David Aldridge chat

[hcsilla]

Originally posted by Chaplin
Same with you. But hey, we're all human, aren't we?

Yes, we are.

Which part of your posts didn't I understand rightly?

 

[hcsilla]

Originally posted by Chaplin
This is the only thing I disputed. The first part of his sentence is correct, the second is not.

Chaplin, my point was (as already some posters pointed out) that it doesn't make to much sense to debate who is SG and SF among Bowen and Jackson.

The point is that Spurs' SG/SF combo IS Jackson/Bowen or Bowen/Jackson it doesn't really matter who do you put at SG and SF.

But SweetD wrote that Jackson is their starting SF and Smith is their starting SG which I think is wrong not because of Jackson but because of Smith.
So if we are saying that Jackson is their starting SF then Bowen HAS TO BE their starting SG.

That was only my point (and again I explained at least 3 times and you just didn't (or didn't want) get it) and you started a (I think) senseless debate (with huh) if Bowen is a SG or not.

 

[hcsilla]

Originally posted by elindholm
but if we really are trying to discuss something, we owe it to one another to pay attention to what the other guy wrote, rather than make assumptions.

elindholm, I couldn't agree more.

Hcsilla criticized me for misunderstanding him in a trade thread a week or so ago, and once I read things over again, I saw that he was correct. No harm done.

And by the way, a lot of people here could learn something from hcsilla's command of English. Occasionally he gets a verb tense wrong or something like that, but overall, he's one of the more articulate posters on this board. And for someone for whom English is not a native language, that's pretty impressive. I've often been tempted to recommend that certain other posters here spend some time in Hungary, so that maybe their English will improve.

Thank you, elindholm.

I know that my English is terrible and I apologize for it.
I wish the language of this board would be hungarian.

Maybe my logic is a bit better (not a big deal) than my English command.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by hcsilla
Chaplin, my point was (as already some posters pointed out) that it doesn't make to much sense to debate who is SG and SF among Bowen and Jackson.

The point is that Spurs' SG/SF combo IS Jackson/Bowen or Bowen/Jackson it doesn't really matter who do you put at SG and SF.

This I disagree with. Against the Suns, which I have stated repeatedly, Bowen is not a shooting guard. He will guard Shawn when in the game, when not, he will guard JJ when Penny and Steph are in the backcourt.

But SweetD wrote that Jackson is their starting SF and Smith is their starting SG which I think is wrong not because of Jackson but because of Smith.

Ok, we agree on this, that Smith is not their starting shooting guard. Jackson is.

So if we are saying that Jackson is their starting SG then Bowen HAS TO BE their starting SG.

Huh?

That was only my point (and again I explained at least 3 times and you just didn't (or didn't want) get it) and you started a (I think) senseless debate (with huh) if Bowen is a SG or not.

This is the holier than thou attitude you frequently take. YOu say that I don't understand what you're writing, but maybe you should look at the opposite--you obviously don't understand what I'M writing. Instead, your little jabs at me (which aren't reserved to this thread) make your arguements look juvenile and arrogant.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by hcsilla


I know that my English is terrible and I apologize for it.
Maybe my logic is a bit better (not a big deal) than my English command.

And lets make this clear also. I don't know why Eric had to bring up this asinine language thing. I never once complained about hcsilla's command of English. Not once.

 

[hcsilla]

Originally posted by Chaplin
This I disagree with. Against the Suns, which I have stated repeatedly, Bowen is not a shooting guard. He will guard Shawn when in the game, when not, he will guard JJ when Penny and Steph are in the backcourt.

For God's sake, the starting point is that SweetD wrote that Jackson is their starting SF.

Huh?

I edited my post and it's rightly "So if we are saying that Jackson is their starting SF then Bowen HAS TO BE their starting SG".

You say that I don't understand what you're writing, but maybe you should look at the opposite--you obviously don't understand what I'M writing.

I ask you one more time: Which part of your posts didn't I understand rightly?

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by hcsilla
For God's sake, the starting point is that SweetD wrote that Jackson is their starting SF.

That is TRUE. AFTER SweetD posted that, you came back and talked about how Bowen is a shooting guard. Plain and simple. At its core, this has nothing to do with Stephan Jackson. Just Bruce Bowen, who is a SF, not a SG. That is the basics of the arguement which you have repeatedly said was false.

 

[hcsilla]

Originally posted by Chaplin
That is TRUE. AFTER SweetD posted that, you came back and talked about how Bowen is a shooting guard.

A simple question:

If Jackson and Bowen are covering the SG and SF spots of Spurs and Jackson is a SF then who does play SG for the Spurs?

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by hcsilla
A simple question:

If Jackson and Bowen are covering the SG and SF spots of Spurs and Jackson is a SF then who does play SG for the Spurs?

UGH! Jackson is the SG, not the SF!!!! Bruce Bowen is the SF!

 

[hcsilla]

Originally posted by Chaplin
UGH! Jackson is the SG, not the SF!!!! Bruce Bowen is the SF!

Answer the question, please!

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by hcsilla
Answer the question, please!

The question itself is WRONG--so there is nothing to answer.



IF what you are asking has nothing to do with the starting lineup--and Jackson is in at SF, what does that have to do with the Suns, because he doesn't PLAY SF against us!

 

[hcsilla]

Originally posted by Chaplin
The question itself is WRONG--so there is nothing to answer.

OK,I give up.

You are either too vain or more ******** than I thought.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by hcsilla
OK,I give up.

You are either too vain or more ******** than I thought.

Very mature. Too bad you can't simply disagree.

 

[elindholm]

I don't know why Eric had to bring up this asinine language thing. I never once complained about hcsilla's command of English.

Chaplin, I'm frankly not interested in this debate about who plays what position on the Spurs, but this is exactly the kind of thing that might inspire someone to write that you "can't read." Nowhere did I imply that you or anyone else has criticized hcsilla's English. All I did was compliment him on it.

And actually, I'd have to say that you're both fairly ******** at this point. It's obvious to anyone paying attention what the source of the confusion is, but neither of you is willing to acknowledge it, out of some misguided fear of showing weakness.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

Not to butt in on this little lovefest, but this arguement reminds me of a funny line I heard once: "Arguing on the internet is like the special olympics: win or lose, you're ********".

 

[Joe Mama]

Okay guys, let's stop the personal insults. I don't think any of us expect that we are always going to agree. That would make for a pretty damn boring message board. But there's no reason to call anybody ********.

Frankly anymore it's almost impossible to argue whether somebody is a small forward or shooting guard or whether they or a small forward or power forward. There's no sense getting upset about these things.

Joe Mama

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by Joe Mama
Okay guys, let's stop the personal insults. I don't think any of us expect that we are always going to agree. That would make for a pretty damn boring message board. But there's no reason to call anybody ********.

Frankly anymore it's almost impossible to argue whether somebody is a small forward or shooting guard or whether they or a small forward or power forward. There's no sense getting upset about these things.

Joe Mama

Ok, Joe. Thanks. I apologize to everyone. And Eric, I'm sorry I used the word "asinine". I shouldn't have, and I apologize to you.

Again, sorry to everyone.

 

[elindholm]

Frankly anymore it's almost impossible to argue whether somebody is a small forward or shooting guard or whether they or a small forward or power forward.

No offense, Joe Mama, but I think we've seen that it's actually extremely easy to argue these things ...

Oh, and I shouldn't have called anyone "********." I should have said "acting ********," which is obviously much less offensive.

 

[Joe Mama]

Originally posted by elindholm
Frankly anymore it's almost impossible to argue whether somebody is a small forward or shooting guard or whether they or a small forward or power forward.

No offense, Joe Mama, but I think we've seen that it's actually extremely easy to argue these things ...

Oh, and I shouldn't have called anyone "********." I should have said "acting ********," which is obviously much less offensive.

You suck, Eric.

Joe

 

[elindholm]

You suck, Eric.

Hey, criticizing my fantasy team is a low blow!

That is what you meant, right?

 

[hcsilla]

Originally posted by Chaplin
Very mature. Too bad you can't simply disagree.

I changed my mind and I continue the debate ( I assume that Joe Mama is really happy because of that).

I rephrase what I said.

If we are talking about Spurs' starting SG/SF rotation then we definitely have to take Bowen (instead of Smith) into the consideration.

Then you started a (for me senseless) debate if Bowen is a SF or not)

I don't really care where you count Bowen because it doesn't really matter although I don't see what makes Bowen to more of SF than SG.
I don't think that it's enough for the judge who he is defending against.
I think that the offensive game is more characteristic concerning the player's position.
And I have never seen any SF skills (post-up play, rebounding,shotblocking) from Bowen.

Also Ginobili guarded Marbury, does this make Ginobili to a PG?I don't think.
Also Marion guarded Kobe, does this make Marion to a SG?I don't think.

Not to mention that Stephen Jackson's play is similar to Marion's.
Both are slashers with dangerous but inconsistent outside-shooting and with limited one-on-one play.

Anyway I don't want to debate what are Jackson's and Bowen's positions (I would say both are swingmen) my point was just that it's wrong to put Steve Smith instead of Bowen into the matchup of PHO's and SAS's starting lineups.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by hcsilla


Anyway I don't want to debate what are Jackson's and Bowen's positions (I would say both are swingmen) my point was just that it's wrong to put Steve Smith instead of Bowen into the matchup of PHO's and SAS's starting lineups.

Heh.

I don't think Steve Smith should even be talked about since he's just a 3rd stringer anyway...

 

[hcsilla]

Originally posted by Chaplin
Heh.

I don't think Steve Smith should even be talked about since he's just a 3rd stringer anyway...

I agree.That was the reason why I replied to SweetD's post.

But then one more time what do you debate with me about?

 

[Joe Mama]

Originally posted by hcsilla
I agree.That was the reason why I replied to SweetD's post.

But then one more time what do you debate with me about?

Just let it go hcsilla. It's going nowhere.

Joe Mama

 

[schutd]

Said in comic book store guy's voice:

Worst thread.... EVER.