Posted by oohah:

Oohah, since we have had a number of discussions before, I hope you'll take this the right way. From a 3rd person's perspective, you're comments are out of line. Disturbingly so. You seem to get irritated very easily at mild sarcastic comments that are neither personal nor malicious. And your responses are frequently disproportionately dismissive and condescending. Check the initial back and forth with Islesfan here - his comment was sarcastic, to be sure, but also quite funny. It was more of a flippant dig at Isiah's 180 degree anti-LB policy than anything else. You responded with an attack on his general posting. That's uncalled for.

Interesting, but I believe you are incorrect. Have I ever had an ugly discourse with you? No, because you are able to converese without deteriorating into insult. I don't do it and you don't either. Again, the initial discourse with Islesfan goes back to last night and further to this weekend. That is what was going on. And I think that is what you are missing. You may see the posts where I lash back, but you don't see the ones where I let so many comments slide. I let these mild sarcastic comments go plenty. But I will defend my argument relentlessly. Isn;t that what people do here? I don't argue ugly with the majority of the board by a longshot. That is a perception because I have had so many with the same guys who got into ugly arguments with so many other posters before I ever got here.

It also seems that you have a strange compulsion to get the last word in every encounter. I hope you realize that just because you frequently manage to frustrate posters with the sheer volume of your posts doesn't mean that you have won - mainly because 1) there's nothing to win, so to speak, and 2)if winning was involved, it would center on the merits of your argument. If you're so convinced of your stance, rest assured that others will agree with your reasoning. Somehow, however, you end up consistently trading insults with the majority on the board. Not disagreeing with them, but trading insults. It seems unlilkely that the rest of the board is at fault here. This is not to say that you are always wrong, but that, in my opinion, you have been guilty multiple times lately.

Again, this trading insults with the majority is a perception. I get into discussions with so many posters with nary an insult. It's always the same guys. Code, I'll bet if you pull out these example were you have proclaimed me 'guilty', you will find that I have responded to an insult, and probably let 2-3 go before I ever reply in kind.

I am not sure what I am supposed to say when I believe I am right. "I give?" The other guy isn't so why should I? But that does not mean it makes it okay to descend into insults. And like I said, I have examined my behavior. I am not replying to the insults that I am sure will keep coming from the same 5-6 guys. I just don't think you notice the initiation because you are only seeing the "second foul" to use a basketball analogy.

Many of your posts are self-congratulatory and reek of a false bravado. These posts include the "hang your ass out there" slogan, which has taken on a life of its own, and the "who has taken me on solo" threat, which is less admirable than it is amusing. Surely, you know that no one is afraid of taking you on solo. When you start threads, you assume the lead in a discussion - naturally, there will be many detractors. Some will make jokes. And thats Ok. Many of those cracks are genuinely funny and not insulting - they add personality to the board. I can't see why you can't laugh at them and take them in stride instead of responding defensively. Hopefully, you can view these interactions from a more relaxed perspective. Once again, I'm not writing to be inflammatory, but instead to be helpful.

Again, you will see me joke back and forth with DJ, Blue, Joe, Marv, NYK, Eny, and so many others without any hard feelings or insults. Its that same 5-6 guys who don't know insult from joke. Its the same guys who will constantly try to get under your skin instead of just conversing, wheteher it be heated or casual. It is really ony 5-6 guys. So I think your observations are mostly perception. You remember the fights but you don't remeber the handshakes.

Hang your ass is a joke and I think most guys here understand that. That is why I give a prize afterwards. As far as the taken me on solo? What can I tell you but it is the same 5-6 guys. They are all on this thread and the other one! Doing what they do, forming a gang and coming after me. How many others do you see stepping up? Not many because most of my relationships on this forum have been congenial. And it isn't just me. Nixluva defends himself to the utmost and they do the same thing. They chased away Bonn.

It is really only 5-6 guys.

But I appreciate your advice and duly noted your points.

Thanks,

oohah

Oohah, first of all, you are grossly inaccurate with the 5-6 figure. In my estimation, Martin, Solace, Allanfan20, Islesfan, Fishmike, Nalod, Bippity10, Evil, JoeC, izybx, Knight, Seatsblue, TMS and now myself have all suggested that you better your behavior at some point. Since I'm surely missing a few, lets call it a conservative total of 14. Clearly, those posters have instigated matters at times and, individually, a distinct share of fault can be assigned to each of the conflicting parties in each situation. Yet, I think we can agree they make up a significant population on this board, a group mostly of ardent Isiah critics with whom you not only frequently disagree but also exchange insults. I suppose what I'm asking is - whats the excuse? Is it a common characteristic of Isiah bashers to be rude and communicate ineffectively? Is it merely a coincidence that many rude people joined this site and continue to harass mainly you? Even if we start with those assumptions, they are quickly diminished by the fact that posters like PresIke, Tomverve, Basketball Jones and I can debate and occasionally convince them of points without nearly as much tangential bickering. I admit that the above is a small control group chosen with ascertainment bias, but the preliminary data is not in your favor. In other words, other posters, despite agreeing with you, nevertheless manage to engage more effectively with the "hater" faction.

That you believe you are right isn't irksome, Oohah. Its that you present your argument from that standpoint. For instance, you have to understand why saying the NYK-Boston game was OVER at 6 points with 2 minutes left is subject to considerable scrutiny. If you make a claim that appears outrageous from the outset, you should frame the argument inductively, starting with facts and cohort data instead of bland assertions that it was clearly "OVER." You declared your stance and, uncharacteristically, provided only flimsy, murky game information that was hardly convincing. That manner can easily be perceived as arrogant and stubborn. I agree that Islesfan should not have been curt, but you definitely provided only a poor defense and pretended as if it was certain truth.

After that discussion, you chose to continue the animosity by responding aggressively today to a benign comment by Islesfan. It was unnecessary and detracted from your stated goal to "talk basketball." Yet, you reacted to him a day later for calling one of your claims "nonsensical." Although rude, this is hardly enough reason to harbor a grudge for over 24 hours. The ensuing escalation led to today's referendum on your posting demeanor. In short, your style of argument is similar to your general interaction - you are unyielding and sometimes unreasonable. Minor elements of conversation emerge as monumental issues to which you must retaliate. Again, I feel strongly that you are an asset to this board but, only when not involved in a one-man kamikaze mission against fishmike and his followers.

Oohah, first of all, you are grossly inaccurate with the 5-6 figure. In my estimation, Martin, Solace, Allanfan20, Islesfan, Fishmike, Nalod, Bippity10, Evil, JoeC, izybx, Knight, Seatsblue, TMS and now myself have all suggested that you better your behavior at some point. Since I'm surely missing a few, lets call it a conservative total of 14. Clearly, those posters have instigated matters at times and, individually, a distinct share of fault can be assigned to each of the conflicting parties in each situation. Yet, I think we can agree they make up a significant population on this board, a group mostly of ardent Isiah critics with whom you not only frequently disagree but also exchange insults. I suppose what I'm asking is - whats the excuse? Is it a common characteristic of Isiah bashers to be rude and communicate ineffectively? Is it merely a coincidence that many rude people joined this site and continue to harass mainly you? Even if we start with those assumptions, they are quickly diminished by the fact that posters like PresIke, Tomverve, Basketball Jones and I can debate and occasionally convince them of points without nearly as much tangential bickering. I admit that the above is a small control group chosen with ascertainment bias, but the preliminary data is not in your favor. In other words, other posters, despite agreeing with you, nevertheless manage to engage more effectively with the "hater" faction.

That you believe you are right isn't irksome, Oohah. Its that you present your argument from that standpoint. For instance, you have to understand why saying the NYK-Boston game was OVER at 6 points with 2 minutes left is subject to considerable scrutiny. If you make a claim that appears outrageous from the outset, you should frame the argument inductively, starting with facts and cohort data instead of bland assertions that it was clearly "OVER." You declared your stance and, uncharacteristically, provided only flimsy, murky game information that was hardly convincing. That manner can easily be perceived as arrogant and stubborn. I agree that Islesfan should not have been curt, but you definitely provided only a poor defense and pretended as if it was certain truth.

After that discussion, you chose to continue the animosity by responding aggressively today to a benign comment by Islesfan. It was unnecessary and detracted from your stated goal to "talk basketball." Yet, you reacted to him a day later for calling one of your claims "nonsensical." Although rude, this is hardly enough reason to harbor a grudge for over 24 hours. The ensuing escalation led to today's referendum on your posting demeanor. In short, your style of argument is similar to your general interaction - you are unyielding and sometimes unreasonable. Minor elements of conversation emerge as monumental issues to which you must retaliate. Again, I feel strongly that you are an asset to this board but, only when not involved in a one-man kamikaze mission against fishmike and his followers.

Posted by codeunknown:

Oohah, most of the posters I listed are ones that have posted either in this or the "swan song" thread. That includes izybx, who said you were quite "touchy" and Solace who thought you "went insane." Take what you want from those comments. Anyway, it doesn't matter - an internet forum is not conducive to these kinds of conversations.

Posted by Solace:

Posted by codeunknown:

Oohah, most of the posters I listed are ones that have posted either in this or the "swan song" thread. That includes izybx, who said you were quite "touchy" and Solace who thought you "went insane." Take what you want from those comments. Anyway, it doesn't matter - an internet forum is not conducive to these kinds of conversations.

Saw my name and figured I'd chime in this. Oohah, you're a good guy, but you need to tone it down a bit. I think if there's a block of 20 posts and a single poster has 12 of them, it's a clear sign he needs to chill. By all means, have a good and civil discussion. We all have our opinions. That being said, the goal isn't to prove everyone wrong and change their minds. That task is near-impossible. Instead, state your point of view, have a good discussion where everyone comes off feeling like they had a good time. The insults may not be justified, but at the same time, I can say, it comes from frustration.

It's kind of like when those religious people come to the door, ask what religion I am, hand out pamphlets, and then tell me I can get into God's good graces by joining their religion. I could curse them out, call them fanatics and throw their pamphlets back in their faces for having the audacity to come to my door and challenge my beliefs. Instead, I just listen for five minutes, let them think they've had an effect, they walk away happy... and then I go and shred the pamphlets after they leave. A minor inconvenience and I didn't have to sit and argue with them for half an hour and make enemies in an argument that nobody could win.

Hopefully my example made some sense. If not, it's because it's early and I didn't have my coffee yet. Anyway, Oohah, hang in there, try to be just a little less confrontational, and brush off the insults. If you're being insulted, it might be that people know that it gets to you. Hope that makes sense. And sorry for the OT.

also, codeunknown, would you mind using smaller words in your analysis of the metaphysics of oohah's posting so us "followers of fishmike" can understand them more clearly? it would be much appreciated.

Posted by Masterplan:

one comment/reminiscence i'd have for oohah is that it isn't the same posters all the time. you and i had something of a dispute a while back, if you remember. the only one of the kind i've had on the site, not your only one. turned out to not be a big deal, and well in the past at this point, but for what it's worth you do seem to end up in these messy exchanges.

i think you usually make good points and back them up well, but my advice would be to really realize that when you take a stand on an opinion, perception, or something no one on this site can actually know, you can't win. you can make your point, but you can't beat someone else into submission with a slew of posts however persuasive.

arguing about whether we could have beat the celtics without the Ts is a counterfactual, no one knows. what the team was capable of at that time is somewhere between opinion and perception and is definitely subjective. i think our argument started over something going on in LB's head, which i know i was definitely guessing at. there's a limit to what you can prove, and i think that's what codeunknown was getting at- you keep these arguments going when posters like me kind of want to just agree to disagree.

i think you also may be hypersensitive to sarcasm as people have brought up. its how many people yourself included post. your disputes seem to cross the sarcasm-insult line (not assessing blame). it may have to do with just numbers- your arguments are long, a lot of back and forth. but you also seem to ready to jump in with a comeback when the original post wasn't meant to insult, and it goes from there. some posters do like to bait, no question. but most of us want to talk basketball and a little trash, no hard feelings, and don't like when your "in kind" responses seem to have a much more negative tone to them, however they were intentioned.

i hope you keep posting. i haven't responded to too many of your posts since, but i enjoy reading them, for basketball content and for the drama that comes up. hope i gave you something to think about.

Posted by TMS:


also, codeunknown, would you mind using smaller words in your analysis of the metaphysics of oohah's posting so us "followers of fishmike" can understand them more clearly? it would be much appreciated.