BadMofoPimp wrote:Manocad wrote:BadMofoPimp wrote:
What you did post is "UNDER" 5 seconds. Hence, 4.9 seconds would still be considered under 5 seconds. Hence, I am just proving you wrong!
All you're proving is that you're continuing to debate your own fabricated argument. Find a post of mine that reads "In a close game where your team has the lead and anything under 5 seconds left, the best thing to do to ensure the win is to throw the ball in the air and celebrate the win." You can't, thus you are wrong.
See how easy that was? I can also easily declare myself "winner" of your little contest. Plus I already awarded myself the prize money so it's over now. Both teams played hard.
I think the prize was a beer u ordered from the bar for the victory you think you won! Victory is mine!
Manocad wrote:Manocad wrote:I'll never understand that whole thing of just standing there waiting to get fouled when there's less than 5 seconds left. Blake should have just heaved the ball into the air. Clock keeps running, game over.
And that's EXACTLY why you don't just stand there and wait to get fouled with less than 5 seconds left, Blake.
Good thing you and some others here didn't pursue a career as a lawyer. You're still removing all of the context surrounding my posts and trying to tie them together to create an argument you want to debate. You don't know what I meant by my posts and I do. Therefore you can never "win" this debate by deciding you know what I meant.
The second post quoted was actually the first. The context of it was that Blake had just missed both free throws thus allowing Toronto an opportunity to make a shot that would tie the game. Thus the comment of "And that's EXACTLY why you don't stand there and wait to get fouled with less than 5 seconds left, Blake"--standing there waiting to get fouled GUARANTEED the possibility of a game-tying shot if you miss both free throws, which Blake did. Nowhere in that post does it say "The best option any time there are less than 5 seconds left is to throw the ball in the air and celebrate the victory." I even went on to clarify later that it looked like Blake was about to take off with the ball as if to attempt to burn clock time, then just stopped and waited to get fouled, i.e. he had options. And using options other than standing there and waiting to get fouled is what I was referring to.
The second post addresses two ideas--First, not believing that waiting to get fouled with less than 5 seconds left is a good play, and I'll argue that until the end of time; there are better options in my opinion. Again, that doesn't say "Anytime there are less than 5 seconds left on the clock, the player should heave the ball in the air and celebrate the victory" in a single sentence or thought. I then referred to Blake in the context of THAT SPECIFIC PLAY in which there were 2.1 seconds remaining--not Blake in any given play with under 5 seconds remaining. In THAT SPECIFIC SITUATION with 2.1 seconds remaining, I will still argue that Blake could have taken a couple steps to get some momentum then launched the ball with some nice air under it to the far end of the court, and the last couple of seconds would have run out without the Raptors getting a shot off or even getting the ball, period. And it sure as hell doesn't GUARANTEE they would get another shot.
You can't "win" by deciding I meant something different than what I meant. You say I'm "changing my argument" since I'm "losing," and I say you're creating your own argument so you can "win."
And just because it's Friday, my boss is gone today and I'm bored, I'll even use a legal analogy for you.
The scene, caught on video with audio: A man walks up to Blake Griffin on the street and says, "I know you've got money. Give it to me or I'll kill you." Blake, who is a licensed concealed pistol owner and is armed but decides it's better just to give the guy the $47 he has on him, gives the man his money. The man then pulls out his own gun, says "No witnesses, bitch," shoots Blake and runs off. Blake lives but his life was risked.
Me: "And that's why you don't just stand there and give a mugger your money. Blake should have drawn on the guy and blown him to hell."
What that infers in the broad sense: Using your concealed pistol to protect yourself is a better option than just giving the mugger your money.
What it specifically states, in reaction TO WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED: In a situation where a man demands your money with the threat of killing you, drawing your concealed weapon and blowing him to hell is a much better option than getting shot.
What that does NOT state or even infer in a broad sense: ANY TIME a mugger demands money, the best option is to draw your pistol and blow him to hell.
Big difference. If the guy had said "Give me your money," didn't appear to have a weapon, and no weapon was found on him, Blake likely gets charged with manslaughter if he draws, shoots and kills the guy. However, in THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION where the guy said "Give me your money or I'll kill you" and was found to have a gun on him after Blake had instead chosen to blow him to hell, Blake walks without being charged. Thus while the law states that you are allowed to carry a concealed pistol to protect yourself, obviously inferring that it's a good option should you choose to exercise it, that law does NOT state that you can draw and shoot in any situation that's not to your liking. It does however allow you do draw and shoot when your life is threatened.
Ha. Now 20 minutes closer to the weekend...
