Cade's agent and "team" coming to Detroit to meet with Weaver about when he can start playing.

[thesack12]

Sure. Every consumer has to decide where to draw the line in terms of what they are willing to support from a company, and if they’re doing something that you truly disagree with, you SHOULD vote with your time and your wallet. I’d go so far as to call doing otherwise socially irresponsible.

I just think this “transgression” falls well below that threshold for most reasonable people. It’s not even the worst thing with respect to this particular company, but let’s not go there in this thread.

If people are tuning out the next few days, it’ll be because they are less interested with Cade out. Not because they’re upset by the lack of transparency.

Umm, that's the point of this entire thing.

The organization is well aware that they aren't all that interesting from a public consumption standpoint. Cade represents an avenue of intrigue for a team that is severely lacking in things worth investing time/$ into for your average everyday Joefan.

The team's target audience is not people like us posting on team themed message boards. We're all still here even after enduring the absolute crap of a product the Pistons have put on floor for the last 10+ years

Its the casual fans, the team is after. Those types of people, that only pay attention to the team when there is something worth doing so. This is a franchise that hasn't won single playoff game since 2008, and until this year hasn't had a top 5 pick since 2003. Casual fans, have long since had no reason to invest anything into this team.

Being awarded the #1 overall pick, represents not only great promise for the basketball product on the floor, but also huge opportunity from a marketing perspective. Cade is by far the most valuable/most marketable asset the Detroit Pistons have had in quite some time.

Casual fans couldn't care less about coming out to see Jerami Grant or Kelly Olynyk. But, they will come out to get a looksie at the prized #1 overall pick Cade Cunningham, because he has wide ranging national buzz and hype around him.

Even most fans of our variety, who frequently invest our spare time to talk about the team on a message board, aren't going to go out of their way to invest in a game that doesn't have Cunningham in the lineup. That's not to say that a large portion of us won't watch, but there is another group of folks like myself that had made plans to commute long distances to catch the opener because we were led to believe Cade was going to be available to play.

So yes, long story short if people begin to tune out it will be because they are disinterested without Cade out there. Which is the exact reason why many people are bent out of shape to begin with, had they known Cade was hurt worse than reported, they wouldn't have made the same decisions they did.

The organization is well aware that Cade = interest/money. They absolutely knew that when he Cade got hurt, if they announced it as a month long type injury they were going to lose $ and interest among the public. People who are fans of the NBA, and not specifically Detroit aren't going to pay attention to the Cadeless Pistons, but they will invest time and attention to watch Cade.

Its the reason why they haven't yet officially ruled him out of the next home game on the 30th. Yet he's not traveling with the team, and has yet to get a single 5 on 5 practice in, which clearly indicates he's not particularly close to returning.

No Cade ='s much less interest in the team amongst all groups of people. Its just that simple. So when the team announces Cade suffered a "very mild turned ankle" and he's not even practicing almost a month later, while at the same time the only update they provide the entire time is "we're not going to rush him back." Its not hard to connect the dots that the team has been calculated about the situation and deliberately withheld info and actively mislead their customers/consumers.

I'm not sure where we disagree here. Please enlighten me.

With how I structured the post, I can see how it could come off that way.

It wasn't intended to be a counterpoint though. I was just commenting on the lack of transparency being directly correlated to Cade's status and all the corresponding ripple effects it caused.

Cade's status is the mainline theme of this situation. People would always have been disappointed if Cade missed the opener. However, a lot of people became upset by it because the team chose to not be upfront about his injury. That lack of transparency directly effected some decisions people made.

*EDIT* Regarding "boycotts" which was a point of emphasis in your original point, not that anybody cares but me and my buddy have since decided we won't be attending any games in Detroit this year. We are just going to catch the 2 Pistons games here in Indianapolis, the game in Chicago on December 14th, and the game in Cleveland on March 19. We will be going to both the games here in Indy regardless, but the 2 others we'd be traveling to depends on Cade's availability.

[Snakebites]

Ah okay, then that's where we disagree.

I'd be surprised if the lack of transparency really moved the needle, at least not in the grand scheme of ticket sales and eyeballs on the game. I don't doubt there are anecdotal counterexamples to this, but I'd be surprised if it was a major needle mover.

If people aren't tuning in, it's because Cade isn't playing, not because they're hurt that the Pistons lied.

[thesack12]

Ah okay, then that's where we disagree.

I'd be surprised if the lack of transparency really moved the needle, at least not in the grand scheme of ticket sales and eyeballs on the game. I don't doubt there are anecdotal counterexamples to this, but I'd be surprised if it was a major needle mover.

If people aren't tuning in, it's because Cade isn't playing, not because they're hurt that the Pistons lied.

A large group of folks tuned in/attended only because the Piston lied about Cade's status.

But to your original point, its up to each individual how they choose to proceed.

[Snakebites]

Ah okay, then that's where we disagree.

I'd be surprised if the lack of transparency really moved the needle, at least not in the grand scheme of ticket sales and eyeballs on the game. I don't doubt there are anecdotal counterexamples to this, but I'd be surprised if it was a major needle mover.

If people aren't tuning in, it's because Cade isn't playing, not because they're hurt that the Pistons lied.

A large group of folks tuned in/attended only because the Piston lied about Cade's status.

But to your original point, its up to each individual how they choose to proceed.

Yes- absolutely.

They weren't transparent and that resulted in more ticket sales for the opener. I never disputed that point.

What I'm disputing is that this will really change anything moving forward. At the end of the day this "lie revealed" will not cause any significant portion of people to change their viewing or ticket purchasing habits.

[Manocad]

Umm, that's the point of this entire thing.

The organization is well aware that they aren't all that interesting from a public consumption standpoint. Cade represents an avenue for intrigue for a team that is severely lacking in things worth investing time/$ into for your average everyday Joefan.

The team's target audience is not people like us posting on team themed message boards. We're all still here even after enduring the absolute crap of a product the Pistons have put on floor for the last 10+ years

Its the casual fans, the team is after. Those types of people, that only pay attention to the team when there is something worth doing so. This is a franchise that hasn't won single playoff game since 2008, and until this year hasn't had a top 5 pick since 2003. Casual fans, have long since had no reason to invest anything into this team.

Being awarded the #1 overall pick, represents not only great promise for the basketball product on the floor, but also huge opportunity from a marketing perspective. Cade is by far the most valuable/most marketable asset the Detroit Pistons have had in quite some time.

Casual fans couldn't care less about coming out to see Jerami Grant or Kelly Olynyk. But, they will come out to get a looksie at the prized #1 overall pick Cade Cunningham, because he has wide ranging national buzz and hype around him.

Even most fans of our variety, who frequently invest our spare time to talk about the team on a message board, aren't going to go out of their way to invest in a game that doesn't have Cunningham in the lineup. That's not to say that a large portion of us won't watch, but there is another group of folks like myself that had made plans to commute long distances to catch the opener because we were led to believe Cade was going to be available to play.

So yes, long story short if people begin to tune out it will be because they are disinterested without Cade out there. Which is the exact reason why many people are bent out of shape to begin with, had they known Cade was hurt worse than reported, they wouldn't have made the same decisions they did.

The organization is well aware that Cade = interest/money. They absolutely knew that when he Cade got hurt, if they announced it as a month long type injury they were going to lose $ and interest among the public. People who are fans of the NBA, and not specifically Detroit aren't going to pay attention to the Cadeless Pistons, but they will invest time and attention to watch Cade.

Its the reason why they haven't yet officially ruled him out of the next home game on the 30th. Yet he's not traveling with the team, and has yet to get a single 5 on 5 practice in, which clearly indicates he's not particularly close to returning.

No Cade ='s much less interest in the team amongst all groups of people. Its just that simple. So when the team announces Cade suffered a "very mild turned ankle" and he's not even practicing almost a month later, while at the same time the only "update' they provide the entire time is "we're not going to rush him back." Its not hard to connect the dots that the team has been calculated about the situation and deliberately withheld info and actively mislead their customers/consumers.

You're projecting. What happens when people still attend and watch games while Cade is out because they're interested in more than just watching Cade? By your logic, if that happens your whole argument goes out the window. That means that fans in general aren't as pissed off as you think they are, thus they don't believe the team is guilty of some nefarious deception game, and thus there was no nefarious deception game.

For the record, I'd bet that there are more people on this board still watching the games knowing Cade is out than not. And if you want to argue otherwise, throw a poll out there. Who knows--maybe I'm wrong. Then you could stick that little feather in your cap.

You're are out of your gourd if you are truly believe that the interest level in this team is not adversely effected without Cade Cunningham in the lineup.

But here's the thing, you and I both know that you don't actually believe that. You feed off getting reactions from folks, and I'm not going to bite.

Of course the interest level is adversely affected without Cade in the lineup. I never claimed it wasn't. But if you want to hang your hat on the idea that even one less fan attending/watching the game is evidence that the team is guilty of some sort of crime, have at it. But here's the thing, you're using completely circular logic. "The team knows that doing X will piss people off, I am pissed off, thus the team did X." So once again, by that logic if people aren't pissed off then the team didn't do X.

I have readily admitted that I find some of the reactions entertaining, yours included. Throwing the bait out there, watching you bite then setting the hook is the fun part. You can say you won't bite but I keep finding you in my net.

[Manocad]

Ah okay, then that's where we disagree.

I'd be surprised if the lack of transparency really moved the needle, at least not in the grand scheme of ticket sales and eyeballs on the game. I don't doubt there are anecdotal counterexamples to this, but I'd be surprised if it was a major needle mover.

If people aren't tuning in, it's because Cade isn't playing, not because they're hurt that the Pistons lied.

A large group of folks tuned in/attended only because the Piston lied about Cade's status.

But to your original point, its up to each individual how they choose to proceed.

You have absolutely no clue why each individual watches/attends or doesn't watch/attend any game other than yourself and people who have explicitly stated their reason to you.

Oh, and for the record, if casual fans don't care about watching the team without Cade then the stadium will have very few Pistons fans for games in which it's known that Cade won't play. Are you honestly going to argue that's going to happen?

[Moses ShamMoses]

Honestly, all will be forgiven and all that really matters is if Cade lives up to the hype. It means nothing long-term that he misses a few games to start his career.

[Manocad]

Honestly, all will be forgiven and all that really matters is if Cade lives up to the hype. It means nothing long-term that he misses a few games to start his career.

Exactly. What does all of this so-called nefarious deception mean in the grand scheme? Bupkis. Blowing it up into a some sort of a scandal that's turning fans off and will be a horrible black eye for the organization is simply a reason for people to justify being PO'ed because they didn't get what they wanted.

[Sort]

I'm mostly just amazed at the length of this thread. Cade missing these games definitely makes the season less fun. See Green start cold, Mobley being a mixed bag, and Barnes beating down Boston in Boston would be so much more enjoyable if Cade was in the game.

[Manocad]

I'm mostly just amazed at the length of this thread. Cade missing these games definitely makes the season less fun. See Green start cold, Mobley being a mixed bag, and Barnes beating down Boston in Boston would be so much more enjoyable if Cade was in the game.

Less fun right now, sure. If Cade comes back healthy and plays great this will all be forgotten in about two seconds.

[FloridaMan78]

Yea I just want to know when he’s coming back. Y’all can argue about nefarious ish. Anyone have any idea?

[Snakebites]

Yea I just want to know when he’s coming back. Y’all can argue about nefarious ish. Anyone have any idea?

Nope.

That’s still vague. The team doesn’t know. It is already understood that it won’t be on our 3 game road trip. He’s not even traveling with the team.

The next possible home game is the 30th. Whether he plays then is anyone’s guess.

[mattao313]

Yea I just want to know when he’s coming back. Y’all can argue about nefarious ish. Anyone have any idea?

No one knows if we did this thread wouldn't be near this long

Sent from my moto g play (2021) using RealGM mobile app

[whitehops]

Yea I just want to know when he’s coming back. Y’all can argue about nefarious ish. Anyone have any idea?

Nope.

That’s still vague. The team doesn’t know. It is already understood that it won’t be on our 3 game road trip. He’s not even traveling with the team.

The next possible home game is the 30th. Whether he plays then is anyone’s guess.

well the team at least has an idea, that's what they discussed with cade's group.

[Manocad]

Yea I just want to know when he’s coming back. Y’all can argue about nefarious ish. Anyone have any idea?

Nope.

That’s still vague. The team doesn’t know. It is already understood that it won’t be on our 3 game road trip. He’s not even traveling with the team.

The next possible home game is the 30th. Whether he plays then is anyone’s guess.

Wait--you're not suggesting that skilled team doctors can't establish a timeline for when he WILL play again, are you? Because if that's the case then the team needs new doctors who know when a healing process will be complete.

[Pistonrings]

You've alluded to the idea that the organization's intent was to treat its fans disrespectfully. You can't prove that and thus there goes your entire diatribe right down the drain. Swirly, swirly, swirly, buh bye, she gone.

By all means though, please continue.

By the content of this post it's apparent you know you have Been defeated and because of pride you cannot admit it.

I never said they intended to specifically treat their fans with disrespect as a goal in itself. They obviously had an alternate motive, to possibly save ticket money for the opener, but their actions toward the fans was disrespectful.

So the only hope you have left then is to claim the terribly unlikely possibility that they really thought he was on track to start the preseason games but their medical staff was so bad they didn't know if he was on track to play in 2 days or out a full month.

Sorry, but it is rational to suspect that they knew by Friday and Saturday that he would not be starting in the opener Wed. We know that Weaver finally told us the real truth (hopefully) Tuesday that he would miss the entire month. So we can be more than reasonably sure that they knew for a fact on Friday or Saturday that he was not going to play in the opener. If now your argument is backed into claiming they didn't know Friday or sat whether is was 3 days or A MONTH then you are in a really irrational argument situation.

I watched you spend days making this irrational argument (I won't call it childish). I have watched others attempt to explain to you why you were wrong, but they attempted to be cordial and hoped you would connect the obvious dots because of rationality.

Finally, I decided to walk you through each rational point step by step. I have clearly demonstrated to every rational person here that a fan expressing anger over being left in the dark was not childish or being irrational unless they let it go beyond a reasonable area of expression (letting it effect their job, their family, their relationships).

You have been challenged with a rational argument and shown that your claim itself is irrational.

So your chances of being correct, are the same chance that the Pistons medical staff is so bad that they didn't know that Cade's"MILD" ankle turn was either on track to play in a couple days, or OUT A MONTH.

If everyone here had to bet their car on either that the Pistons knowingly misled the fans for whatever motive, OR, that the Pistons medical staff was so bad that they couldn't pin down a mild ankle turn to closer than 3 days OR A MONTH, I wonder which idea they would bet their cars on?

You said you will not change your mind, so that obviously means even in the face of a rational argument. So that single statement right there makes any more debate with you a lost cause. But it was important for me to show the others here that someone would finally speak the truth about your claims.

If you're going through this exercise of mental masturbation to prove to yourself that you've "won" something, you're childish. Others have said the same thing I've said so I'm not exactly on an island here. I, and others, think it's childish, you don't. Since you like to throw around subjectivity and relativity, you've clearly demonstrated yourself that this is not black/white or right/wrong. So you have proved absolutely nothing other than that your ego is bigger than mine since clearly you need to validate yourself as being "right" when by your own argument, it's not a right or wrong issue.

Your move.

You simply aren't a worthy opponent here. My main points, The RELATIVE points, are absolutely concise.

Sports fans have a positive emotional reaction when the team they follows wins. Is this true or false?

Let's try to get through your pride in a direct way. You basically said people posting about their disappointment in being lied to by the organization as being childish. We can just use the term, "irrational".

First, let's find out WHAT is the irrational part, having the negative emotion, or posting about it in a sports forum.

You watch the Pistons on TV you say, correct? Why?

You said that those who watch on tv are irrational IF they have, or (you tell us which) actually express those feelings in a sports forum. Let us know which is irrational, having the negative emotions or expressing them, or both if you like.

Now, I asked you WHY you watch games. Do the games effect your personal life goals in any way, effect your loved ones or living standards? You claimed that anyone having a bad feeling about what the organization did when all they do is watch on tv are irrational.

Yet, you watch the team on TV. If you watch, yet have ZERO good feelings about whether they win, then surely you must be irrational for watching something that does nothing for you in a good way, nor causes negative feelings for you when they lose.

Would you claim that your emotions would be exactly the same if they won a game 7 in the finals as they would if they lost that game 7? If you answer yes, then you would seem to be irrational for caring at all or watching. But we'll let you answer, do you LIKE IT when the Pistons win more than you do when they lose. Yes or no?

If you do CARE and feel better when they win than when they lose, (and you do or you would be irrational for watching something you have no interest in) are you irrational If you post about your good or bad emotion on a sports forum, is that irrational or not?

The AMOUNT of displeasure is irrelevant. Someone may be no more bothered about it as you are, yet may be better and more detailed in their description of the same amount of displeasure. The point is, your feeling when they lose that game 7 is NOT EQUAL to your feeling when they win it.

You clearly said that anyone upset if all they do is watch on tv is being irrational, yet you yourself watch on tv and obviously have good and bad emotions when they win and lose.

I posted here Friday I believe, that I felt DISPLEASURE, ANGER, OR SOMETHING OTHER THAN GOOD that we couldn't seem to get any real information about Cade and if he would play.

I said that I didn't like the thought of the team leaving us fans in the dark for several days IF, GET THIS, IF they did know already that he wasn't going to play. I could of course get over the fact that he wouldn't play in just a few minutes and then still watch the game. What bothered me was not being told the truth up front and then holding the excitement at the possibility we would get to see his first game NEEDLESSLY for several days. Clearly MANY OTHERS felt the same way. The disappointment of him not playing is not something that lasts long, but being needlessly stuck in excitement for days is what was displeasurable.

So same question as above, was the displeasure itself irrational, or the posting about it on a sports forum the irrational part?

I have shown in a rational way that it can be harmful for any business to disrespect their customers, especially over numerous times. In other posts it was mentioned that this one time will be forgotten, but what if the organization continues more instances of the disrespect? Clearly any rational person can see that this then could effect whether someone say, buys a jersey for a son instead of some other gift. A family might chose a Sunday at another event instead of a Sunday at the LCA.

Anyway, you simply tread backwards from one baseless stand to another.

A wise man once said that a stupid person can ask more dumb questions in 5 minutes than an intelligent person can answer for them in an hour. You clearly showed this behavior when you admit in another post that you keep catching the poster in your net. You do this by simply saying more dumb stuff that he continues to try to explain to you.

1. It is NOT irrational for a person to feel bad about an organization lying to them. Any denial of this is irrational itself. The amount of displeasure is irrelevant, the point is, the displeasure IS NOT THE equivalent to the feeling of NOT being lied to, yes or no?.

2. It IS NOT IRRATIONAL for someone to describe their displeasure on a sports forum dedicated to that organization.

1 and 2 are concise and obvious. If your statement claiming someone is childish for expressing displeasure THEN NUMBER ONE OR NUMBER 2 must be false.

What you are doing is trying to be vague out of necessity because you cannot answer those two direct questions.

Let's see if you can just give a direct answer to those two questions.

[Manocad]

By the content of this post it's apparent you know you have Been defeated and because of pride you cannot admit it.

I never said they intended to specifically treat their fans with disrespect as a goal in itself. They obviously had an alternate motive, to possibly save ticket money for the opener, but their actions toward the fans was disrespectful.

So the only hope you have left then is to claim the terribly unlikely possibility that they really thought he was on track to start the preseason games but their medical staff was so bad they didn't know if he was on track to play in 2 days or out a full month.

Sorry, but it is rational to suspect that they knew by Friday and Saturday that he would not be starting in the opener Wed. We know that Weaver finally told us the real truth (hopefully) Tuesday that he would miss the entire month. So we can be more than reasonably sure that they knew for a fact on Friday or Saturday that he was not going to play in the opener. If now your argument is backed into claiming they didn't know Friday or sat whether is was 3 days or A MONTH then you are in a really irrational argument situation.

I watched you spend days making this irrational argument (I won't call it childish). I have watched others attempt to explain to you why you were wrong, but they attempted to be cordial and hoped you would connect the obvious dots because of rationality.

Finally, I decided to walk you through each rational point step by step. I have clearly demonstrated to every rational person here that a fan expressing anger over being left in the dark was not childish or being irrational unless they let it go beyond a reasonable area of expression (letting it effect their job, their family, their relationships).

You have been challenged with a rational argument and shown that your claim itself is irrational.

So your chances of being correct, are the same chance that the Pistons medical staff is so bad that they didn't know that Cade's"MILD" ankle turn was either on track to play in a couple days, or OUT A MONTH.

If everyone here had to bet their car on either that the Pistons knowingly misled the fans for whatever motive, OR, that the Pistons medical staff was so bad that they couldn't pin down a mild ankle turn to closer than 3 days OR A MONTH, I wonder which idea they would bet their cars on?

You said you will not change your mind, so that obviously means even in the face of a rational argument. So that single statement right there makes any more debate with you a lost cause. But it was important for me to show the others here that someone would finally speak the truth about your claims.

If you're going through this exercise of mental masturbation to prove to yourself that you've "won" something, you're childish. Others have said the same thing I've said so I'm not exactly on an island here. I, and others, think it's childish, you don't. Since you like to throw around subjectivity and relativity, you've clearly demonstrated yourself that this is not black/white or right/wrong. So you have proved absolutely nothing other than that your ego is bigger than mine since clearly you need to validate yourself as being "right" when by your own argument, it's not a right or wrong issue.

Your move.

You simply aren't a worthy opponent here. My main points, The RELATIVE points, are absolutely concise.

Sports fans have a positive emotional reaction when the team they follows wins. Is this true or false?

Let's try to get through your pride in a direct way. You basically said people posting about their disappointment in being lied to by the organization as being childish. We can just use the term, "irrational".

First, let's find out WHAT is the irrational part, having the negative emotion, or posting about it in a sports forum.

You watch the Pistons on TV you say, correct? Why?

You said that those who watch on tv are irrational IF they have, or (you tell us which) actually express those feelings in a sports forum. Let us know which is irrational, having the negative emotions or expressing them, or both if you like.

Now, I asked you WHY you watch games. Do the games effect your personal life goals in any way, effect your loved ones or living standards? You claimed that anyone having a bad feeling about what the organization did when all they do is watch on tv are irrational.

Yet, you watch the team on TV. If you watch, yet have ZERO good feelings about whether they win, then surely you must be irrational for watching something that does nothing for you in a good way, nor causes negative feelings for you when they lose.

Would you claim that your emotions would be exactly the same if they won a game 7 in the finals as they would if they lost that game 7? If you answer yes, then you would seem to be irrational for caring at all or watching. But we'll let you answer, do you LIKE IT when the Pistons win more than you do when they lose. Yes or no?

If you do CARE and feel better when they win than when they lose, (and you do or you would be irrational for watching something you have no interest in) are you irrational If you post about your good or bad emotion on a sports forum, is that irrational or not?

The AMOUNT of displeasure is irrelevant. Someone may be no more bothered about it as you are, yet may be better and more detailed in their description of the same amount of displeasure. The point is, your feeling when they lose that game 7 is NOT EQUAL to your feeling when they win it.

You clearly said that anyone upset if all they do is watch on tv is being irrational, yet you yourself watch on tv and obviously have good and bad emotions when they win and lose.

I posted here Friday I believe, that I felt DISPLEASURE, ANGER, OR SOMETHING OTHER THAN GOOD that we couldn't seem to get any real information about Cade and if he would play.

I said that I didn't like the thought of the team leaving us fans in the dark for several days IF, GET THIS, IF they did know already that he wasn't going to play. I could of course get over the fact that he wouldn't play in just a few minutes and then still watch the game. What bothered me was not being told the truth up front and then holding the excitement at the possibility we would get to see his first game NEEDLESSLY for several days. Clearly MANY OTHERS felt the same way. The disappointment of him not playing is not something that lasts long, but being needlessly stuck in excitement for days is what was displeasurable.

So same question as above, was the displeasure itself irrational, or the posting about it on a sports forum the irrational part?

I have shown in a rational way that it can be harmful for any business to disrespect their customers, especially over numerous times. In other posts it was mentioned that this one time will be forgotten, but what if the organization continues more instances of the disrespect? Clearly any rational person can see that this then could effect whether someone say, buys a jersey for a son instead of some other gift. A family might chose a Sunday at another event instead of a Sunday at the LCA.

Anyway, you simply tread backwards from one baseless stand to another.

A wise man once said that a stupid person can ask more dumb questions in 5 minutes than an intelligent person can answer for them in an hour. You clearly showed this behavior when you admit in another post that you keep catching the poster in your net. You do this by simply saying more dumb stuff that he continues to try to explain to you.

1. It is NOT irrational for a person to feel bad about an organization lying to them. Any denial of this is irrational itself. The amount of displeasure is irrelevant, the point is, the displeasure IS NOT THE equivalent to the feeling of NOT being lied to, yes or no?.

2. It IS NOT IRRATIONAL for someone to describe their displeasure on a sports forum dedicated to that organization.

1 and 2 are concise and obvious. If your statement claiming someone is childish for expressing displeasure THEN NUMBER ONE OR NUMBER 2 must be false.

What you are doing is trying to be vague out of necessity because you cannot answer those two direct questions.

Let's see if you can just give a direct answer to those two questions.

The definition of childish isn't irrational; it's of, like, or appropriate to a child, or silly and immature. And being pissed off, which is defined as very annoyed or angry, about something that has no real impact on your life--again, I'm referring to people who didn't buy tickets/plan on attending the game--is childish. Is it rational to have a reaction? Sure. I clearly never said it wasn't. Disappointment would absolutely be mature and appropriate. Pissed off to point of accusing the organization of nefarious action and declaring you're not watching another game this year as a result is childish.

Not a worthy opponent? You're trying to argue that my opinion is wrong by establishing that YOUR definition of childish is "proof" that your opinion is right. As I said before, differences in opinions have no right and wrong. You lost before you started, chief. But hey, go order that trophy if it helps you sleep better.

[Manocad]

The amount of effort you're putting into this would be commendable if it weren't so wasteful; you could have just declared yourself the "winner" right off the bat rather than taking this long to do it.

[Pistonrings]

The amount of effort you're putting into this would be commendable if it weren't so wasteful; you could have just declared yourself the "winner" right off the bat rather than taking this long to do it.

We can use the term childish just fine, though childish behavior is often irrational. So you are not a father?

It is NOT childish to have a negative emotion concerning being lied to or having information withheld from you that you feel could and should have been given to you.

It is NOT childish to express those negative emotions on a forum dedicated to that very organization.

It WOULD be childish to beat your wife over it, not allow your children to eat, refuse to work.

Once again, you attempt the TV thing which has nothing to do with anything. Who said they wouldn't watch another game all year?

If some said that then I would certainly say that was an overreaction. So maybe we should go back and read the posts about this and get your exact reaction and read the specific posts you were responding to?

Never mind, it isn't worth it.

I didn't like that the organization left the fans with this guarded excitement for days when it appears obvious they already knew he wasn't going to play. It caused a negative feeling in me toward the organization. I did not claim I would not watch another game all year. This amount of reaction is clearly not childish to any rational person. I expressed that displeasure as did many others in the appropriate venue, a sports forum dedicated to that very organization. I planned to watch on TV, but it is obvious that most all Pistons fans were excited to watch Cade's entry into the NBA world.

Nothing childish about expressing your displeasure with the organization on a dedicated forum for that organization.

But if you were talking only about specific people claiming that they would not watch another game the rest of the year, then I would say that would be an overreaction, your term of childish is a bit crude but that's your choice of words.

So does this mean we actually agree after all this back and forth? You only consider those threatening to not watch another game all year or never go to another game as childish, but not those who simply had a negative feeling about being left in the dark for days and expressed that negative feeling by stating it in a dedicated forum?

It's a miracle if true.

[Pistonrings]

Wooo, Manocad hasn't responded to me and I think he and I actually reached a mutual stance together.

Manocad, you and I can now be bestest buddies, we can pal around now. You could invite me over for a meal and we could bond.

Remember that Farley motivational speaker skit, the one where Christina Applegate hosted and the got the motivation speaker to talk them about the evils of weed. He picked up David Spade and hugged him and said we'll be bestest buds.

Lol, he said "I hear you haven't been using that paper for writing, but for, ROLLIN DOOBIES"' lol
https://youtu.be/Xv2VIEY9-A8

That's how close we are now Manocad