Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:22 am
of course they could do it. The way their playing rite now even the sacramento queens couldnt stop them. I mean sacramento kings. hahahhaa
Sat Dec 13, 2003 4:45 am
crap.. i made a reply to several of the replies then i was cut off and lost everything i wrote..
i'll just say this quickly..
MVP:
*it's the adulterer, not mr adulterer
*the special comments are just as lame as the queens thing. at least put some effort into taking shots at me
*thanks, but i don't i need your permission on whether or not i will refer bryant as the adulterer
scub:
MJ very seldom made comments to that magnitude, at least not publicly like shaq does
psycho:
*i wouldn't be calling out other teams for flopping when derek fisher is on your beloved lakers.
*weren't rodman's 'tactics' done on the court?
*what about the time "MJ said to GP that he will school him and his trash talking??"?
i'll just say this quickly..
MVP:
*it's the adulterer, not mr adulterer
*the special comments are just as lame as the queens thing. at least put some effort into taking shots at me
*thanks, but i don't i need your permission on whether or not i will refer bryant as the adulterer
scub:
MJ very seldom made comments to that magnitude, at least not publicly like shaq does
psycho:
*i wouldn't be calling out other teams for flopping when derek fisher is on your beloved lakers.
*weren't rodman's 'tactics' done on the court?
*what about the time "MJ said to GP that he will school him and his trash talking??"?
Sat Dec 13, 2003 7:27 am
I tried replying yesterday, but my Internet service threw in the towel for the rest of the night. I have no idea why. Anyway, here's most of my original post, complete with updated comments:
How can you draw a bright line between Shaq's comment, which, according to Andrew, is supposedly an "unoriginal, uninspired, immature, and pathetic disrespectful nickname," versus the aforementioned "'lame-beer,' zeke the geek, ewing the monkey" barbs? After all, is comparing Patrick Ewing to a lesser-evolved primate "original, inspired, mature, and not pathetic?" I just don't see how you can judiciously call Shaq's comments "shallow" without similarly denouncing (and with equal, if not greater vigor) the nicknames given to those Bulls rivals. (It seems Andrew at least condemned the "Rapers" speak. Okay.)
I also find it amusing that O'Neal's "Queens" reference (which is now more than a year-old, by the way) suddenly elicited so much condemnation and condescension from two of the Forum's few voices of reason. Andrew, so eager to ascend his high horse and take issue with O'Neal (a player he openly dislikes), overlooked some of the most glaring facts surrounding the whole affair. First, as he knows full well, Shaq's almost always full of shit. He thrives on the inflammatory. Secondly, Shaq called Sacto's boys the "Queens" during the height of the Lakers/Kings rivalry. So looking back, isn't it possible (and moreover, probable) this was just a case of an attention-starved star adding a little panache to a feud? Look, Shaq took the word "Kings" and turned it into "Queens," hoping to spice things up a little. And you're telling me that makes him "unoriginal, uninspired, immature, and pathetic?" (My head's spinning after reading that again.) Come on, it’s the High Horse Factor talking. After all, shouldn't we be encouraging rivalries? Don't they make the sport more exciting? I think you're making too much of one comment, especially given O'Neal's standing as a rabble-rouser.
Consider …
When the quote debuted in print, no one jumped all over Shaq for his "immaturity." ESPN.com's Ray Ratto writes,
On the other hand, I can see Andrew's frustrations, and I can see crawford4MIP4real's frustrations. It's true, most of the Lakers fans on this board are quick to throw out a token "Queens" reference whenever mentioning Sacramento. But outside of this Forum, do either of you hear Lakers fans constantly and incessantly reliving the "Queens" trashtalk? I can only speak for myself here, but I'm almost always surrounded by hoop heads, and I haven't heard the "Queens" nickname (outside of this Forum) since it made headlines over a year ago. And you certainly haven't heard Shaq renewing his comments lately. So outside of our online community, and at least in my social bubble, the issue's a dead horse. And as for those NLSC members who delight in mentioning the "Queens," Andrew, crawfordMIP4real: Why is this such surprise to you? I don't mean to make indirect ad hominem attacks, but good God, consider the sources. This also begs the question: If it weren't for the likes of kobe4mvp and Psycho Jackal's "witty and pithy" game of copy-cat, would you be chastizing Shaq just as hard? Doubtful.
I disagree. Like I said, Shaq's an entertainer, and the Big Fella was entertaining the media and more or less promoting the rivalry. It's unfair to fault O’Neal simply because he made the comment first, and also because the likes of kobe4mvp, Psycho Jackal, etc. have beaten this thing into the ground. Again, these aren’t exactly the best representatives of Lakers fans, and I don't think you'd be so quick to trash O'Neal if it weren't for them.
Two more things that needed to be pointed out before I wrap things up …
1. Shaq actually respects the Kings, contrary to what Andrew's high horse says.
Steve Dilbeck of the L.A. Daily News writes …
Aside from Dilbeck's take, it's not like we'd see O'Neal inexplicably taking shots at the Clippers or the Nuggets. He knows Sacramento can play, and that's why they were targeted. (By the way, isn't it always fun when the actual recipient of an insult is less offended than a high and mighty third party? Of course it is.)
2. Anytime I mention Michael Jordan in a future post, I'll be sure to note his status as an adulterer as well. Maybe I'll even make an irrelevant and off-hand mention to his highly-publicized gambling problems, too. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
any laker fans want to chime in on this?
How can you draw a bright line between Shaq's comment, which, according to Andrew, is supposedly an "unoriginal, uninspired, immature, and pathetic disrespectful nickname," versus the aforementioned "'lame-beer,' zeke the geek, ewing the monkey" barbs? After all, is comparing Patrick Ewing to a lesser-evolved primate "original, inspired, mature, and not pathetic?" I just don't see how you can judiciously call Shaq's comments "shallow" without similarly denouncing (and with equal, if not greater vigor) the nicknames given to those Bulls rivals. (It seems Andrew at least condemned the "Rapers" speak. Okay.)
I also find it amusing that O'Neal's "Queens" reference (which is now more than a year-old, by the way) suddenly elicited so much condemnation and condescension from two of the Forum's few voices of reason. Andrew, so eager to ascend his high horse and take issue with O'Neal (a player he openly dislikes), overlooked some of the most glaring facts surrounding the whole affair. First, as he knows full well, Shaq's almost always full of shit. He thrives on the inflammatory. Secondly, Shaq called Sacto's boys the "Queens" during the height of the Lakers/Kings rivalry. So looking back, isn't it possible (and moreover, probable) this was just a case of an attention-starved star adding a little panache to a feud? Look, Shaq took the word "Kings" and turned it into "Queens," hoping to spice things up a little. And you're telling me that makes him "unoriginal, uninspired, immature, and pathetic?" (My head's spinning after reading that again.) Come on, it’s the High Horse Factor talking. After all, shouldn't we be encouraging rivalries? Don't they make the sport more exciting? I think you're making too much of one comment, especially given O'Neal's standing as a rabble-rouser.
Consider …
When the quote debuted in print, no one jumped all over Shaq for his "immaturity." ESPN.com's Ray Ratto writes,
Maybe it's a bad reaction to the anesthesia. Maybe the pain killers aren't quite hitting on all CCs. Or maybe he's just got a mad-on for the California political establishment.
And then maybe Shaquille O'Neal is just trying to have some fun and market the NBA at the same time.
But whatever the reason for him seizing on the name "Sacramento Queens," he's made his point. He doesn't like them very much. And for that, we owe him thanks.
On the other hand, I can see Andrew's frustrations, and I can see crawford4MIP4real's frustrations. It's true, most of the Lakers fans on this board are quick to throw out a token "Queens" reference whenever mentioning Sacramento. But outside of this Forum, do either of you hear Lakers fans constantly and incessantly reliving the "Queens" trashtalk? I can only speak for myself here, but I'm almost always surrounded by hoop heads, and I haven't heard the "Queens" nickname (outside of this Forum) since it made headlines over a year ago. And you certainly haven't heard Shaq renewing his comments lately. So outside of our online community, and at least in my social bubble, the issue's a dead horse. And as for those NLSC members who delight in mentioning the "Queens," Andrew, crawfordMIP4real: Why is this such surprise to you? I don't mean to make indirect ad hominem attacks, but good God, consider the sources. This also begs the question: If it weren't for the likes of kobe4mvp and Psycho Jackal's "witty and pithy" game of copy-cat, would you be chastizing Shaq just as hard? Doubtful.
The shots at Kobe and the Lakers are also cheap shots, no question. But this Queens stuff has been going on for a long time. It isn't mature to retaliate with the anti-Kobe/Laker sentiment, I grant you that. But the Queens reference is really getting tired. The only person who looks bad because of the reference is Shaq. He's the one showing the worst sportsmanship and coming off as unprofessional.
I disagree. Like I said, Shaq's an entertainer, and the Big Fella was entertaining the media and more or less promoting the rivalry. It's unfair to fault O’Neal simply because he made the comment first, and also because the likes of kobe4mvp, Psycho Jackal, etc. have beaten this thing into the ground. Again, these aren’t exactly the best representatives of Lakers fans, and I don't think you'd be so quick to trash O'Neal if it weren't for them.
Two more things that needed to be pointed out before I wrap things up …
1. Shaq actually respects the Kings, contrary to what Andrew's high horse says.
Steve Dilbeck of the L.A. Daily News writes …
In one breath, O'Neal tells us he's simply polishing his marketing skills for the league benefit and actually respects the Kings, and then in the other he's unable to withhold another zinger.
Shaq has fun with all this, as does his main verbal sparring partner on the Kings, Divac. Divac said recently, "I say things to make my life exciting once in a while. Why not? Shaq does the same thing." Truer words were never spoken.
Aside from Dilbeck's take, it's not like we'd see O'Neal inexplicably taking shots at the Clippers or the Nuggets. He knows Sacramento can play, and that's why they were targeted. (By the way, isn't it always fun when the actual recipient of an insult is less offended than a high and mighty third party? Of course it is.)
2. Anytime I mention Michael Jordan in a future post, I'll be sure to note his status as an adulterer as well. Maybe I'll even make an irrelevant and off-hand mention to his highly-publicized gambling problems, too. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Last edited by Bourbon on Sat Dec 13, 2003 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sat Dec 13, 2003 9:52 am
crawford4MIP4real wrote:psycho:
*weren't rodman's 'tactics' done on the court?
Alot of his talk was off the court, in the papers...you should know that..."head of bulls ass licking society"
Bourbon, I see where you're coming from and all, but I cant help being this way...it's tiring to hear these nagging comments about the Lakers...they have to be the most ragged on team right now...C'mon, they are hated the most I think. So when oppurtunity comes, I give back some of that hate...I agree, not all Laker fans are like that...but after all the negativity directed towards LA...you tend to become that way.
Before Malone & GP signed, the people always said, Lakers wont do it, it's impossible...they will never sign them...they didnt even give LA a chance...it was ruled out as soon as it was published... When they did sign, "team chemistry is a big factor"...that worked....so "they are aging and could be injured/tired come playoff time..."
After hearing so many reasons as to how LA will/can fail...its helluva lot of fun calling the Kings the queens to piss guys like Shep off...
Sat Dec 13, 2003 12:17 pm
Crawford4MIP, MJ never made comments like those in that magnitude about other teams but even worse, he made some of worse magnitude about his own teammates.
http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~nbalive/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5930
There you would see people celebrating the way MJ expressed himself about Kwame. Now some of those are saying in this thread calling Sacramento "Queens" is unprofessional when there they were saying it's something common among real champs or the great ones, so I don't see the big deal with Shaq calling names other teams to bring inspiration just like MJ used to.
And yes, MJ made those comments about Kwame and they were not nice but let's face it, he's almost this complete forum's idol so it looked great for most of you. I really didn't care that but seeing all of you complaining for Shaq's comments & celebrating MJ's, makes me think the way some of you judge a professional player that you dislike is completely wrong.
http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~nbalive/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5930
There you would see people celebrating the way MJ expressed himself about Kwame. Now some of those are saying in this thread calling Sacramento "Queens" is unprofessional when there they were saying it's something common among real champs or the great ones, so I don't see the big deal with Shaq calling names other teams to bring inspiration just like MJ used to.
And yes, MJ made those comments about Kwame and they were not nice but let's face it, he's almost this complete forum's idol so it looked great for most of you. I really didn't care that but seeing all of you complaining for Shaq's comments & celebrating MJ's, makes me think the way some of you judge a professional player that you dislike is completely wrong.
Sat Dec 13, 2003 1:39 pm
I think it might be best if we get back onto the topic. I feel continuing this discussion of unflattering nicknames and our attitude towards them will develop into a flame. I already see remarks that could be considered flammatory, so let us get back onto topic.
Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:39 pm
k andrew, but i do think some good posts were made, on topic at least...
bourbon, i don't mind you calling me out on a few things, but i'm not sure which points are in response to mine or andrew's.
i'm not trying to make a big deal/start some flame war out of this whole queens things. like you, bourbon, the friends i have who are lakers fans don't mention this queens thing either. so it made me even more curious to know why this queens thing is kept on going by numerous lakers fans here. i'm not trying to find reason to trash shaq here, just trying to find out why some lakers fans keep the queen issue alive.
as far as MJ being an adulterer, a gambling addict, or whatever trash people want to dig up on him, i'm surprised people haven't given him more crap for it, especially since i'm a bulls fan and there are some bitter users on this forum. but trashing him doesn't bother me at all. i know jordan has his fair share of 'shortcomings', to say the least, but i'm not in denial about them or feel the need to defend him...
i'm not going even bother with psycho's replies, i'm in no need of comic relief at the moment
bourbon, i don't mind you calling me out on a few things, but i'm not sure which points are in response to mine or andrew's.
i'm not trying to make a big deal/start some flame war out of this whole queens things. like you, bourbon, the friends i have who are lakers fans don't mention this queens thing either. so it made me even more curious to know why this queens thing is kept on going by numerous lakers fans here. i'm not trying to find reason to trash shaq here, just trying to find out why some lakers fans keep the queen issue alive.
as far as MJ being an adulterer, a gambling addict, or whatever trash people want to dig up on him, i'm surprised people haven't given him more crap for it, especially since i'm a bulls fan and there are some bitter users on this forum. but trashing him doesn't bother me at all. i know jordan has his fair share of 'shortcomings', to say the least, but i'm not in denial about them or feel the need to defend him...
i'm not going even bother with psycho's replies, i'm in no need of comic relief at the moment
Sat Dec 13, 2003 5:14 pm
Dec 23 @Golden State'
That game will be the GREATEST....only because of the Lakers wearing they're old school Blue Jerseys
That game will be the GREATEST....only because of the Lakers wearing they're old school Blue Jerseys
Sat Dec 13, 2003 5:28 pm
and that game will also be the start of them trying to break the record lol....but i really doubt they can win 33 in a row, hey might win 10, even 20, but 33 in a row i don't think they can do. I don't even think Jordan's Bulls who went 72-10 won 33 in a row
Sat Dec 13, 2003 6:38 pm
Bourbon, I see where you're coming from and all, but I cant help being this way...it's tiring to hear these nagging comments about the Lakers...they have to be the most ragged on team right now...C'mon, they are hated the most I think. So when oppurtunity comes, I give back some of that hate...I agree, not all Laker fans are like that...but after all the negativity directed towards LA...you tend to become that way.
No, you can control your actions. Saying you "can't help it" is a copout. If you think the Lakers are being unfairly hated on, remember, the surest weapon against bad ideas is better ideas, not "calling the Kings the queens [sic] to piss guys like Shep off." (I should really use the "[sic]" notation more often, by the way.)
so it made me even more curious to know why this queens thing is kept on going by numerous lakers fans here.
Mediocre minds produce mediocre results, and that seems to be what's going on here.
i'm not trying to find reason to trash shaq here, just trying to find out why some lakers fans keep the queen issue alive.
Sounds fair enough to me. So to answer your question, I'm pretty much calling out Andrew, though my "MJ's an adulterer, too" note stems from your Kobe epithet, which we obviously both knew. Ultimately, I think if anyone's so dismayed with the "Queens" talk on here, then they should criticize the offending users, not the Diesel. I found Andrew's criticism of Shaq to be a little ridiculous, way too condescending, and mostly false, per the reasons I provided. (Just imagine one of those cranky sportswriters who get on their high horse and start gunning for the Pulitzer by vilifying athletes they don't like. Same thing here.) Anyway, it's a shame we probably won't get a rejoinder; I think most of the posts (because they were rebuttal posts) were made on topic, too.
Sat Dec 13, 2003 6:46 pm
They didn't. Only the '72 Lakers won 33 in a row.
Now then...
"Calling out" and personally attacking fellow forum members is actually frowned upon. I found your "high horse" comments quite offensive - I thought they were much more condescending than anything I posted.
I find this very disrespectful and rude. That's a warning of both insulting a fellow forum member and showing disrespect for a forum leader.
You have been asked to cease this part of the discussion. Since you have blatantly ignored moderation, I am issuing a warning of insubordination.
This thread will be locked. Any attempt to continue it elsewhere will be met with harsh punishment.
Now then...
So to answer your question, I'm pretty much calling out Andrew
"Calling out" and personally attacking fellow forum members is actually frowned upon. I found your "high horse" comments quite offensive - I thought they were much more condescending than anything I posted.
I found Andrew's criticism of Shaq to be a little ridiculous, way too condescending, and mostly false (per the reasons I provided). It's too bad we probably won't get to see a rejoinder, either; I think most of the posts (because they were rebuttal posts) were made on topic, too.
(Just imagine one of those cranky sportswriters who get on their high horse and start gunning for the Pulitzer by vilifying athletes they don't like. Same thing here.)
I find this very disrespectful and rude. That's a warning of both insulting a fellow forum member and showing disrespect for a forum leader.
You have been asked to cease this part of the discussion. Since you have blatantly ignored moderation, I am issuing a warning of insubordination.
This thread will be locked. Any attempt to continue it elsewhere will be met with harsh punishment.