Grade the first 1/3 of Bogut's career

steger_3434 · Post #141 » by **steger_3434** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:28 pm

DH34Phan wrote:Jon Hammond probably made the right decision picking Joe Alexander.

Don't try to argue me!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course he did. JA will probably be the best rookie of his draft class.

EastSideBucksFan · Post #142 » by **EastSideBucksFan** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:28 pm

CBQ - I wouldn't even waste the time to argue with these yahoos. They have no tact and are just arguing just to argue. It's lame, petty, childish, and pointless in my opinion and just fills this board with useless drivel of people trying to drive home points just to "be right".

Sure, this is a Bucks board and any statement is public knowledge and everyone on here has the right to refute anything said on here as this is the point of the board.

But there is such a thing called tact and plenty of posters clearly don't understand this.

They are plain just being a$$holes.

midranger · Post #143 » by **midranger** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:28 pm

I'm well aware that Bogut's playoff performance in 2006 probably earns him an A+.

midranger · Post #144 » by **midranger** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:29 pm

carmelbrownqueen wrote:
midranger wrote:It's your argument. I'm not comfortable with it. You apparently are.

Throw the word "probably" in a any sentence and one can speak with impunity.

Sure, if you say so....

No....... YOU said so.

DH34Phan · Post #145 » by **DH34Phan** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:30 pm

midranger wrote:I'm well aware that Bogut's playoff performance in 2006 probably earns him an A+.

He was an impact stater, so A++++!

carmelbrownqueen · Post #146 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:30 pm

DH34Phan wrote:Jon Hammond probably made the right decision picking Joe Alexander.

Don't try to argue me!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe he did.. right now we don't know because he has a lot to learn and it's going to take him a while before he really knows what he has with him. If he has the patience to wait for Joe to develop then perhaps fans and the organization will end up being happy with the pick or perhaps we will find out that they don't have the patience to wait on him and they were right not too. Right now, we have no idea who Joe Alexander will be as an NBA player because he's got a lot to learn before he can become a good or decent rotational player.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #147 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:34 pm

EastSideBucksFan wrote:CBQ - I wouldn't even waste the time to argue with these yahoos. They have no tact and are just arguing just to argue. It's lame, petty, childish, and pointless in my opinion and just fills this board with useless drivel of people trying to drive home points just to "be right".

Sure, this is a Bucks board and any statement is public knowledge and everyone on here has the right to refute anything said on here as this is the point of the board.

But there is such a thing called tact and plenty of posters clearly don't understand this.

They are plain just being a$$holes.

Don't worry I won't spend much more time on it. I have been completely unproductive at work today and I can't afford to spend much more time on it.

midranger · Post #148 » by **midranger** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:34 pm

EastSideBucksFan wrote:
But there is such a thing called tact and plenty of posters clearly don't understand this.

I agree. A simple apology would have gone a long way.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #149 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:35 pm

midranger wrote:
carmelbrownqueen wrote:
midranger wrote:It's your argument. I'm not comfortable with it. You apparently are.

Throw the word "probably" in a any sentence and one can speak with impunity.

Sure, if you say so....

No....... YOU said so.

Sure I did..

midranger · Post #150 » by **midranger** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:36 pm

carmelbrownqueen wrote:I wasn't wrong.. I said they are "probably" not happy. There is no statement of fact ergo no misrepresentation.

People do know that what they write here can be viewed by other posters right?

carmelbrownqueen · Post #151 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:38 pm

midranger wrote:
carmelbrownqueen wrote:I wasn't wrong.. I said they are "probably" not happy. There is no statement of fact ergo no misrepresentation.

People do know that what they write here can be viewed by other posters right?

And what are you trying to prove again?

carmelbrownqueen · Post #152 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:39 pm

midranger wrote:
EastSideBucksFan wrote:
But there is such a thing called tact and plenty of posters clearly don't understand this.

I agree. A simple apology would have gone a long way.

Go ahead and apologize, I'll wait. Again, because I have absolutely nothing (there's an absolute statement for your consideration) to apologize for.

midranger · Post #153 » by **midranger** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:41 pm

CBQ, I'm well aware that you're probably not stupid, but you are acting like it right now.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #154 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:52 pm

midranger wrote:CBQ, I'm well aware that you're probably not stupid, but you are acting like it right now.

I am very far from stupid, and I don't believe you are stupid either but I'm finding some of the things that you post a little over the top. It's okay, because I understand that's your style though so I'm just going to leave it at that.

LUKE23 · Post #155 » by **LUKE23** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 9:20 pm

For someone who "doesn't care what certain people have to say" you're certainly taking a lot of time responding to these people. That doesn't make much sense to me. But it's no big deal. You seem to get extremely defensive when people disagree with you, even though that is the point of this forum, debate/discussion. Ah well, no biggie.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #156 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 9:24 pm

LUKE23 wrote:For someone who "doesn't care what certain people have to say" you're certainly taking a lot of time responding to these people. That doesn't make much sense to me. But it's no big deal. You seem to get extremely defensive when people disagree with you, even though that is the point of this forum, debate/discussion. Ah well, no biggie.

I agree I sent too much time responding to anything you wrote.. it wasn't worth it, good point.

LUKE23 · Post #157 » by **LUKE23** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 9:27 pm

II agree I sent too much time responding to anything you wrote.. it wasn't worth it, you're right on that.

Why get so angry? It's only a message board.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #158 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 9:29 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
II agree I sent too much time responding to anything you wrote.. it wasn't worth it, you're right on that.

Why get so angry? It's only a message board.

That wasn't an angry response it was more sarcasm..

Stopshere2 · Post #159 » by **Stopshere2** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 9:56 pm

Tedious wankers. The ghost of Epi's semanticism lives on. None of you 'debaters' hold the high ground as you grind this thread into the dirt.

I want to see people's opinions on Bogut, not a "he said, she said."

So, do a poll on who was right and f/off from this thread ... please.

jerrod · Post #160 » by **jerrod** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 10:05 pm

Stopshere2 wrote:Tedious wankers. The ghost of Epi's semanticism lives on. None of you 'debaters' hold the high ground as you grind this thread into the dirt.

I want to see people's opinions on Bogut, not a "he said, she said."

So, do a poll on who was right and f/off from this thread ... please.

i bet if she had said something like "all those australians will probably be upset when we make the playoffs without bogut", you'd have something to say

i do agree that we're at an impasse (sp?), and a poll might be interesting