BULLS NEED TO EXIT SG TRENTON HASEL TO BENCH

[air gordon]

hmm, maybe if i spent plenty time explaining fully each statement i make, then maybe i wouldn't have to worry about individuals breaking down every single word i said in order to make an opposing argument (whether it is irrelevant or not).

this is a forum, so people can say whatever they want. it would give me great satisfaction to be face to face with these certain individuals.

back to nba talk..

giving an individual tons of money will not guarantee you a championship ring. there's a great possibilty it could get you an belly ring, nose ring, and perhaps a cock ring. Coming up with $50 million in the first place though, would be quite a challenge for me.

what did i want the bulls to do? fire krause, of course. in the strike-shortened year, the bulls would definitely have had a chance at winning the nba title. the dynasty did not run its course just yet. it still remains ironic that bulls ended up like the celtics even though they got rid of their aging star players.

the short-armed kevin willis would be helpful to the bulls. they need defensive help in the post. opponents score in paint as if a beautiful gwen stefani was guarding it.

harper went on to be a positve contributor for the lakers 2 championships in the late 90's. definitely could have got something decent for him. kukoc landed the hawks big dog robinson!

[Rens]

...and so another Ben was born...

He just changes his name... that doesn't make him a different person... was Brian Williams a different person from Bison Dele? Chris Jackson from Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf? Lew Alcindor from Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? And what's with people trying to look smart posting they recognise Ben? Ooo yeah YOU DA MAN because you found out something EVERYBODY ALREADY KNEW... get a life.

[MC Hao]

Oh, i am sorry, i didnt know that was really Ben. I dont read/post here everyday, how am i supposed to know that? I just thought that guy sounded like Ben so i made a comment about it, is there anything wrong with that? And what's up with that "get a life" comment? So when i made a comment about something that you already know means i dont have a life? What kind of logic do you have? Everybody in here has a life, it might be different than yours but he/she still has a life. If you dont like other people's lives, then fuck off (didnt mean to use such language, but it gets to the point).

[:digerati:]

hmm, maybe if i spent plenty time explaining fully each statement i make, then maybe i wouldn't have to worry about individuals breaking down every single word i said in order to make an opposing argument (whether it is irrelevant or not).

I'm so sorry for directly pointing out the things I'm talking about.

this is a forum, so people can say whatever they want.

WRONG. They have to follow the rules. They probably should also stay on topic, not say random things about Gwen Stefani.

it would give me great satisfaction to be face to face with these certain individuals.

Why? Because you feel you have to cause physical harm to someone that disagrees with you? Because you feel weak in conversing intelligently about a topic and thus have to physically harm the person?

giving an individual tons of money will not guarantee you a championship ring. there's a great possibilty it could get you an belly ring, nose ring, and perhaps a cock ring. Coming up with $50 million in the first place though, would be quite a challenge for me.

True, but, would you have said giving Jordan all that money and thus having him return wouldn't guarantee another ring. Considering you're a Bulls fan, I'm sure you wouldn't have.

what did i want the bulls to do? fire krause, of course. in the strike-shortened year, the bulls would definitely have had a chance at winning the nba title. the dynasty did not run its course just yet. it still remains ironic that bulls ended up like the celtics even though they got rid of their aging star players.

The Celtics rebuilt to be a contender twice, I hope the Bulls manage to do the same. The Bulls had NO SHOT at winning the NBA Title in 1999. The reason? Kukoc, Hawkins and Elton Brand aren't the foundation of a championship team.

harper went on to be a positve contributor for the lakers 2 championships in the late 90's. definitely could have got something decent for him. kukoc landed the hawks big dog robinson!

That was later, back in 99 you wouldn't get Robinson for Kukoc. Harper was only useful to the Lackers because of the Phil Jackson connection. Nobody else wanted him, or else he would've signed a FA contract would he not?

get a life

Dan! You should know better than that...

[:digerati:]

I apologize for the back-to-back posts Tales and Barnsey...

Oh, i am sorry, i didnt know that was really Ben. I dont read/post here everyday, how am i supposed to know that? I just thought that guy sounded like Ben so i made a comment about it, is there anything wrong with that? And what's up with that "get a life" comment? So when i made a comment about something that you already know means i dont have a life? What kind of logic do you have? Everybody in here has a life, it might be different than yours but he/she still has a life. If you dont like other people's lives, then fuck off (didnt mean to use such language, but it gets to the point).

Nothing wrong with you making the comment, nothing wrong with Dan making his comment. Also, glad to see you're finally accepting logic rather than ignorance Jamal. I commend you.

[Rens]

get a life

Dan! You should know better than that...

you're right.. I got carried away there... but my other pointswere legit!

[MC Hao]

...sigh...
Once again, Ben blew my cover. Anyway, it's always nice to see people get along with each other.

[Nick]

MC...Is that...MC HAO? mike...mai?

I apologize for the back-to-back posts Tales and Barnsey...

Apology accepted.

[air gordon]

no need to get on the defensive, ben or * or whatever you refer yourself to now. it would just give me satisfaction. i didn't mention anything about physical harm. no need to worry- feel safe behind your computer as you type or do whatever you do.

you may think i am weak in conversing. that's ok. i don't have time to completely elaborate on my statements. but i'm glad there are individuals on this forum to quickly point it to me.

don't put words into my mouth. i would say the bull's chances of winning a title would be good with jordan & company. i'd be cheering them on to win, but i wouldn't guarantee them to win it all. utah definitely could have beaten them in their last finals vs. the bulls

and i did make a relevant post about the beautiful gwen stefani, mr policeman of this forum.

harper only useful to lakers because of the p jackson connection? so it was the 'connection' that enabled harper to hit 'a nail in the coffin' jumper on the baseline in the western conference semifinals vs. the blazers.

kukoc's talent level has dropped since '99 and it still landed the hawks robinson.

[Wall St. Peon]

I'll start off by saying that I agree with everything Ben's said...

The Bulls traded Brand because they weren't able to fill gaps in the roster. Krause the traded Artest, Brad Miller, and Ron Mercer - three players that were part of the 'original' rebuilding plan - to the Pacers for Jalen Rose, a player who can score, pass, and play defense better than Vince Carter. Combine that with the firing of Tim "Iowa State Bulls" Floyd, and the drafting/trading of Curry and Chandler, and you have a superstar - Rose - surrounded by possible superstars - Curry, Chandler, and Crawford - and then a rookie who's from a great program and has 3 years of college experience and a national title - Jay Williams. You have a Donyell Marshall as a great sixth man - ala Toni Kukoc - and BAM! they're set to be a playoff team - on paper - in less than three years, maybe even this year.

With that being said, I really don't know what your qualm with Krause is. The Warriors still suck after Run TMC broke up, the Mavericks were able to rebuild around Nowitzki, Finley, and a revitalized Nash, the Cavs are still horrible, the Hawks just managed to be mentioned in playoff talks, and the Wizards are just getting good again, and that's with the addition of MJ and Stackhouse. In three years Krause is doing what few other GMS have been able to do...

i didn't mention anything about physical harm. no need to worry- feel safe behind your computer as you type or do whatever you do.

You mention him feeling safe behind his computer....that implies a threat of physical harm....

harper only useful to lakers because of the p jackson connection? so it was the 'connection' that enabled harper to hit 'a nail in the coffin' jumper on the baseline in the western conference semifinals vs. the blazers.

Um, yeah. If Harper hadn't been on Phil Jackson's teams he wouldn't have been signed by the Lakers, or any other team for that matter. I mean, really, what did he do? He made one jump shot. AC Green made a huge jump shot, and what's he doing? He's on Fox Sports Net for fuck's sake...Steve Kerr made a big shot, and what's he doing? He's buried in the bench in San Antonio and hasn't seen playing time since the Bulls...so yes, the only reason Harper was on the Lakers was because of Jackson, and thsu that is the only reason that Harper was able to make that shot that you put so much stock into his value...

kukoc's talent level has dropped since '99 and it still landed the hawks robinson.

Not really. He was scoring 20ppg when starting in Atlanta, and he's getting 12 off the bench. The only thing declining is his FG percentage...and Milwaukee needed to play an overpaid overtalented undermotivated Tim Thomas in the starting lineup and rid themselves of a drunk driving weed smoking defensive liablity who needs tons of shots, not to mention the enormous contract he has....

[air gordon]

live:

maybe to you saying 'feel safe behind your comp..." sounds like someone is implying physical harm. but i am not- is "no need to get your panties in a bunch" any better?

yeh the roster is looking better. rose is all that you mentioned, yes. but being a better defender then carter saying that much, considering carter is a average defender at best. playing this waiting game with the bulls would be a lot easier to swallow if krause was less an egomatic, more fan/media friendly, and had less chins.

[Wall St. Peon]

maybe to you saying 'feel safe behind your comp..." sounds like someone is implying physical harm. but i am not- is "no need to get your panties in a bunch" any better?

It is implying physical harm...and how is 'feel safe ehind your computer synonomous with 'no need to get your panties in a bunch?'

yeh the roster is looking better.

I know...weren't you telling Ben it wasn't, though?

rose is all that you mentioned, yes. but being a better defender then carter saying that much, considering carter is a average defender at best.

I was being fececious...duh.

playing this waiting game with the bulls would be a lot easier to swallow if krause was less an egomatic, more fan/media friendly, and had less chins.

So...because Krause is in your opinion an egomaniac fat jerk to the media, he's doing a poor job rebuilding? O....k....

And you ignored all my other responses to your post...I'll just assume you agree with me...

[air gordon]

"feel safe behind your computer" is implying physical harm? then what about "don't feel safe behind your computer?".

the bulls roster is better considering the talent they've had the past few years.

"playing this waiting game with the bulls would be a lot easier to swallow if krause was less an egomatic, more fan/media friendly, and had less chins." does not mean that is why krause is doing a poor job rebuilding. but you can think that if you want. just like 'feel safe behind your computer' is implying physical harm.

i still think kukoc's talent level has dropped since '99. he is not as healthy as he was then and has admitted that he can't do the same things as he could do in '99.

i heard AC green popped his cherry. is that right? besides 'hitting one jump shot', harper provided valuable veteran leadership, steady defense, and guard depth to the lakers. along with some free throws , steals, assists, blocks, 3 pointers, and rebounds.

steve kerr in fact has seen playing time is his tenure with the blazers and with the spurs.

making a jump shot isn't the only important thing in basketball.

[MC Hao]

MC...Is that...MC HAO? mike...mai?

Yeah, Nick. I am baaaaaack...nah, i never really left.

[:digerati:]

Once again, Ben blew my cover.

hehehehe...silly Jamal

no need to get on the defensive, ben or * or whatever you refer yourself to now. it would just give me satisfaction. i didn't mention anything about physical harm. no need to worry- feel safe behind your computer as you type or do whatever you do.

Get defensive? I'm not defensive. You said you'd like to meet some of us face-to-face, which more than often implies you wish to duel physically in person.

you may think i am weak in conversing. that's ok. i don't have time to completely elaborate on my statements. but i'm glad there are individuals on this forum to quickly point it to me.

Maybe if you elaborated, your ideas would be better presented.

don't put words into my mouth. i would say the bull's chances of winning a title would be good with jordan & company. i'd be cheering them on to win, but i wouldn't guarantee them to win it all. utah definitely could have beaten them in their last finals vs. the bulls

So, you don't think giving Jordan $90 million secured the three titles for the Bulls. Then why did do it? Why didn't they get John Starks? or Kendall Gill? or Kevin Edwards?

and i did make a relevant post about the beautiful gwen stefani, mr policeman of this forum.

Barely. I'm not a policeman, I'm just saying there are rules that limit what you should say, and that if you stay on topic you look smarter.

harper only useful to lakers because of the p jackson connection? so it was the 'connection' that enabled harper to hit 'a nail in the coffin' jumper on the baseline in the western conference semifinals vs. the blazers...
besides 'hitting one jump shot', harper provided valuable veteran leadership, steady defense, and guard depth to the lakers. along with some free throws , steals, assists, blocks, 3 pointers, and rebounds.

Then, why didn't anyone else want him?

"feel safe behind your computer" is implying physical harm

"feel safe behind your computer" combined with "meet face-to-face" would more than often imply that you want to meet that person face to face so they didn't feel safe. The first comment also implys that you should only feel safe behind your computer because that's the only time you can pretend to measure up to and be safe from the person who said it.

If that's not what you meant by it. Then what did you mean? Explain it, or we're right.

[Wall St. Peon]

"feel safe behind your computer" is implying physical harm? then what about "don't feel safe behind your computer?".

They both do. The first one because of the context, like Ben said, of you wanting to meet him face to face. It isn't just the words, it's the context that matters just as much.

the bulls roster is better considering the talent they've had the past few years.

That isn't hard...but this team has the potential to be good, as opposed to the other teams that had the potential to lose 82 games...

"playing this waiting game with the bulls would be a lot easier to swallow if krause was less an egomatic, more fan/media friendly, and had less chins." does not mean that is why krause is doing a poor job rebuilding. but you can think that if you want. just like 'feel safe behind your computer' is implying physical harm.

Well, again, in the context of the discussion where you say that Krause is doing a horrible job rebuilding and then you type some line about him being an egomaniac as the reason you don't like him...that's like saying someone doesn't do anything right, when in fact they do, because you don't like the person. Who cares what Krause's personality is? He's doing his job, what more can we ask of him? This whole discussion centered around you saying Krause is doing a bad job of rebuilding and taking too long vs. Ben's opinion that he's doing a great job of rebuilding in a short amount of time - which he is. Since I popped in, you agreed completely with what I said thus negating the entire previous conversation. Then, you make the statement about Krause's personality which makes that seem like the reason, in context, that you think Krause is doing a poor job of rebuilding.

i heard AC green popped his cherry. is that right? besides 'hitting one jump shot', harper provided valuable veteran leadership, steady defense, and guard depth to the lakers. along with some free throws , steals, assists, blocks, 3 pointers, and rebounds.

Hell, Rick Brunson can do all of that, and look what he's done in the NBA...and what does AC Green have to do with popping some guy's cherry? What the hell? I only mentioned hitting that one jump shot because that's all you said Harper did....

i still think kukoc's talent level has dropped since '99. he is not as healthy as he was then and has admitted that he can't do the same things as he could do in '99.

Because he's older....duh...what is he, like 35? Unless your name is Stockton or Malone, everyone's game start to decline around that age.

steve kerr in fact has seen playing time is his tenure with the blazers and with the spurs.

I realize this...I was being fececious yet again to prove my point that Kerr hasn't done shit since the Bulls...

making a jump shot isn't the only important thing in basketball.

Duh! What did I say? I mocked your entire statement of that single jumpshot Harper made as being the reason he was on the Lakers. Look at the quote and read it a bit more carefully, and you'll see the point I was making by listing Steve Kerr and AC Green in unison with your beloved Ron Harper....

[air gordon]

very true if i elaborated more, my ideas would be better presented. but once again, i am glad there are certain individuals on this forum to quickly point this out.

giving lots of money to a player will not guarantee or SECURE a nba championship. in this case, the player is jordan. a team may look good on paper, but that doesn't necessarily make them the champions of the nba outright. but you can go ahead and think otherwise. the bulls did win 6 altogether. which 3 titles do you speak of anyway?

"then why did do it?" weren't you the one talking about better presentation of ideas

"...if you stay on topic you look smarter." if a person wants to think i'm stupid, go ahead and think that way. i don't post on this forum to "look smarter" or to look stupid. i don’t post on this forum to see what people think of me. if i had broken a rule, i figured the moderator of this forum would notify me.

i can't speak for the GM's on why they didn't want ron harper.

interpret what you want from "feel safe behind your computer". so we don't agree on what the statement was implying. i tried to clear the air already. but if there's still a misunderstanding:
BEN- DON'T GET YOUR PANTIES IN A BUNCH. I WILL NOT PHYSICALLY HARM YOU. it would still give me great satisfaction to be face to face with you.

"explain it or we're right" are you IMPLYING that what you think is right? you said yourself that my statement would "more then often imply physical harm". yes, maybe to you it may more then often imply physical harm and all that. but that statement you made there that doesn't mean it's ALWAYS the case. you choose to interpret that it is implying physical harm. go right ahead. but don't say you are right when you are saying that my statement can be interpreted in another way.



never did i say because of krause's personality and such is why he is doing a bad job rebuilding the bulls. if you still want to think way, go right ahead. if you want, say, " oh in context you are implying it", go right ahead. but once again, i never said because of krause's personality and such is why he is doing a bad job rebuilding the bulls.

i do agree that the roster this year is better then the ones in the past 4 years. and you (live) said, "that isn't hard". you are implying that what krause has accomplished was very easy and that any other GM could have pulled it off. and also you mentioned, "he's doing his job, what more can we ask of him?". we can ask more of him if he’s doing a job anybody else can do.

yes, brunson can do all of that, but i don't see brunson wearing any nba championship rings. "what the hell?" you're the one who brought up AC green and the word, f*ck.


so which one is it then? you first say that kukoc's talent did not drop off since '99. now in your recent post you are saying he's not as good as he was in '99, and that i should i know this. of course i know this. i was the one who pointed this out to you, duh?

when you mention 'fececious", i have no idea what you are talking about. perhaps "facetious" is the word you are looking for. maybe you and ben need to go to that "presenting your ideas better" class.

you may think kerr hasn't done sh*t since leaving the bulls. but i think different. he may not make make many headlines but he will be making positive contributions to any team he is on. because of his ability to shoot from the outside, defenders will think twice about double teaming off of him. his presence on the court helps space out the defense.

mock all you want about myself and my statement about harper. but i don't agree with saying the ONLY reason harper hit that shot on the baseline in the game was because of phil jackson. yes, phil brought him in to the lakers. but did phil hit that jump shot? give the guy some credit, harper was still serviceable at the time. would rick brunson be playing the final minutes of a game where the lakers where facing elimination? would the lakers trust rick brunson and pass him the ball to shoot an important shot??

[:digerati:]

very true if i elaborated more, my ideas would be better presented. but once again, i am glad there are certain individuals on this forum to quickly point this out.

Then why not do it?

giving lots of money to a player will not guarantee or SECURE a nba championship. in this case, the player is jordan. a team may look good on paper, but that doesn't necessarily make them the champions of the nba outright. but you can go ahead and think otherwise. the bulls did win 6 altogether. which 3 titles do you speak of anyway?

Then answer my question, why give Jordan all that money if you can get a cheaper player?

"then why did do it?" weren't you the one talking about better presentation of ideas

Perhaps if you read things in context...

"...if you stay on topic you look smarter." if a person wants to think i'm stupid, go ahead and think that way. i don't post on this forum to "look smarter" or to look stupid. i don’t post on this forum to see what people think of me. if i had broken a rule, i figured the moderator of this forum would notify me.

No, they wouldn't have, they don't care about the rules. Why do you post on the forum? To talk about basketball? You gain credibility in your comments when you don't aimlessly say things about Gwen Stefani.

i can't speak for the GM's on why they didn't want ron harper.

Then theorize.

interpret what you want from "feel safe behind your computer". so we don't agree on what the statement was implying. i tried to clear the air already. but if there's still a misunderstanding:
BEN- DON'T GET YOUR PANTIES IN A BUNCH. I WILL NOT PHYSICALLY HARM YOU. it would still give me great satisfaction to be face to face with you.

Why? You still have not explained it. Why would it give you great satisfaction to be face to face with me? As for the panties comment, of there were mods that actually enforced rules that would be one you broke. BUT, since there aren't.

"explain it or we're right" are you IMPLYING that what you think is right?

By you not explaining what you meant then the only thing to be assumed is that we're right and you don't want to admit it.

you said yourself that my statement would "more then often imply physical harm". yes, maybe to you it may more then often imply physical harm and all that. but that statement you made there that doesn't mean it's ALWAYS the case. you choose to interpret that it is implying physical harm. go right ahead. but don't say you are right when you are saying that my statement can be interpreted in another way.

In the context you used it, it is more than often implying physical harm to a person or persons. Perhaps if you explained yourself we wouldn't have to assume what you meant by the context and usual implications.

you first say that kukoc's talent did not drop off since '99. now in your recent post you are saying he's not as good as he was in '99, and that i should i know this. of course i know this. i was the one who pointed this out to you, duh?

His talent didn't drop off. But his ability to use the talent has. I believe that's what Shane meant.

when you mention 'fececious", i have no idea what you are talking about. perhaps "facetious" is the word you are looking for. maybe you and ben need to go to that "presenting your ideas better" class.

Why lump me in it? I've explained EVERYTHING I've said in this thread. Infact, why insult Shane because of a spelling error. That's yet another blatant rule violation. But luckily for you, nobody cares since you agree with them.

mock all you want about myself and my statement about harper. but i don't agree with saying the ONLY reason harper hit that shot on the baseline in the game was because of phil jackson.

Did anyone say that was the reason? Infact, you're the one that related the two.

Until you show some ability to explain yourself and thus discuss topics, I'm pretty much done here. But remember, if you don't explain yourself when asked to, you're assumed to be wrong, so...one last time:
1. Why didn't the Bulls sign someone cheaper than the $100 million Jordan commanded?
2. Why did you mean by your "face to face" and "safe behind computer comments"?
3. Why do you demand the impossible of Jerry Krause when not even Jerry West could have this team in the playoffs in 4 years (not the six you continue to claim)?

[air gordon]

why not do it? because i don't have the time to completely elaborate on completely everthing i put on this message board. thankfully there are people onthis board to quickly point it out.

aren't you the one saying one single player cannot win a nba championship by himself?? it seems you are saying that the bulls were guaranteed to win the championship if jordan was resigned for a lot money. i'll answer your question: i think resigning jordan for a lot of money instead of some cheap player would greatly increase the bulls chances of winning the nba championship.

"perhaps you should read things in context...". perhaps you should better express your ideas.

i don't post on the forum to gain credibility. people can reply or not reply if they want to. i addressed the gwen stefani thing already.

ok i will theorize. phil jackson realized that harper's strengths would help out the lakers at the time. if there was another team in a similar situation as the lakers, harper may have had a chance to be of service to that team.

explain 'it'. what is 'it'?

why do you care why i would get satisfaction being face to face with you? you're making an issue that i was implying i will do physical harm to you but i've already explained what i meant in my comment.

you can assume whatever you want if i don't explain what i mean, but i don't think it would be fair to ONLY assume you are right. there are other possibilities one can assume in this given situation.

in your intrepretation you think i am implying physical harm. but i went on to explain my statement. are you still assuming anyway? many statements can be misunderstood in this forum since you cannot actually hear the person say what he/she is saying or see his/her body language. feel free to assume, but keep in mind there are normally at least 2 sides to an interpretation. i went on to explain my statement because it was misunderstood.

if shane meant to say what you are saying, then he should go ahead and say it.

if you're going to tell people they need to better present their ideas, then people should be able to do the same thing to you. you made a statement earlier that didn't make sense to me. rather then go assume you are implying something, i figured i'd inform you that you didn't express your ideas very well there.

you're the one talking about having intelligent conversation and expressing ideas better. fececious? i guess i'll go assume he's talking about feces.

yes- shane did mention that phil jackson was the reason harper hit the shot.

1. first off, you contradict yourself by saying the bulls would win/secure a nba championship if jordan was resigned for a lot of money. in another post you are saying no one person can win a nba championship by himself. as mentioned earlier- i think resigning jordan for a lot of money instead of some cheap player would greatly increase the bulls chances of winning the nba championship. jordan asked for 100 million?

2. the ideas in the this question are not expressed very well. but i'll blindly asssume you are asking what i mean behind these 2 comments. i addressed the 'safe behind the computer' thing already. if you still think i am implying physical harm, please review my previous posts. if you still think i am implying physical harm afterwards, then go ahead anyway.

3. you may think i am demanding the impossible from jerry kruse. what is the impossible i am demanding? from the statements i have made, what are the impossible things i have mentioned? please quote the 'impossible demands" made by me.
in an earlier post, i mentioned that it has been 4 years of this rebuilding. i stand corrected. but feel free to still quickly point out i was claiming 6 years.

[Wall St. Peon]

the bulls did win 6 altogether. which 3 titles do you speak of anyway?

Ben said:

three titles, twice

Yeah...

i don't post on the forum to gain credibility. people can reply or not reply if they want to.

So why do you post? If you are credible, then don't you think people would take your posts and opinions a bit more seriously because they make sense? You're making generally incoherent posts (incoherent as to what your point is)...

ok i will theorize. phil jackson realized that harper's strengths would help out the lakers at the time. if there was another team in a similar situation as the lakers, harper may have had a chance to be of service to that team.

Well...the Raptors needed an experienced point guard that year, so did the Clippers...and Grizzlies...and Cavs...and Bulls...and Warriors...why didn't they sign him? Because he's old and washed up, and the Lakers needed a point guard and he's a friend of Jackson...

why do you care why i would get satisfaction being face to face with you? you're making an issue that i was implying i will do physical harm to you but i've already explained what i meant in my comment.

Why do you want to see him face to face? You haven't explained that yet, and it definately wasn't because you meant "don't get your panties in a bunch"...that would make less sense than your AC Green popping a cherry comment...

in your intrepretation you think i am implying physical harm. but i went on to explain my statement. are you still assuming anyway? many statements can be misunderstood in this forum since you cannot actually hear the person say what he/she is saying or see his/her body language. feel free to assume, but keep in mind there are normally at least 2 sides to an interpretation. i went on to explain my statement because it was misunderstood.]

Yes, I do. And you didn't explain anything...why do you want to meet Ben face to face? That's true what you say about body language, but you haven't explained anything.

if shane meant to say what you are saying, then he should go ahead and say it.

Jordan still has his talent, yet his numbers have decreased because of age. The same goes with Kukoc. I figured it was implied, but I guess I need to spell things out for you?

if you're going to tell people they need to better present their ideas, then people should be able to do the same thing to you. you made a statement earlier that didn't make sense to me. rather then go assume you are implying something, i figured i'd inform you that you didn't express your ideas very well there.

So what's wrong with us questioning your weird statements about Gwen Stefani and AC Green's cherry? Or why you want to meet Ben face to face?

you're the one talking about having intelligent conversation and expressing ideas better. fececious? i guess i'll go assume he's talking about feces.

Fecetious...so I made a spelling error, so what? You knew what I meant because the spelling error was minor and because of how you responded to the comment - in the correct context. A single spelling error makes my contribution to this post unintelligent and makes me unable to express my ideas? Did you still know what I was talkinga bout? Most likely, by your response...

yes- shane did mention that phil jackson was the reason harper hit the shot.

Quote me...then I'll respond...

i mentioned that it has been 4 years of this rebuilding. i stand corrected. but feel free to still quickly point out i was claiming 6 years.]

OK...you said...

over 5 years

but that was almost 6 years ago

never did i say because of krause's personality and such is why he is doing a bad job rebuilding the bulls. if you still want to think way, go right ahead. if you want, say, " oh in context you are implying it", go right ahead. but once again, i never said because of krause's personality and such is why he is doing a bad job rebuilding the bulls.

You definately implied it. You agree with me on my analysis on Krause's job of rebuilding the Bulls - which was a positive one - and then you go on about how you don't like Krause because of his personality. Earlier in this discussion, you were going on about how bad of a GM Krause is, which is retracted by you agreeing with me, therefore your statements about how you don't like his personality and so on make it seem like the only reason you said he was doing a bad job was because you don't like him, which is why I think it's implied.

i do agree that the roster this year is better then the ones in the past 4 years. and you (live) said, "that isn't hard". you are implying that what krause has accomplished was very easy and that any other GM could have pulled it off. and also you mentioned, "he's doing his job, what more can we ask of him?". we can ask more of him if he’s doing a job anybody else can do.

If you think that's what I'm implying, you're not as intelligent as I thought you were. I meant that it isn't hard to see that this roster is an improvement over the previous years. As for the rest of that, he's doing his job. He's doing better than Jerry West right now in Memphis, he's doing better than Golden State, Cleveland, and so on. Therefore, he's doing more than they can do, so just not "anybody else" can do.

yes, brunson can do all of that, but i don't see brunson wearing any nba championship rings. "what the hell?" you're the one who brought up AC green and the word, f*ck.

I brought up AC Green because he made a big shot...just like Ron Harper, who you mentioned. The Rick Brunson comment was an attempt at being light hearted in a conversation in which you imply you want to harm Ben...soooo...

you may think kerr hasn't done sh*t since leaving the bulls. but i think different. he may not make make many headlines but he will be making positive contributions to any team he is on. because of his ability to shoot from the outside, defenders will think twice about double teaming off of him. his presence on the court helps space out the defense.

He hasn't...does he start? Does he log a lot of minutes? He's behind Tony Parker and Speedy Claxton and Emanuel Goblini in the rotation, and he only sees trash time. Claxton and Parker and Goblini can spread the floor just as easily as Kerr....hell, they can pick up Dell Curry for that as well...

mock all you want about myself and my statement about harper. but i don't agree with saying the ONLY reason harper hit that shot on the baseline in the game was because of phil jackson. yes, phil brought him in to the lakers. but did phil hit that jump shot?

No...because Ron Harper made the shot...but he was able to take the shot because Phil Jackson had him on the floor for his defense and veteran experience....I'm sure they would have much rather had Kobe or Shaq or Horry to take the shot, no?

give the guy some credit, harper was still serviceable at the time. [\quote]

Serviceable. How many role players have made game winners? A lot. How many role players have made game winners who it was surprising that they were on a team? A lot.

would rick brunson be playing the final minutes of a game where the lakers where facing elimination?

No....

would the lakers trust rick brunson and pass him the ball to shoot an important shot??

No...he wouldn't be playing...

If your point that Ron Harper is significantly better than Brunson, well, great - he is. My point is that the only reason he was on the Lakers was because of the Phil Jackson connection; no other teams wanted him, and don't say there wasn't a need for veteran point guards. Continuing with that line of thinking, if no other team but a Phil Jackson coached team wanted Ron Harper, what would have the Bulls - who just lost Phil Jackson - have gotten for an aging, serviceable (as you put it) point guard? You claimed that Krause could have gotten something for Harper and I say they couldn't and gave reasons. You said he made a jump shot...

[air gordon]

maybe you post to gain credibility, but i don't. i mainly post to give my opinion and at times to see what kind of reaction my post will get. like i said earlier, people can reply or not if they want to. if people think my posts are incredible/credible or that they are coherent/incoherent, so be it. it doesn't bother me either way.

i don't know where this harper thing is going but i know we disagree on harper's ability and value. i can't speak for why other nba gm's didn't give him a chance, but i will say i would have picked up harper if i was a gm back then.

"You haven't explained that yet, and it definately wasn't because you meant 'don't get your panties in a bunch'..." i get the first part but not the second part. please better express your idea(s) here.

"you haven't explained anything." if you truly think this after my several posts, then this discussion is over. but then again, maybe my explanations you thought were implying they were not explanations.

yes, you do need to spell things out for me. the way you interpret things is not universal. you act like your interpretations are gospel. is it a sin to not interpret things the way you do or not know what you are implying?

if you want to keep questioning the gwen stefani or AC green thing, go right ahead. my statements about them made SENSE. fececious?

maybe we should meet face to face too.

i only knew what you meant after looking up the word "fececious" in the dictionary and not finding it. thankfully, the word the real word came up as a suggestion. so yes, i feel your error here makes you unintelligent and makes you unable to express your ideas. please better express your ideas so i know what you are talkinga bout.

well you know you were IMPLYING that. here's your quote you are asking for anyway: "so yes, the only reason Harper was on the Lakers was because of Jackson, and thsu that is the only reason that Harper was able to make that shot...".

thanks for pointing that out. sure you didn't leave one out?

feel free to think i was implying krause is doing a bad job because of his personality. yes, we both agreed that the roster is better. also we both agreed the roster could only get better considering what was around the past few years. whoopdeedo. there isn't that much crap around anymore, but the crap still stinks. imply this, imply that. what ever happened to "what i say is what i mean"? i said the rebuilding process would be easier to swallow if krause was less an egomaniac, more media/fan friendly, and had less chins. if you want to think that this is implying something other then the rebuilding process would be easier to swallow if krause was less an egomaniac, more media/fan friendly, and had less chins, go right ahead.

there you go with that universal interpretation/implying thing. is it really a great achievement to improve a crappy roster? "he's doing his job", a job that you said that "isn't that hard to do".

less then one year has jerry west been the GM for memphis. why place judgement on him so soon?

still think i am implying physical harm on ben?

if they can pick up dell curry in favor of steve kerr, then why don't they? kerr is on an nba roster still making positive contributions to the team. it's not like he doesn't belong on the team and should be paying the team to play. how do you define sh*t? is someone doing sh*t just because they play a lot of minutes?

i didn't hear anyone complaining that harper took the shot afterwards. besides the team was confident in him enough to pass him the ball. no, i would rather have harper shooting baseline jumpers then shaq.

how many is a lot? it's not as easy as you think it is to make big shots.

"don't say there wasn't a need for veteran point guards..." why can i not say that? oh are you implying something else?

[Wall St. Peon]

maybe you post to gain credibility, but i don't. i mainly post to give my opinion and at times to see what kind of reaction my post will get. like i said earlier, people can reply or not if they want to. if people think my posts are incredible/credible or that they are coherent/incoherent, so be it. it doesn't bother me either way.

If your opinion doesn't make sense, or you can't express it, then people won't take you seriously and therefore will dismiss the opinion as of that as a moron who can't express himself, thus negating the point of making the post in the first place. Looking for a reaction? Then you're missing the entire point of this discussion board...if you want to start flame wars or see if you can piss off people, go to an ESPN message board.

By the way, incredible and credible mean different things; they aren't opposites...

i don't know where this harper thing is going but i know we disagree on harper's ability and value. i can't speak for why other nba gm's didn't give him a chance, but i will say i would have picked up harper if i was a gm back then.

Yeah, we can agree to disagree; however, a lot of people agree with me on the value of Harper - and there's 28 men whose opinions matter a helluva lot more than ours, and they didn't want him - like me. Who's right? We'll never know, but in this case my opinion of Harper looks far more educated and likely than yours.

"You haven't explained that yet, and it definately wasn't because you meant 'don't get your panties in a bunch'..." i get the first part but not the second part. please better express your idea(s) here.

I'm sorry, do you want me to not use commas? Come on, do you not remember saying that telling Ben to feel safe behind his computers meant you telling him not to get his panties in a bunch? That made absolutely no sense, as telling him to relax (which is what "don't get panties in a bunch" means to me, who knows what it means to you...) has nothing to do with how safe he feels behind his computer. If you don't remember your own statements, don't even think you have any say in whether or not my posts are expressive enough....

"you haven't explained anything." if you truly think this after my several posts, then this discussion is over. but then again, maybe my explanations you thought were implying they were not explanations.

You haven't answered my questions. Why do you want to meet Ben face to face? Why did you talk about Krause's personality traits as a reason you don't like his rebuilding effort when you completely bash his rebuilding effort earlier in the post? If those questions aren't clear to you, I suggest Hooked on Phonics. I'm not being derogatory, but those questions are crystal clear and specific. And you haven't answered them or explained anything (in the context of the rest of that sentence, which you negated to quote), therefore my statement was correct.

yes, you do need to spell things out for me. the way you interpret things is not universal. you act like your interpretations are gospel. is it a sin to not interpret things the way you do or not know what you are implying?

The way I interpret things is not universal? Of course not, nothing on this planet is universal. However, English is a common language and I'm using it, and I'm using it clearly. I'm sure that others aren't having the extreme difficulty in reading what I'm writing on this board. English and Logic are pretty much world-wide standards. If you are having problems understanding me, again, I suggest some sort of help. Just read more, it'll increase your vocabulary and ability to interpret complex sentences...

if you want to keep questioning the gwen stefani or AC green thing, go right ahead. my statements about them made SENSE. fececious?

They made SENSE? OK, what does Gwen Stefani have to do with basketball? Absolutely nothing. What was the point of mentioning her? Yes, she's hot...so what? We're talking about the Bulls. I mentioned AC Green's big jumpshot to counter your argument about Harper and you come up with some comment about popping AC Green's CHERRY? What does that mean, and what is the point of such an obtuse statement? You haven't explained them, and they DEFINATELY do NOT make any sense. As for me mispelling 'fecetious?' So what? I mispelled a word twice...crud! Spelling isn't my strong point; however, I used the word, albeit mispelled, in the proper context, therefore it made SENSE.

maybe we should meet face to face too.

OK, I'll meet face to face with you to show you how to read comprehensively and to express yourself in writing. Why do you want to meet me face to face? Tell me why, I'm curious.

i only knew what you meant after looking up the word "fececious" in the dictionary and not finding it. thankfully, the word the real word came up as a suggestion. so yes, i feel your error here makes you unintelligent and makes you unable to express your ideas. please better express your ideas so i know what you are talkinga bout.

Hey! Good for you, you see a word you don't know and you look it up. A sign of someone striving to better themselves! Or to see if someone used a word in the wrong context. *shrug* You feel my error makes me look unintelligent and unable to express my ideas? I already explained that; the word was used in the proper context. You don't see me pointing out your grammar and spelling and capitilization and punctuation errors, now do you? I could, but I just blanket them together in the statement that "You are unable to clearly express your ideas" because it isn't rude nad saves face for the both of us. But, since you decided to pick on a minor error out of extensive posts, I'll pick on your little typographical errors.

well you know you were IMPLYING that. here's your quote you are asking for anyway: "so yes, the only reason Harper was on the Lakers was because of Jackson, and thsu that is the only reason that Harper was able to make that shot...".

Um...if Harper wasn't on the Lakers, then could he have made that shot? No. Why was Harper on the Lakers? Because Jackson told Jerry West or whoever their GM was at the time he wanted Harper. Therefore, Jackson is the reason that Harper made that shot. Now, if you can't see the logical progression of those statements, then you need more help with your reading skills than I thought.

thanks for pointing that out. sure you didn't leave one out?

Pointing what out? "That" must refer to a previous noun, and since this is a single sentence without any noun inside of it, then this sentence makes absolutely no sense. I have no idea what you are talking about. With that being said, you're doing a poor job of expressing yourself.

feel free to think i was implying krause is doing a bad job because of his personality. yes, we both agreed that the roster is better. also we both agreed the roster could only get better considering what was around the past few years. whoopdeedo. there isn't that much crap around anymore, but the crap still stinks. imply this, imply that. what ever happened to "what i say is what i mean"? i said the rebuilding process would be easier to swallow if krause was less an egomaniac, more media/fan friendly, and had less chins. if you want to think that this is implying something other then the rebuilding process would be easier to swallow if krause was less an egomaniac, more media/fan friendly, and had less chins, go right ahead.

I say what I mean, but you can't read and make this much more difficult than it needs to be. You also can't seem to understand that I'm reading between the lines and thinking that there just might be something more to a totally misplaced comment such as this. You brought up all your dislikes of Krause the person into a discussion about how he's doing his job, which you were also bashing - and then retracted - which doesn't make sense, and which you're not willing to explain to me. Say you weren't thinking clearly, or you just screwed up, or whatever. Just give me an explanation why you were so fiercely battling with Ben over the moves Krause has made, and then you turn around and agree with what I say - which is EXACTLY what Ben was saying for many posts. Right after I mention that, you bring up Krause's chins. It seems like you're changing the subject and trying to move focus away from your mistake. I could care less if you think Krause sucks so he's doing a crappy job; say that, don't waste my time with this crap.

there you go with that universal interpretation/implying thing. is it really a great achievement to improve a crappy roster? "he's doing his job", a job that you said that "isn't that hard to do".

*sigh* It isn't hard to improve from starting Fred Hoiberg, Khalid El-Amin, and Corey Benjamin. That isn't hard; however, it's hard when you're a crappy team. I meant that it isn't difficult to improve on the roster because it was so bad. Isn't that easy to see? He's doing his job; he brought in a superstar, three possible superstars, and he's beginning to get free agents to want to go there. He's also got a pretty good coach. He's doing his job; the Bulls are playoff bound. Now, can you say the same about Scott Layden or the Cavs GM (is it Paxon?), or the Warriors GM? Hell no. They're doing horrible jobs, and their team and their records show it. They're making no progress, and the Bulls are on the rise again. Now, is Jerry Krause doing his job? Yes. Do you like him? Obviously not. But is your not liking him the reason you say he sucks at his job when he obviously is? It definately appears that way, now doesn't it?

less then one year has jerry west been the GM for memphis. why place judgement on him so soon?

Well, why place judgement on Krause? He won six rings, didn't he? He brought Rodman and Pippen and other various pieces of the puzzle to Chi-Town, and he's forming a damned good future team right this moment. Until the Bulls go 10 seasons without making the playoffs (Clippers, Cavs [I think], Hawks [I think], Wizards [I think], and Warriors), then you can say Krause sucks. As it is, he's improving the team and they're talking playoffs. What more do you want of him? You can't start from scratch twice in four years and be NBA Champions for those years.

still think i am implying physical harm on ben?

Until you say why you want to meet him, yes.

if they can pick up dell curry in favor of steve kerr, then why don't they? kerr is on an nba roster still making positive contributions to the team. it's not like he doesn't belong on the team and should be paying the team to play. how do you define sh*t? is someone doing sh*t just because they play a lot of minutes?

Kerr is under contract and San Antonio has a full roster and is over the cap. If they do the same thing (which they do - spread the defense), why cut Kerr, who's under contract, and make your team more in debt by signing a player who does the same thing? The Spurs traded him once already, and then they got him back. The Spurs aren't the most talented team, and they have a huge post presence so Kerr gets his 15 mpg (I was wrong about trash time, my bad) and five points. However, Curry can easily do the same thing. Of course, who takes the salary cap and rosters into consideration when discussing why or why not a team signs a player? I guess you don't...

i didn't hear anyone complaining that harper took the shot afterwards.

Um...because he made it? Cripes, do you have common sense? Why would they complain that he made a game-winner?

besides the team was confident in him enough to pass him the ball. no, i would rather have harper shooting baseline jumpers then shaq.

Oh...so you'd rather have a guard take a low percentage jump shot than passing the ball into Shaq in the paint? That makes perfect sense...boy, I'd rather have a guard who shoots about 45% take a jump shot for 20 feet away than the big huge guy how shoots above 50% dunk it from 4 feet. Don't say I wasn't clear...Shaq doesn't take jump shots from the distance that Harper made that shot, so if you thought that's what I meant you need to watch basketball...

how many is a lot? it's not as easy as you think it is to make big shots.

A lot is a lot...think of how many role players have made big shots for just Phil Jackson...Kerr, Paxton, Horry, Harper, Armstrong, Rodman (while not a role player, he definately isn't a shooter), Fisher, Shaw, George...need I go on? They've all made big shots...probably every player in the NBA who's gotten a fair amount of playing time and has been in the NBA for a few years has made big shots such as Harpers. Hell, proably about every player in NBA history has made such a shot, at least one. So if everyone is a lot, is that good enough for you?

"don't say there wasn't a need for veteran point guards..." why can i not say that? oh are you implying something else?

Way to misquote me. That was an opening statement which led into the examples of teams which needed veteran point guards - not to even mention the fact that Harper was very capable of playing shooting guard. Why can't you say that? You can say it all you want, I just told you not to ("don't" is a suggestion saying that you are able to do it, I just don't want you to or see no point to you saying it). I gave something like three teams that needed veteran points; therefore, if you claim that no other teams needed veteran point guards, that statement is false.

[air gordon]

my opinions have to be making some kind of sense. after all, you are replying to them. people can take me seriously or not seriously. like i said earlier, people don't have to reply if they don't want to.

you may think looking for a reaction means starting flame wars or pissing people off, but i don't. i started another thread asking, "what nba/international player does your own basketball game resemble?". i don't think anyone was upset over me asking that. but then again, maybe someone could think i was implying something else.

thank you for pointing out that incredible and credible are not opposites.

why do you post anyway? to sound more educated then others? do you feel the need to let others know you think you are smarter then them? and why do you get so defensive when i ask politely to better express your ideas?

you can continue to think i was implying krause is doing a bad job because of his personality if you want- even if i already i mentioned otherwise, several times already. yet you continue to think i'm implying something different. why do i want to meet ben? maybe that will remain a mystery forever. i'll say, though, not to inflict personal harm. imply what you want from that statement.

having this thinking of people should be understanding everything you say is suggesting there that your interpretations are gospel. once again, not everything thinks the same as you and just because you think one thing implies something, it doesn't mean everyone else thinks the same.
you can feel free to insult me and think i am having extreme difficulty in comprehending what you say.

yes, my statement about gwen stefani made sense. i said that bulls need some help in their frontcourt because it seems like gwen stefani is guarding the lane. once again, you were the one that mentioned AC green and the word, "f*ck". my remark made sense about him getting his cherry popped. is it really necessary to explain to how that remark made sense?

spelling isn't your strong point? that unfortuante since you claim you can educate me with your extensive vocabulary and god-like ability to put together complex sentences.

let's meet face to face so we can have a cup of coffee and talk. i want to ask you why you sound so angry and question why you have to insult people because they don't understand completely everything you say.

feel free to pick out whatever grammar mistakes i make. i don't think it's really necessary to get so defensive after pointing out your 'fececious' mistake.

you asked for your jackson quote about harper's shot and you got it. yes, one can say phil jackson played a role in ron harper hitting that big shot. but to think that phil jackson was the only reason harper is inaccurate. what is your need to insult people anyway?

yes, i will better express my here if it will help you better understand my statement. 'that' was referring to how i inaccurately said the bulls rebuilding project has taken 5 years.

am i really battling fiercely with ben over this whole thing? or is that the reason you feel you need to get angry and insult me? you can read between the lines if you want, even if i explained the krause/personality/bad job statement. yes, perhaps the statement was misplaced. but once again, i explained that statement after the misunderstanding and you still think i was implying krause is doing a bad job because of his personality. but you can go ahead and think that anyway if you want.

you said, "It isn't hard to improve from starting Fred Hoiberg, Khalid El-Amin, and Corey Benjamin. That isn't hard; however, it's hard when you're a crappy team. I meant that it isn't difficult to improve on the roster because it was so bad." isn't a team with those mentioned players starting considered a crappy team? you first say in that statement that is is not hard to improve a crappy team. then later you say it is hard when you are a crappy team. which do you believe is true?

is jalen rose a superstar?? in your opinion, what makes a nba player a superstar? has rose even made an all star team? do you honestly think the bulls are playoff bound? i want the bulls to make the playoffs but i won't place a bet saying they will.

why place judgement on krause? he has been the GM for bulls for a while now so we can gather information to make an accurate judgement on him. how can one make an accurate judgement on West if this his FIRST season as gm with memphis?

yes, krause did a good job bringing in players while the bulls were winning. but that was the past. krause has shown the ability to bring role players & secondary players. but he hasn't shown the ability to find a superstar. rod thorn drafted jordan, not krause. i wouldn't be surprised if krause was the bulls gm at the time jordan was in the draft, he wouldn't have selected him.

i'm not going to wait another 6 years (making it 10 total years) of the bulls not making the playoffs before i make my judgement on krause. please let me be free on the choices i make. you're making a rash judgement on West, but i'm not telling you when you can make a judgement on him.

have i mentioned that the bulls should be nba champions at this point of the rebuilding mode?? it appears you think i said this or I was implying this in some earlier post.

i already said i don't want to inflict physical harm to ben. in all capital letters, in fact. i haven't seen ben making any comments about this. if you still want to make this an issue, go right ahead. but don't expect any remarks from me. don't you think i'm moronic and can't express myself properly anyway?

you're the one saying the spurs cut kerr and pick someone else up. i didn't mention anything about spurs cutting kerr. oh, wait, maybe you think i was implying that?

about the jump shot, i interpreted as you saying you woud rather have bryant, horry, or shaq shooting the baseline jumper instead of harper. i know i would have rather have harper shooting baseline jumpers instead of shaq. but go ahead and insult me because, surprise, we interpreted the statement differently.

yes, many players have hit big shots but not every nba player has. if you want to assume that, then feel free. i don't remember chris dudley or dickey simkins making some hugh jumper in crunchtime. if one or both of those events happened, please inform me.

there's this recurring theme i've noticed: you think that a lot players have made big jumpers in their careers, so you think everyone in the league has. and now that i didn't understand a few statements you made, you think of me as moronic, that i need reading lessons. not to mention you having this need to insult me. i don't know if there is some kind internal problem with you or maybe something happened to you at a younger age. but i will not speculate on either of the two.

it still isn't as easy as you think it is to make big shots. i'm guessing most players have failed more then then succeed in making big shots.

[Wall St. Peon]

You seriously have to be kidding me...

my opinions have to be making some kind of sense. after all, you are replying to them. people can take me seriously or not seriously. like i said earlier, people don't have to reply if they don't want to.

Your opinions make sense - when I can decode them from what you call use of the English language. You've said that second sentence many times...I chose to repeat, and you chose to make me less inteligent by reading and responding to your posts...but since I feel the need to communicate with you and try to fix your errors, I continue to do so.

you may think looking for a reaction means starting flame wars or pissing people off, but i don't. i started another thread asking, "what nba/international player does your own basketball game resemble?". i don't think anyone was upset over me asking that. but then again, maybe someone could think i was implying something else

I call that starting a discussion, not looking for a reaction. Looking for a reaction would be saying something to, say, start a flame war.

thank you for pointing out that incredible and credible are not opposites.

Your welcome. I do what I can to help the imbeciles of the world...

why do you post anyway?

I post because I enjoy discussing BASKETBALL. The NBA. You know, what this section of the forum is about...as opposed to looking for people's reactions and what not.

to sound more educated then others? do you feel the need to let others know you think you are smarter then them? and why do you get so defensive when i ask politely to better express your ideas?

I'm not letting others know I'm smarter than them. Where did I say "I'm smarter than you." All I've said is that you aren't clear in your meanings. You counter by pointing out a spelling error, and, since I am an English major, I decided to point out (although vaguely) your constant grammatical and spelling errors. I'm defensive when you ask me to express my ideas? I DO express my ideas. I use complete sentences with a nouns,verbs, and I'm specific as to what I'm talking about. If you cannot read and understand what I am writing, that isn't my problem. I write extremely well, and it shows because I get A's and B's in 300 and 400 level college courses at a fairly difficult university. That being said, why do YOU get so defensive when Ben and I tell you to express yourself better?

you can continue to think i was implying krause is doing a bad job because of his personality if you want- even if i already i mentioned otherwise, several times already. yet you continue to think i'm implying something different.

Yes, I can and I will. Do you know why? Because I can read between the lines, because I am rather skilled in rhetoric and psychology and understand - generally - how people think and write. You don't write all that well, therefore it's much easier to see how you're thinking. If you won't admit it, whatever. You just seem like a smug little ass anyway, probably someone no older than 14...

why do i want to meet ben? maybe that will remain a mystery forever. i'll say, though, not to inflict personal harm. imply what you want from that statement.

You say you don't want to hurt him in person. Prove it. Say what you mean, then. If you have nothing to hide, why hide it? Why act like a two yeaer old with a secret? If you hide it, I'll assume I'm correct with my assumption. Until you explain, I'll believe what I like.

having this thinking of people should be understanding everything you say is suggesting there that your interpretations are gospel. once again, not everything thinks the same as you and just because you think one thing implies something, it doesn't mean everyone else thinks the same. you can feel free to insult me and think i am having extreme difficulty in comprehending what you say.

OK.

Number 1: I am not insulting you. You obviously having comprehension problems, and I offered to help.

Number 2: It's ENGLISH for crying out loud. If you can't understand sentences with commas and periods and capital letters, you have problems. My interpretations are not gospe, and I never said they were. YOU did, not me.

Number 3: I know not everyone thinks the same as I. Did I say they did? No. You did. Now, if you would actually say something of use on this board as opposed to asinine comments such as these, I might take you seriously. As it is, you're just a little boy who needs to be shown the ropes on how to write and use English correctly...

yes, my statement about gwen stefani made sense. i said that bulls need some help in their frontcourt because it seems like gwen stefani is guarding the lane.

Have you ever seen Gwen Stefani guarding the lane? I highly doubt it as she's a musician. If you haven't seen her guard the lane, does this comment make sense? No. Does Gwen Stefani have anything to do with basketball? No. Does your comment make sense? No. Is it funny? No. Is it weird? Yes.

once again, you were the one that mentioned AC green and the word, "f*ck". my remark made sense about him getting his cherry popped. is it really necessary to explain to how that remark made sense?

Well, yes, it is. In the context that you took the word "fuck" (which is obviously not the context that I used), it pertains the the losing of one's virginity. Since AC Green is a man, and, therefore, does not have a vagina nor hymen, he cannot have his "cherry" (slang for hymen) popped. That being said, your comment made no sense. Now, if you had taken my use of a profanity in context, you wouldn't have needed to make the smartass comment which made no sense and wasn't funny, therefore making the comment pointless and asinine.

spelling isn't your strong point? that unfortuante since you claim you can educate me with your extensive vocabulary and god-like ability to put together complex sentences.

Spelling isn't my strong point; however, just because it isn't my strong point doesn't mean I can't spell. Since you obviously don't know what a complex sentence is, allow me to explain. A complex sentence would be something like a compound sentence, say, "the cat ran across the field, and he caught the mouse," or, a sentence with an introductory statement "As the dark night enveloped the wood, Jack stared blankly at the stars." Those are complex sentences, and I use them quite frequently. I have an extensive vocabulary and I use it. I have never once claimed I have a "God-Like ability" when it comes to English; however, you obviously don't have any sort of ability to use the English language to your advantage.

let's meet face to face so we can have a cup of coffee and talk.

Sure.

i want to ask you why you sound so angry and question why you have to insult people because they don't understand completely everything you say.

Have I insulted you anymore than you've insulted me? You make fun of me because of one spelling error, something completely irrelevant to the discussion. I say I can't understand you because your sentences don't make sense (and they don't). I ask for clarification, and you make fun of me. Who is at fault here? I honestly don't think I am; I offered help to you in order for our discussions to improve in quality, and you mock me and poke fun.

feel free to pick out whatever grammar mistakes i make. i don't think it's really necessary to get so defensive after pointing out your 'fececious' mistake.

I'm getting defensive? What about you? You mention in nearly every paragraph about how "I'm not expressing myself clearly," which is clearly a bitter reflex from Ben and I saying you don't make sense. Why shouldn't I defend myself against a simple spelling error? Because you said so?

you asked for your jackson quote about harper's shot and you got it. yes, one can say phil jackson played a role in ron harper hitting that big shot. but to think that phil jackson was the only reason harper is inaccurate. what is your need to insult people anyway?

Phil Jackson got Harper on the team. Because Harper was on the team, he was able to make the shot. How many times do I have to say it? What is my need to insult people? WHere I have insulted you? I called you a moron once; other than that, I've offered HELP to you. That's hardly insulting a person. You, on the other hand, have been looking for ways to insult me, and I'm not insulted. It's more entertaining than anything else...

yes, i will better express my here if it will help you better understand my statement. 'that' was referring to how i inaccurately said the bulls rebuilding project has taken 5 years.

That made absolutely no sense. "yes, I will better express my here if it will help you better understand my statement?" Please....

As for the rest, why didn't you specify what 'that' meant? Then I wouldn't have had to ask you...which would have saved both time and forum space. Like you care....

am i really battling fiercely with ben over this whole thing? or is that the reason you feel you need to get angry and insult me? you can read between the lines if you want, even if i explained the krause/personality/bad job statement. yes, perhaps the statement was misplaced. but once again, i explained that statement after the misunderstanding and you still think i was implying krause is doing a bad job because of his personality. but you can go ahead and think that anyway if you want.

You were 'battling fiercly' (colorful adjectives) with Ben about whether or not Krause has improved the team. Ben said yes, you said no. I said yes, you agreed with me. Your opinions didn't match up, and when I brought that up you changed the subject, hence my statement that you meant something else - reading between the lines. Am I angry? No. Am I insutling you? No. Are you incoherrent? Yes. Are you attempting to belittle me? Yes. Am I offereing help in rhetorical and comprehensive reading skills to you? yes. Is that an insult? No. Hmmm...and I'll think what I damn well please.

you said, "It isn't hard to improve from starting Fred Hoiberg, Khalid El-Amin, and Corey Benjamin. That isn't hard; however, it's hard when you're a crappy team. I meant that it isn't difficult to improve on the roster because it was so bad." isn't a team with those mentioned players starting considered a crappy team? you first say in that statement that is is not hard to improve a crappy team. then later you say it is hard when you are a crappy team. which do you believe is true?

You seriously have to be kidding me. I said that they were a crappy team. It isn't hard to improve a crappy team because of the talent level of the players on the team. It is hard to get players of better talent to the team to improve it. That is what I meant, and I'm sure the majority of the people reading this thread knew that is what I meant. This is why I say things about your comprehensive skills: you have NONE. You seriously are probably as close to mentally retarded as one can get. You're probably just trying to get me to say that so I can be kicked off the board - looking for a reaction - but I don't care. You insulted first, and the mods don't seem to do much. You're being so blatantly stupid that I can't help but comment on how stupid you are being. Cripes...

is jalen rose a superstar?? in your opinion, what makes a nba player a superstar? has rose even made an all star team? do you honestly think the bulls are playoff bound? i want the bulls to make the playoffs but i won't place a bet saying they will.

In my opinion what makes a player a superstar? The ability to make their team better, attract free agents, and be the franchise player. Rose is all of those. Has Rose made an All-Star team? Who cares? The starters are determined by fans, and the bench is determined by coaches. Now, since the East has an abundance of guards who are fan and coach favorites, why would Rose make the team over Vince Carter, Michael Jordan, Allen Iverson, Jason Kidd, Ray Allen, Jerry Stackhouse, and Tracy McGrady? They have Carter and McGrady listed as forwards on the ballots so they can get more votes...like Rose, a player for the Bulls now and in the shadow of Miller in Indiana, would make the All-Star team...if you use All-Star status to determine who's a Superstar and who isn't, you have some problems.

I honestly think the Bulls are playoff bound. I didn't say what year, however. Either this year or the next...

why place judgement on krause? he has been the GM for bulls for a while now so we can gather information to make an accurate judgement on him. how can one make an accurate judgement on West if this his FIRST season as gm with memphis?

Krause won SIX RINGS!!!! OK, hmm, let's fire a guy that won six rings - when he's rebuidling the team quite well. So he didn't draft Jordan...so? That was 1982, and they didn't win a championship till Krause was the GM....does that not show anything? As for West's first year, how many GMs and coaches are fired after unsucessful first years? A fair amount.

yes, krause did a good job bringing in players while the bulls were winning. but that was the past. krause has shown the ability to bring role players & secondary players. but he hasn't shown the ability to find a superstar. rod thorn drafted jordan, not krause. i wouldn't be surprised if krause was the bulls gm at the time jordan was in the draft, he wouldn't have selected him.

Number one, Role Players and Secondary Players (as you put it) are the same damned thing...stop being redundant. Rose is a superstar in my book. He's a go to guy and a franchise player. Krause has brought in Jay Williams, someone who is immensely popular already and will most likely be a superstar. Chandler and Curry have the potential to be stars. And you say Krause has done nothing? Whatever, and you can breath oxygen in space....

i'm not going to wait another 6 years (making it 10 total years) of the bulls not making the playoffs before i make my judgement on krause.

You're not even giving Krause a chance to rebuild the Bulls...

please let me be free on the choices i make. you're making a rash judgement on West, but i'm not telling you when you can make a judgement on him.

Yes you are:

how can one make an accurate judgement on West if this his FIRST season as gm with memphis?

Is that not telling me when I can pass judgement on West? Yes, yes it is.

You're completely free on the choices you make. You chose to make incoherent posts, flip flop between opinions, and try to confuse the people you're discussing with, not to mention be completely and totally annoying. Those are all your choices. I don't care for them, and I'm probably not the only one. You can do as you please, but eventually that will bite you in the ass.

have i mentioned that the bulls should be nba champions at this point of the rebuilding mode?? it appears you think i said this or I was implying this in some earlier post.

You act like they should be. It's barely been four years and you seem to expect them deep in the playoffs. They can make the playoffs this year, which is the goal. You want a title? Wait a few years, and you'll probably get one.

i already said i don't want to inflict physical harm to ben. in all capital letters, in fact. i haven't seen ben making any comments about this. if you still want to make this an issue, go right ahead. but don't expect any remarks from me. don't you think i'm moronic and can't express myself properly anyway?

Ben doesn't feel like arguing with an idiot...I feel like broadening someone's horizons. You said you didn't, but you never said why you wanted to meet him. Hmmm......and yes, I think you're a moron who can't express himself.

you're the one saying the spurs cut kerr and pick someone else up. i didn't mention anything about spurs cutting kerr. oh, wait, maybe you think i was implying that?

Quote me...where did I say the Spurs cut Kerr? All I said is that Dell Curry and Steve Kerr do the same things on the court. There's lots of guys who spread the floor because of three point ability...it's not just Steve Kerr, which is why the Bulls couldn't have gotten anything for him.

about the jump shot, i interpreted as you saying you woud rather have bryant, horry, or shaq shooting the baseline jumper instead of harper. i know i would have rather have harper shooting baseline jumpers instead of shaq. but go ahead and insult me because, surprise, we interpreted the statement differently.

You are incredibly dense. THe LAST SHOT. I think I even said that. Apparently you read everything word for word and take it literally without thinking, yet you write in a cryptic way that makes no real sense and assumes that everyone knows what you're talking about. You can (and will) say I do the same thing, but I know I don't. I've said the same things repeated and only elaborated twice because you just can't read...

yes, many players have hit big shots but not every nba player has. if you want to assume that, then feel free. i don't remember chris dudley or dickey simkins making some hugh jumper in crunchtime. if one or both of those events happened, please inform me.

Chris Dudley made some big free throws in a playoff a few years back (when Ewing was hurt), and Dickey Simpkins had a tip in in some game or other, a clutch tip in. I garuntee you that every player has made a play like that. I never said huge jumper, I said shot/shots, something to that effect. I never said jumper.

there's this recurring theme i've noticed: you think that a lot players have made big jumpers in their careers

Wrong, I think every player has made a clutch play.

so you think everyone in the league has

They have...

. and now that i didn't understand a few statements you made, you think of me as moronic, that i need reading lessons. not to mention you having this need to insult me. i don't know if there is some kind internal problem with you or maybe something happened to you at a younger age. but i will not speculate on either of the two.

You do need reading lessons as you can't understand basic sentences. You are a moron because we're having this discussion. I don't have a need to insult you; I do it because it's true. They aren't insults if they're true, and I'm not saying it to demean you or hurt your feelings. I offered HELP to you for crying out loud, but if you think that's an insult, so be it.

An internal problem? Something that happened to me at a younger age?

OK, first of all, what gives you that idea?

Second of all, who are you to make an assumption about MY life? You know nothing about me, I know nothing about you, save for the fact you can't understand simple English.

I haven't said jack about you other than your reading skills, which obviosuly need help, and your expressive skills, which also need help. And I've offered that help. You bring up my personal life in order to hurt my feelings. WAHHHHH! I'm so sad now, you hurt my feelings. Sheesh...I swore, but isn't that a guideline violation of some sort, you know, insulting someone about their life?

it still isn't as easy as you think it is to make big shots. i'm guessing most players have failed more then then succeed in making big shots.

Did I say it was easy? No. Did I say no player has ever failed? No. I'm saying every player has suceeded at least ONCE. Once. But you're obviously too....something...to understnad anything that I'm saying. You're going to take this as one great big insult and come back with anouther useless post (do you make any useful posts?) and annoy me to the point I don't feel like responding....and I don't think I will after this one.

[:digerati:]

i haven't seen ben making any comments about this

Until you show some ability to explain yourself and thus discuss topics, I'm pretty much done here.