Re: Fantastic Team The Lakers Have Right Now.

In article <C02C7937.D68F%georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
George Evans <georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


More of your creative snipping, editing of quoted parts in your replies.
You are one lousy lame assed loser.

in article iblc02t377tusue03s2tge686son9t18gh@xxxxxxx, Sports Fan at
sports@xxxxxxxx wrote on 3/1/06 6:32 PM:

In article <C02A643E.D54D%georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
George Evans <georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

in article gus8025t5r25gh2nflijvq8seen5qocpkc@xxxxxxx, Sports Fan at
sports@xxxxxxxx wrote on 2/28/06 8:27 AM:

In article <C0292316.D466%georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
George Evans <georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

Because of your extreme and rigid position you have painted yourself into the
corner of arguing that Kobe's minutes did not go up when Mihm and Odom went
out with injuries.

No, that wasn't even part of the discussion until YOU brought it up, and it
was irrelevant to what you spew anyway.

But it could have been your counter-argument if you hadn't taken the rigid
position you did. You could have said, "Kobe's playing time was only up
because of the injuries so that is not relevant to the discussion."

No, retard.
Kobe's time was up because the Lakers couldn't close out the Blazers,
the lead started disappearing, and Phil had to put him back in the game.

And I don't have to say anything.
You made the claim, you are the one who needs to carefully select his
words.


That claim of irrelevancy has some legs as opposed to the empty one just below.

It is irrelevant, and as usual, you have no base for your arguments, as
they always were flawed, and relying on flawed logic, and your
trademarked inability to comprehend what your read.



The *fact* is that Kobe's minutes for the four games prior to the ASG were
noticeably higher than earlier in the month.

Irrelevant to the crap that you spew.

You said Kobe got good rests and it was shown that he played well over his
season average of minutes per game.

And you couldn't stand being corrected (as usual), and then went on to bring
this lame excuse of yours, saying that you were comparing his MPG against his
MPG on the last road game trip.

ROFL.

Game MPG
2005-2006 40.8
Vs. Portland 42:23

Let me say this in terms of rest time so the numbers are smaller. In three
of the four games before the ASG Kobe rested only three minutes. In the
Portland game he rested nearly six minutes. So in the Portland game he was
able to rest about twice as long as he was in three of the four games
leading up to the ASG.


Irrelevant.

Selective sampling do not count.
You post a bold general statement of "Kobe got good rests" referring to
the Blazers game, and were shown that you were wrong.

Game MPG
2005-2006 40.8
Vs. Portland 42:23

End of the story.


Now that is plenty of justification for the statement that Kobe got good
rests. His rest time was almost back up to his season average. That made me
happy--things were looking up. You would have been better off taking the
"better but still not normal" position. Then we could have had a more
meaningful and shorter discussion.

Nothing is meaningful with you.
You are as thick and dense as a brick wall.

You post a general bold statement and when shown that you are wrong, all
the lies, flame baits, insults and editing of quoted parts in your
replies start coming out, but fail to bail you out of your misery, since
you made an ass out of yourself.


You are correct that it would only take a 10 year old to understand your
basic math. However, in order to understand what I am talking about
requires the knowledge that every well behaved natural function has a
definite instantaneous rate at every point, and that that rate can be
estimated by examining points in the vicinity.

I guess you also missed grammar lessons in school in addition to all
those missed basic math lessons?

What's the problem?

If you have to ask, then you don't know.

How very profound. Are you referring to the doubled "that". I think that is
correct. There are two layers of thatness there. The second clause could
have been written as, "and the knowledge that that rate can be estimated..."



ROFLMAO.
You are so stupid that you can't even realize how stupid you are.


Today this understanding comes in Pre-Calculus, an advanced high school
class. In your day it didn't come until college which may explain why you
are confused.

I hate to rub it, retard, but 42:23 > 40.8, and you got proven wrong.

But 42:23 < 43:23, which was his average playing time over the previous four
games.

Which is irrelevant. Statistics are compared to season average.

Saying that the Lakers are a great team when they win one game as apposed to
losing the last four games, for example, makes you look like you don't
understand how these things are calculated.

But if the Lakers had been 10 games below .500 and their L10 was 9-1 and
they were now only two games below .500, you could say the Lakers are
playing great basketball.


More word games?
1. That was an example, dumbass.
2. There was no mention of "playing great basketball", it was an
example about calling a team a "great team", doofus.

If you had said "Kobe got good rests compared to his playing time in the last
4 game road trip", no one would have objected to it.

You spew a generic "Kobe got good rests" which was proven to be wrong.

Only then you decided to look up a specific stretch of few selected games and
found out something that you tried using to get you an exist from this latest
humiliation that you received.

Now you are assuming too much.

There was no assumption.
Those are your words.

I knew from the pre-game show that Kobe was
playing more than usual and that it was a concern of the staff. There is
even a chance that I picked up the phrase, Kobe got good rests, from Stu. I
can kind of remember him saying something to that effect.


Sure.
Go ahead and prove it.

So don't worry, your not rubbing it.

ROFLMAO.

Still can't get your grammar right.

I was mimicking you. You said, "I hate to rub it, retard..."

ROFL*M*AO


So you pretend to laugh, and you still don't se where goofed in grammar,
AGAIN?

Let's make this easy for you.

" your not rubbing it."

Do you see the problem here, dumbass?

Look up the difference between "your" and "you're", you illiterate ape.

Yeah, good luck claiming that I used "your" instead "you're" like the
illiterate person that you are.

ROFLMAO

And that is a real laugh.



<snip>

However, I didn't do anything unethical because I included an ellipsis
indicating that you said more, and I carefully included the correct
attribution data which serves as a reference for anyone wishing to know
what I left out.

Altering quoted text in your follow ups IS unethical. You're too new to
usenet to grasp it. In fact, some commercial news providers consider it
grounds for account termination, but I am not in the habit of netcoping
others, I'll cite your crap and leave you figuring out why no one so far
took you seriously.

What on earth are you talking about?

Already forgot how you altered the quoted text in your replies removing parts
that I posted, and taking my words out of context?

When caught, you made the lame excuse "I was giving you a less", and got your
ass grilled for that.

What on earth is a less?

It's "Earth", and "less" was accidentally typed instead of a "lesson",
which is obvious, retard.

And I never use the phrase "giving you a lesson". I
would say I am "teaching you a lesson." I believe you are misquoting me
again.


I am not.

I never said that you said that word for word, liar.
I said " you made the lame excuse", which means that you posted
something similar.

You actually misquoted yourself, and continue to misquote me.

Your exact words were "I hope you learned your lesson", dumbass.

You can't even remember your own words, not to mention being too stupid
to do your homework before opening your mouth.



You on the other hand, will break some ones sentence without ellipses often
making it appear that the person has responded with one or a few words that
sound silly or trite standing alone.

More lies? Where did that happen.

Go ahead a cite few examples.

Here's three:

Let's take a look.

**************************

in article g8o4021jppoljeirvc2a0jaicso13t32bk@xxxxxxx, Sports Fan at
sports@xxxxxxxx wrote on 2/26/06 6:27 PM:

In article <C0279412.D3A9%georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
George Evans <georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

in article 9l6302lh3mnueh1ni1verchjh49bqol9oc@xxxxxxx, Sports Fan at
sports@xxxxxxxx wrote on 2/26/06 4:37 AM:

I explained it to you, several times, BEFORE posting the "!=" rocket
science that confused the crap out of you.

This is hilarious.

Yep. Almost 10 days and you still can't understand what "mentally weak"
means.


in article 9l6302lh3mnueh1ni1verchjh49bqol9oc@xxxxxxx, Sports Fan at
sports@xxxxxxxx wrote on 2/26/06 4:37 AM:

In article <C026A81B.D31F%georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
George Evans <georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

in article 2e7002lus6hp4sknn35lipj9c5oltjhsu2@xxxxxxx, Sports Fan at
sports@xxxxxxxx wrote on 2/25/06 1:07 AM:

You are an idiot. That has been used for ages even by non programmers on
usenet.

It is your fault that you are such ignorant being on usenet for only a
month
so far.

This may be true

It is true.

and I may be an idiot,

You are an idiot.


in article 6l6qv1dmnmbk5breqh9hrdu8t551m4tjmr@xxxxxxx, Sports Fan at
sports@xxxxxxxx wrote on 2/22/06 6:44 PM:

In article <C0220A5D.CEED%georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
George Evans <georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

in article gelnv11o8brtf1i3j0rh79kp3chjhh2r0f@xxxxxxx, Sports Fan at
sports@xxxxxxxx wrote on 2/21/06 7:28 PM:

That is a lie. I said "True", and that mean I agree. I didn't say "I
agree"
in the exact words.

No,

Yes that is a lie.

Read the quoted posts below, I didn't say "I agree", I said "True",
while that was said to agree with the quoted part, "I agree" was NEVER
posted by me.

*************************

Is this what you call "break some ones sentence without ellipses often
making it appear that the person has responded with one or a few words
that sound silly or trite standing alone."?

It is called, responding to the post. Something has been done on usenet since
its inception.

Yes, but most people don't interrupt

There is no interruption, jackass.
Your post is there, and you are not continuing to talk, and this is not
a verbal discussion.

as rudely as you.

Where is the "rude" coming from?
I respond to the relevant part.
If you think that I should leave the whole paragraph and the whole post
just to reply to the relevant part which is at the start or in the
middle of your typical run-on ramblings and diarrhea, then you confirm,
again, that you are as clueless as it can be, and are in fact a stupid
person even in real life.

It's called efficient quoting, dumbass.


Most of us


Who's "us"?
The voices in your head don't count, dumbass.

try to let paragraphs stand as written.

That is my choice, not yours.
I respond to a part, or to the whole.

Learn how usenet works, dumbass newbie.

It's more polite.

It's got nothing to do with being rude or polite, ignorant dumbass.

What you do is like butting
in and not letting someone finish a sentence.

No, it is not.
You won't come in, after almost 25 years of usenet and try to change how
things work.

Go read in google group archives and see how usenet veterans respond to
posts.

You are of the Outlook Express retarded mentality generation, newbie.

Go back to the AOL chatrooms if you don't like usenet.


This part should help you understand about this.

____________________________________________________

http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/88new/emily.html

Q: I collected replies to an article I wrote, and now it's time to
summarize. What should I do?
A: Simply concatenate all the articles together into a big file and post
that. On USENET, this is known as a summary. It lets people read all the
replies without annoying newsreaders getting in the way.

Q: I saw a long article that I wish to rebut carefully, what should I
do?
A: Include the entire text with your article, and include your comments
between the lines. Be sure to post, and not mail, even though your
article looks like a reply to the original. Everybody loves to read
those long point-by-point debates, especially when they evolve into
name-calling and lots of ``Is too!''--``Is not!''--``Is too, twizot!''
exchanges.

____________________________________________________

I am willing to bet that you won't get the sarcasm in the above, given
your history and struggles with reading comprehension.



Speaking of being rude and not polite, look at your messages.
All of them are full of lies, obsessive compulsive misquoting, obsessive
attempts to discredit/misrepresent the contents of the posts.

Your impolite and dishonest actions of altering the quoted text in your
replies are what is called rude, impolite and in fact others have lost
their news access because of it.
You are just lucky that I am not a netcop, otherwise it is very easy to
get your news posting privileges suspended for such actions.

You seem to be clueless, with lots of anger and hate running through
your veins, but try to bull*** your way out of arguments by pretending
that you are the keeper of who is being rude and who is not, and who is
using profanity and who is not.

This is not the first time that you tried to lied about me.
You accused me of posting vulgarities and were shown that you lied.

It seems that you want others to post what you would like to see and
read.
Sorry, asswipe, that is not going to happen, not in this lifetime of
yours, at least.

You don't like it?
That's too bad, your options are:

1. Use your news reader's filtering features, assuming that you are
smart enough to use them, which is questionable.
2. Ignore my posts, if you are as smart as you claim, which you have
shown quite the opposite, and seeing your obsessive compulsive replies
and chasing of my posts, this one is quite out of the question.
3. Unsubscribe from asbnll, or even better, leave usenet, which seems to
be your best choice, since you think that replying to the relevant part
of posts is being rude.
4. STFU.

The last one seems your best and easiest option.


Nowhere I have taken your words out context, altered the meaning of what
I was responding to, or SELECTIVELY removed parts of your posts, which
is your standard MO.

You misquoted me as saying "Kobe got plenty of rest," when I actually said,
"Kobe got good rests."


That is just another lie.
I never said that those were your exact words.
And then later quoted your words as they were posted.

What I remove from your rants,

There were none, and you are lying again.
What you called "rants" were facts, statistics, and articles quoted from
several sources.

unrepentantly, are vulgarity,

There were none, as was shown earlier, and you are lying again.

and ad hominem insults.

When you insult, and lie, then you will be insulted back.
When you act like an idiot, then you should expect to be treated like
one.

For example, I would normally remove the
two lines below.


I am glad that you left that unreplied to, which seems that you agree on
it.
Good to see that even you know what kind of an ass you are.


You are the only one I do this to BTW.

That confirms that you are obsessed with me and my posts.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I prefer women, and I am married.
So go stalk someone else, someone of your own level of the mentally
challenged, illiterate, clueless, obsessed, inconsiderate society
rejects, hypocrites and trailer park dwellers.

I gave you more than one chance to act like a responsible adult, but you
insist on making an ass out of yourself, lie, and post your weak, boring
troll.

You have yet to post a single message that makes sense, except for
continuing your ad hominem attacks on me, and obsessive compulsive lying
and cyber stalking my posts.

I wasted enough time trying to educate you, but it seems that any effort
and time is indeed wasted on you, as I expected right from the get go.

You obsession in kissing Lamar Odom's ass is another thing that you
should seek professional help for.


Nice try, but you need more luck and stronger crap other than this weak
nonsense and whining of yours.


I am glad that you left this unreplied to, which seems that you agree on
it.
Good to see that even you know what kind of an ass you are.


Take your obsessions with me and my posts, and your lies, dishonesty,
editing of quoted posts, taking words out context, and your rude, crude,
and uneducated posts and seek professional help, after your grow up.


I have seen enough of your lunacy, nutcase.

*PLONK*.

.

Loading