make Steph more special than other players? He does enough of that on his own."See no "poor Marbury," but your hypersensitive soul obviously takes significant umbrage to being asked why Marbury should deserve special treatment.
The hypersensitive tone is only coming through the page in your head. But you'll go all to peices when I answer your "hypersensitve" bit in kind, won't you?
As for taking this to places it should not go: See above in the thread for your "Nonsense Speak" and your "Poor Steph" bit.
And yes, for a team wrecker to expect to start, or to dictate when he dresses and plays,is special treatment.
I see lots of qualifications from you in regard to Marbury there. And that is the crux of why your opinion on this matter (The drama is what I am discussing, not everything else you want to get off your chest.) has no balance. Marbury is the devil, period.
Wrong again, but who's counting.
This comes directly from Berman, who certainly has a better handle on the context in which it was said than you.
Would he be willing to be a backup?
"I'm not coming off the bench here in New York," Marbury said. "
Nor is he willing to take less than the $21.9 million if approached about a buyout. Nevertheless, Marbury said he would donate any new contract money to charity.
"Why is (a buyout) even an issue," Marbury said. "It's my contract. I earned it. I wouldn't take a penny less."
Do any of your points come without qualifications? (underlined above) I read the article. It is obviously meant to be inflammatory. But it has one line in it obviously designed to stir up controversy. And you take the bait hook, line, and sinker.
A random quote plopped in by Berman without the actual question asked included in the quote, without the surrounding statement from Marbury, written by Mark Berman, troublemaker extraordinaire and hack supreme, is gold to you as long as it paints Mabury in a negative light. yes, it was s stupid statement, whatever the context. It is not the outright refusal you make it out to be. I read it as Marbury expected to start, not a demand.
And all of his other quotes where he does say something good, they are not so important right? My god man, at least show some balance.
But I finally got you to admit that he backed off of that. So I'll award you half a point for a "floating quote", and deduct 2 points for failing to acknowledge -- purposefully -- that Marbury completely backed off of that stance, a quote made from the mouth of a guy who barely can speak English to undoubtedly a completely loaded question.
That's the "team player" who you argue has said all the right things.
Whose quote is that: "Team Player"? Marbury has said some dumb things, but he has smartened up a lot in terms of how he speaks to the media, since that dumb quote. Can you at least admit that?
Those recalcitrant 10 days of training camp are where Marbury shat on his clean slate and infected training camp.
What is that statement based on? Marbury shytting on his clean slate and infecting training camp? Isn't that something you just made up? A suspicion? Please let me know when you are editorializing, thanks.
How many times do you intend on being wrong about the same thing in one thread?
Now you're talking to yourself? Get a grip man!!
I do my homework and argue based on the facts and reason, and my track record is pretty good. When I'm wrong I admit so, like when I backed off on Marbury's stance the other night being fineable, and with holfresh.
In contrast, you've been working off incorrect assumptions and admit nothing even when proven wrong.
Reasonable my ass. Dude, you're obsessed with Marbury and you latch onto anything that
you feel backs up your point that he is the devil, and you absolutely ignore anything to the contrary (October 7th). That is a fact.
In any case, I am not here to defend marbury. My point is this drama is the creation D'Antoni and Walsh, not Marbruy. All D'Antoni has/had to do is deactivate him and let it go. Or Walsh tell him to go home. Stop playing games. That is all they have to do.
***
When you make up things out of the air, such as: "Those recalcitrant 10 days of training camp are where Marbury shat on his clean slate and infected training camp.", it leads me to believe you are editorializing, again, as I pointed out above.
Why not just say: "I hate Marbury" like all the other guys. It is a more honest method of making your point.
Right back at ya.
Uncreative: 5 point deduction!
Marbury is not at the root of "any problem" but he's certainly the root of his own problems, and those problems have infected this team many times over. Unfortunately your "nuanced" opinion prevents you from admitting that D'antoni didn't create Marbury's problems, he inherited them.
Dude, I don't care about Marbury's problems! I care about Knicks problems! I care about wins! I care about unnecessary soap operas! I still don't see how you can hang the soap opera on Marbury!
To a fan of Mark Jackson, I gotta say... You're better than that!
If you got a sarcastic tone from the unabomber bit...I will say you were right on target. 1 point awarded!
***
[humour]Listen, you are the curator of Marbury, not I. No doubt you have all of his negative quotes taped up all over your monitor and desk, so you will always win the war of what Marbury said verbatim.[/humour]
However, try and keep some of the other quotes too, on the rare occasion Marbury says something correct, or when he has an actual point, or maybe something the coach said about him etc. And give a shot at forming an equitable opinion on what is actually going on, not just a constant hatchet job. It will make for a more entertaining read for me at least.
Thanks! 10 bonus points to you!
Happy Thanksgiving my friend, I prefer not to argue this anymore. (For a day or 2 at least.)
oohah
[Edited by - oohah on 26-11-2008 2:08 PM]
11/26/2008 4:04 PM
