The argument for Peak LeBron > Peak MJ

[lessthanjake]

LeBron had already played 200 more games than Jordan by that time. Few games here and there (he missed total 27 games during his 2nd Cavs stint, 8 and 0 during his last two seasons) should not matter at all when comparing them.

Yes, he started his career earlier and didn't have a sabbatical in the middle of his prime. IMO, that MJ played full seasons year after year during his prime and after it should signal something about the consistency of his effort compared to Bron.

When it comes to games played we should compare these guys to their peers, just like anything else, not across eras. MJ playing 81-82 games every year is only impressive if he is the only one doing it. Just like penalizing Lebron for playing 70 is only fair if others weren't also doing it.

You don't know for sure if Jordan would have played the same % of games if he played in Lebron's era, and vice versa. Those things are just as much a league environment/team thing as they are an individual thing.

Now, if they're missing playoff games, that's an entirely different situation.

I think this is a fair point in some sense, but I think it’d lead to a bias in favor of present-day players. Players today play fewer games (and fewer minutes these days too) for a reason. Teams aren’t just deciding to get less value from their best players for no purpose. Rather, top players are actually playing fewer games in order to try to optimize their overall impact. Playing fewer games lowers their injury risk, which helps their longevity. Relatedly, playing fewer games makes them fresher for the playoffs. It also just puts less miles on them, helping to allow them to play more years. Furthermore, when you play fewer games, you’re also just fresher—and therefore able to play better—in the regular season games you do play.

And the thing is that we give present-day players credit for the things that this helps with. For instance, we give LeBron credit for the longevity that load management has helped him achieve. We give him credit for the quality of his regular season performances, without much regard for the fact that his performances would’ve surely been less good on average without load management. We give him credit for upping his game in the playoffs in a manner that load management has helped him achieve (particularly in his later years, which is where staying fresh for the playoffs is harder). Of course, this isn’t just about LeBron James—the same general thing could be said about virtually every star these days (some definitely moreso than LeBron).

If we are giving current players credit for the things that load management helps with, then we shouldn’t then turn around and say that players from a past era shouldn’t get credit for lack of load management because it was more common back then. That just amounts to taking a tradeoff and only counting the positives of the tradeoff for current players and hand waving away the positives for past players.

[RCM88x]

Yes, he started his career earlier and didn't have a sabbatical in the middle of his prime. IMO, that MJ played full seasons year after year during his prime and after it should signal something about the consistency of his effort compared to Bron.

When it comes to games played we should compare these guys to their peers, just like anything else, not across eras. MJ playing 81-82 games every year is only impressive if he is the only one doing it. Just like penalizing Lebron for playing 70 is only fair if others weren't also doing it.

You don't know for sure if Jordan would have played the same % of games if he played in Lebron's era, and vice versa. Those things are just as much a league environment/team thing as they are an individual thing.

Now, if they're missing playoff games, that's an entirely different situation.

I think this is a fair point in some sense, but I think it’d lead to a bias in favor of present-day players. Players today play fewer games (and fewer minutes these days too) for a reason. Teams aren’t just deciding to get less value from their best players for no purpose. Rather, top players are actually playing fewer games in order to try to optimize their overall impact. Playing fewer games lowers their injury risk, which helps their longevity. Relatedly, playing fewer games makes them fresher for the playoffs. It also just puts less miles on them, helping to allow them to play more years. Furthermore, when you play fewer games, you’re also just fresher—and therefore able to play better—in the regular season games you do play.

And the thing is that we give present-day players credit for the things that this helps with. For instance, we give LeBron credit for the longevity that load management has helped him achieve. We give him credit for the quality of his regular season performances, without much regard for the fact that his performances would’ve surely been less good on average without load management. We give him credit for upping his game in the playoffs in a manner that load management has helped him achieve (particularly in his later years, which is where staying fresh for the playoffs is harder). Of course, this isn’t just about LeBron James—the same general thing could be said about virtually every star these days (some definitely moreso than LeBron).

If we are giving current players credit for the things that load management helps with, then we shouldn’t then turn around and say that players from a past era shouldn’t get credit for lack of load management because it was more common back then. That just amounts to taking a tradeoff and only counting the positives of the tradeoff for current players and hand waving away the positives for past players.

Like I said, guys should still be compared to their era peers. But it's not like Lebron level longevity was unheard of in the past, many guys have played 20+ seasons across all eras. Lebron just started younger, better and more athletically gifted than the rest. Simple load management isn't what makes it possible. Might he not be as good currently or have accumulated less value during his career if he didn't load manage, that's definitely possible, as is the opposite.

Personally, MJ falls a little bit in longevity discussion because he willingly decided to not play, not because he couldn't. I don't see any reason he couldn't have strung more elite level seasons post '98 than he did, but ultimately he didn't because he decided not to play. It has nothing to do with load management or whatever era based reason. Is it something that will impact your evaluation of these two players though?... I don't care that's up to you.

[tone wone]

We all know late 90s NBA was just so brutal on older players.

Imagine having to play with no pace and standing around during all those post ups. Just brutal on those old bones.

[Heej]

We all know late 90s NBA was just so brutal on older players.

Imagine having to play with no pace and standing around during all those post ups. Just brutal on those old bones.

It was honestly necessary to preserve their health in between beheadings every time they jumped

[OhayoKD]

Yes, he started his career earlier and didn't have a sabbatical in the middle of his prime. IMO, that MJ played full seasons year after year during his prime and after it should signal something about the consistency of his effort compared to Bron.

When it comes to games played we should compare these guys to their peers, just like anything else, not across eras. MJ playing 81-82 games every year is only impressive if he is the only one doing it. Just like penalizing Lebron for playing 70 is only fair if others weren't also doing it.

You don't know for sure if Jordan would have played the same % of games if he played in Lebron's era, and vice versa. Those things are just as much a league environment/team thing as they are an individual thing.

Now, if they're missing playoff games, that's an entirely different situation.

I think this is a fair point in some sense, but I think it’d lead to a bias in favor of present-day players. Players today play fewer games (and fewer minutes these days too) for a reason.

The backflips to try and mark what would most simply be read as an advantage for Lebron's as a weakness is pretty telling:

1985-98 Jordan: 35887 minutes in 13 seasons - 2760 minutes per season

2004-18 James: 44298 minutes in 15 seasons - 2953 minutes per season

Lebron played more minutes than Jordan in a league by which your own admission, his competition played less...

Jordan’s minutes per game ranks by season: 4th, injured, 3rd, 1st, 1st, 4th, 26th (the season everyone picks as his peak…), 6th, 6th, retired, partially retired, 19th, 28th, 17th, retired again.

Lebron, on the other hand? In minutes per game, he finished: 10th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 13th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 8th, 6th, 5th, 12th, 1st, 1st, injured (was roughly 7th across 55 games), 17th, injured (but would not have made top 30), 20th.

He still has three years leading the league in minutes played (same as Jordan), another second place finish (same as Jordan), six more top ten finishes (to Jordan’s three), and five more top twenty finishes (to Jordan’s four).

In other words, even in the absolute, Lebron played more per-season over more years, with the gap expanding if you account for Jordan's retirements. This is despite playing nba-level basketball from a younger age and thus having more milage on his body throughout.

The gap expands if we are era-relative with Lebron having to play competition that rested more than Jordan's did.

Pointing out minutes-played as a potential advantage for Jordan is pretty desperate. Lebron was more valuable in spite of having to play more. How exactly does that support Jordan's "consistency of effort"?

Yes, he started his career earlier and didn't have a sabbatical in the middle of his prime. IMO, that MJ played full seasons year after year during his prime and after it should signal something about the consistency of his effort compared to Bron.

What does playing few more games a year tell you about consistency of effort? LeBron played 82 games in 17/18...was he suddenly more consistent than seasons earlier? Its not like he was missing chunks of season just because he didnt feel like playing.

Lebron didn't have that dawg in him before obviously.

[lessthanjake]

When it comes to games played we should compare these guys to their peers, just like anything else, not across eras. MJ playing 81-82 games every year is only impressive if he is the only one doing it. Just like penalizing Lebron for playing 70 is only fair if others weren't also doing it.

You don't know for sure if Jordan would have played the same % of games if he played in Lebron's era, and vice versa. Those things are just as much a league environment/team thing as they are an individual thing.

Now, if they're missing playoff games, that's an entirely different situation.

I think this is a fair point in some sense, but I think it’d lead to a bias in favor of present-day players. Players today play fewer games (and fewer minutes these days too) for a reason.

The backflips to try and mark what would most simply be read as an advantage for Lebron's as a weakness is pretty telling:

1985-98 Jordan: 35887 minutes in 13 seasons - 2760 minutes per season

2004-18 James: 44298 minutes in 15 seasons - 2953 minutes per season

Lebron played more minutes than Jordan in a league by which your own admission, his competition played less...

Jordan’s minutes per game ranks by season: 4th, injured, 3rd, 1st, 1st, 4th, 26th (the season everyone picks as his peak…), 6th, 6th, retired, partially retired, 19th, 28th, 17th, retired again.

Lebron, on the other hand? In minutes per game, he finished: 10th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 13th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 8th, 6th, 5th, 12th, 1st, 1st, injured (was roughly 7th across 55 games), 17th, injured (but would not have made top 30), 20th.

He still has three years leading the league in minutes played (same as Jordan), another second place finish (same as Jordan), six more top ten finishes (to Jordan’s three), and five more top twenty finishes (to Jordan’s four).

In other words, even in the absolute, Lebron played more per-season over more years, with the gap expanding if you account for Jordan's retirements. This is despite playing nba-level basketball from a younger age and thus having more milage on his body throughout.

The gap expands if we are era-relative with Lebron having to play competition that rested more than Jordan's did.

Pointing out minutes-played as a potential advantage for Jordan is pretty desperate. Lebron was more valuable in spite of having to play more. How exactly does that support Jordan's "consistency of effort"?

Yes, he started his career earlier and didn't have a sabbatical in the middle of his prime. IMO, that MJ played full seasons year after year during his prime and after it should signal something about the consistency of his effort compared to Bron.

What does playing few more games a year tell you about consistency of effort? LeBron played 82 games in 17/18...was he suddenly more consistent than seasons earlier? Its not like he was missing chunks of season just because he didnt feel like playing.

Lebron didn't have that dawg in him before obviously.

My post focused on games per season, buddy. But yeah, LeBron isn’t actually the worst of his era in this (and also played for a while before this era of load management really began), and he has played more games than Michael Jordan overall. I wasn’t making some LeBron vs. Jordan longevity argument, and I’m not sure why you think I was, except that your hackles get up at any post that relates in any way to LeBron James and Michael Jordan. It was a general point about how it doesn’t make sense to value the benefits players from this era get from load management while hand waving away the positives for players in past eras that didn’t load manage.

[lessthanjake]

When it comes to games played we should compare these guys to their peers, just like anything else, not across eras. MJ playing 81-82 games every year is only impressive if he is the only one doing it. Just like penalizing Lebron for playing 70 is only fair if others weren't also doing it.

You don't know for sure if Jordan would have played the same % of games if he played in Lebron's era, and vice versa. Those things are just as much a league environment/team thing as they are an individual thing.

Now, if they're missing playoff games, that's an entirely different situation.

I think this is a fair point in some sense, but I think it’d lead to a bias in favor of present-day players. Players today play fewer games (and fewer minutes these days too) for a reason. Teams aren’t just deciding to get less value from their best players for no purpose. Rather, top players are actually playing fewer games in order to try to optimize their overall impact. Playing fewer games lowers their injury risk, which helps their longevity. Relatedly, playing fewer games makes them fresher for the playoffs. It also just puts less miles on them, helping to allow them to play more years. Furthermore, when you play fewer games, you’re also just fresher—and therefore able to play better—in the regular season games you do play.

And the thing is that we give present-day players credit for the things that this helps with. For instance, we give LeBron credit for the longevity that load management has helped him achieve. We give him credit for the quality of his regular season performances, without much regard for the fact that his performances would’ve surely been less good on average without load management. We give him credit for upping his game in the playoffs in a manner that load management has helped him achieve (particularly in his later years, which is where staying fresh for the playoffs is harder). Of course, this isn’t just about LeBron James—the same general thing could be said about virtually every star these days (some definitely moreso than LeBron).

If we are giving current players credit for the things that load management helps with, then we shouldn’t then turn around and say that players from a past era shouldn’t get credit for lack of load management because it was more common back then. That just amounts to taking a tradeoff and only counting the positives of the tradeoff for current players and hand waving away the positives for past players.

Like I said, guys should still be compared to their era peers. But it's not like Lebron level longevity was unheard of in the past, many guys have played 20+ seasons across all eras. Lebron just started younger, better and more athletically gifted than the rest. Simple load management isn't what makes it possible. Might he not be as good currently or have accumulated less value during his career if he didn't load manage, that's definitely possible, as is the opposite.

Personally, MJ falls a little bit in longevity discussion because he willingly decided to not play, not because he couldn't. I don't see any reason he couldn't have strung more elite level seasons post '98 than he did, but ultimately he didn't because he decided not to play. It has nothing to do with load management or whatever era based reason. Is it something that will impact your evaluation of these two players though?... I don't care that's up to you.

LeBron-level longevity may not have been unheard of in the past, but (1) we have no way of knowing if LeBron himself would have “LeBron-level longevity” if he’d been expected to play every game rather than having load management in his later years (in fact, he likely wouldn’t, otherwise he’d be playing more); (2) it is likely that the quality of play both in RS and playoffs that we would’ve seen from him, especially in recent years, would be worse if he was expected to play every game in the same way that those past players did; and (3) elite sports players in general just more commonly have crazier longevity nowadays, even if it did occasionally happen in the past. These are all reasons to believe that he might not have achieved the same longevity and/or quality of play if he played in the past (and the same is true of other players in the modern NBA of course). The fact that other players occasionally had huge longevity in the past under those different past circumstances doesn’t tell us that LeBron necessarily would have. Nor can we say whether those players wouldn’t have had *more* longevity if they played in this era. Like, Kareem had incredible longevity, but would he have had even more longevity if he were load managed in his later years? Almost certainly. He likely would’ve played more years and/or simply been a better player in the games he did play in the years he played. I think there’s a tendency to just hand wave away these era differences by pointing to a guy like Kareem existing in the past, without ever stopping to think that maybe Kareem was simply a bigger longevity outlier than LeBron and that LeBron is getting towards that longevity on paper because of playing in a more favorable era for it. And perhaps that’s fine, but if we’re going to hand wave away that era adifference, we shouldn’t simultaneously say we won’t give those past players added credit for actually not being load managed in the seasons they did play. When faced with an era difference where there’s a tradeoff in how teams/players approached things, we can’t just decide to selectively not consider the positives of one era while crediting players of the other era for its positives.

[OhayoKD]

I think this is a fair point in some sense, but I think it’d lead to a bias in favor of present-day players. Players today play fewer games (and fewer minutes these days too) for a reason.

The backflips to try and mark what would most simply be read as an advantage for Lebron's as a weakness is pretty telling:

1985-98 Jordan: 35887 minutes in 13 seasons - 2760 minutes per season

2004-18 James: 44298 minutes in 15 seasons - 2953 minutes per season

Lebron played more minutes than Jordan in a league by which your own admission, his competition played less...

Jordan’s minutes per game ranks by season: 4th, injured, 3rd, 1st, 1st, 4th, 26th (the season everyone picks as his peak…), 6th, 6th, retired, partially retired, 19th, 28th, 17th, retired again.

Lebron, on the other hand? In minutes per game, he finished: 10th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 13th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 8th, 6th, 5th, 12th, 1st, 1st, injured (was roughly 7th across 55 games), 17th, injured (but would not have made top 30), 20th.

He still has three years leading the league in minutes played (same as Jordan), another second place finish (same as Jordan), six more top ten finishes (to Jordan’s three), and five more top twenty finishes (to Jordan’s four).

In other words, even in the absolute, Lebron played more per-season over more years, with the gap expanding if you account for Jordan's retirements. This is despite playing nba-level basketball from a younger age and thus having more milage on his body throughout.

The gap expands if we are era-relative with Lebron having to play competition that rested more than Jordan's did.

Pointing out minutes-played as a potential advantage for Jordan is pretty desperate. Lebron was more valuable in spite of having to play more. How exactly does that support Jordan's "consistency of effort"?

What does playing few more games a year tell you about consistency of effort? LeBron played 82 games in 17/18...was he suddenly more consistent than seasons earlier? Its not like he was missing chunks of season just because he didnt feel like playing.

Lebron didn't have that dawg in him before obviously.

My post focused on games per season, buddy.

Which makes no difference.

But yeah, LeBron isn’t actually the worst of his era in this (and also played for a while before this era of load management really began), and he has played more games than Michael Jordan overall. I wasn’t making some LeBron vs. Jordan longevity argument

Did I say you did? Peregrine framed minutes played as an advantage for Jordan. Neither you or RCM brought up Jordan's general disadvantage there(and that is not merely a "longetivity" thing), so I did.

Strawmanning is one of your specialties, not mine.

[lessthanjake]

The backflips to try and mark what would most simply be read as an advantage for Lebron's as a weakness is pretty telling:

Lebron played more minutes than Jordan in a league by which your own admission, his competition played less...

In other words, even in the absolute, Lebron played more per-season over more years, with the gap expanding if you account for Jordan's retirements. This is despite playing nba-level basketball from a younger age and thus having more milage on his body throughout.

The gap expands if we are era-relative with Lebron having to play competition that rested more than Jordan's did.

Pointing out minutes-played as a potential advantage for Jordan is pretty desperate. Lebron was more valuable in spite of having to play more. How exactly does that support Jordan's "consistency of effort"?

Lebron didn't have that dawg in him before obviously.

My post focused on games per season, buddy.

Which makes no difference.

Playing every game in a season “makes no difference” compared to not doing so? Interesting take.

But yeah, LeBron isn’t actually the worst of his era in this (and also played for a while before this era of load management really began), and he has played more games than Michael Jordan overall. I wasn’t making some LeBron vs. Jordan longevity argument

Did I say you did? Peregrine framed minutes played as an advantage for Jordan. Neither you or RCM brought up Jordan's general disadvantage there(and that is not merely a "longetivity" thing), so I did.

Strawmanning is one of your specialties, not mine.

Umm, lol. You responded directly to me by immediately saying I was doing “backflips to try and mark” what should be “read as an advantage for LeBron as a weakness” and then quoted minutes data for LeBron James and Michael Jordan specifically. So yeah, I think it was pretty fair of me to take your post as suggesting I was making a LeBron vs. Jordan longevity argument (which you were evidently aiming to refute)—which, as I said, I was not doing and I’m not sure why you thought/acted like I was. As I’ve already explained, I was making a more general point about how players across different eras should be assessed, and yes, you absolutely started beating on a straw man in response.

[OhayoKD]

My post focused on games per season, buddy.

Which makes no difference.

Playing every game in a season “makes no difference” compared to not doing so? Interesting take.

No, as in, Lebron has averaged more games too lmao.

But yeah, LeBron isn’t actually the worst of his era in this (and also played for a while before this era of load management really began), and he has played more games than Michael Jordan overall. I wasn’t making some LeBron vs. Jordan longevity argument

Did I say you did? Peregrine framed minutes played as an advantage for Jordan. Neither you or RCM brought up Jordan's general disadvantage there(and that is not merely a "longetivity" thing), so I did.

Strawmanning is one of your specialties, not mine.

Umm, lol. You responded directly to me by immediately saying I was doing “backflips to try and mark”

Where did I say *you were doing backflips. The first quote in that reply is from peregrine who repeatedly framed how much Jordan and Lebron played as an advantage for Jordan. Peregrine is also the first commenter on a second chain. You and rcm are also quoted, but other posters being tagged does not neccesitate they are the target of a point. I suspect the reason you are interpreting a line which would only be addressing peregrine as "you are backflipping" is because of a reputation you've garnered here due to your posting history. But that is a you problem.

When there is a response to a thread of comments, the lines can be assumed to address whoever made the points they address.

[lessthanjake]

Which makes no difference.

Playing every game in a season “makes no difference” compared to not doing so? Interesting take.

No, as in, Lebron has averaged more games too lmao.

Did I say you did? Peregrine framed minutes played as an advantage for Jordan. Neither you or RCM brought up Jordan's general disadvantage there(and that is not merely a "longetivity" thing), so I did.

Strawmanning is one of your specialties, not mine.

Umm, lol. You responded directly to me by immediately saying I was doing “backflips to try and mark”

Where did I say *you were doing backflips. The first quote in that reply is from peregrine who repeatedly framed how much Jordan and Lebron played as an advantage for Jordan. Peregrine is also the first commenter on a second chain. You and rcm are also quoted, but other posters being tagged does not neccesitate they are the target of a point. I suspect the reason you are interpreting a line which would only be addressing peregrine as "you are backflipping" is because of a reputation you've garnered here due to your posting history. But that is a you problem.

When there is a response to a thread of comments, the lines can be assumed to address whoever made the points they address.

Lol, you literally quoted my post and straw-manned it and now are saying that, despite quoting my post specifically, you weren’t responding to me but rather were responding to other people whose quotes were nested within my post??? That plainly makes no sense and is not how people interact on internet forums. It’s also just made even more ridiculous since I actually was the only person in the entire chain you quoted who even mentioned the word “minutes,” which your response then focused on. You were responding to me, and I honestly find it downright bizarre that you’d try to gaslight on this. Like do you just have no ability to admit you were wrong, even when it’s about something that doesn’t matter (in the end, misinterpreting someone on an Internet forum and straw-manning them isn’t a big deal at all)? And the fact that you then take that gaslighting even further and use it to attack me in general (see the last couple sentences of your first paragraph) makes it just completely wild behavior. Anyways, on the off chance that you’re not lying and *actually* did reply to my post in an attempt to respond to someone else’s post that was nested within mine (and, at that, to respond about a specific subject that that person had not mentioned in the nested post and that I’d at least tangentially referenced in mine), then I’d advise you to do what everyone else does and actually directly quote the post you’re meaning to respond to, rather than quoting a post of someone you’re purportedly not responding to.

[OhayoKD]

Playing every game in a season “makes no difference” compared to not doing so? Interesting take.

No, as in, Lebron has averaged more games too lmao.

Umm, lol. You responded directly to me by immediately saying I was doing “backflips to try and mark”

Where did I say *you were doing backflips. The first quote in that reply is from peregrine who repeatedly framed how much Jordan and Lebron played as an advantage for Jordan. Peregrine is also the first commenter on a second chain. You and rcm are also quoted, but other posters being tagged does not neccesitate they are the target of a point. I suspect the reason you are interpreting a line which would only be addressing peregrine as "you are backflipping" is because of a reputation you've garnered here due to your posting history. But that is a you problem.

When there is a response to a thread of comments, the lines can be assumed to address whoever made the points they address.

Lol, you literally quoted my post and straw-manned it and now are saying that, despite quoting my post specifically, you weren’t responding to me but rather were responding to other people whose quotes were nested within my post??? That plainly makes no sense and is not how people interact on internet forums.

That is in fact how people often interact on internet forums because it mirrors actual conversation. Most people are capable of tracking discussion beyond one line. If you did not say something, and there is a quoted post in the same response which did, you assuming a line that specifically disagrees or takes issue with something the above poster says, was directed at you is silly.

I posted information that may be of interest to everyone in the chain, that does not mean it directly challenges what everyone in the chain is claiming.

then I’d advise you to do what everyone else does and actually directly quote the post you’re meaning to respond to, rather than quoting a post of someone you’re purportedly not responding to.

I'd advise you to quit while you're behind. What I did is standard fare. Your interpretation is not.

[lessthanjake]

No, as in, Lebron has averaged more games too lmao.

Where did I say *you were doing backflips. The first quote in that reply is from peregrine who repeatedly framed how much Jordan and Lebron played as an advantage for Jordan. Peregrine is also the first commenter on a second chain. You and rcm are also quoted, but other posters being tagged does not neccesitate they are the target of a point. I suspect the reason you are interpreting a line which would only be addressing peregrine as "you are backflipping" is because of a reputation you've garnered here due to your posting history. But that is a you problem.

When there is a response to a thread of comments, the lines can be assumed to address whoever made the points they address.

Lol, you literally quoted my post and straw-manned it and now are saying that, despite quoting my post specifically, you weren’t responding to me but rather were responding to other people whose quotes were nested within my post??? That plainly makes no sense and is not how people interact on internet forums.

That is in fact how people often interact on internet forums because it mirrors actual conversation. Most people are capable of tracking discussion beyond one line. If you did not say something, and there is a quoted post above yours which did, you assuming a line that specifically disagrees with something the above poster says, was directed at you is silly.

I posted information that may be of interest to everyone in the chain, that does not mean it directly challenges what everyone in the chain is claiming.

then I’d advise you to do what everyone else does and actually directly quote the post you’re meaning to respond to, rather than quoting a post of someone you’re purportedly not responding to.

I'd advise you to quit while you're behind. What I did is standard fare. Your interpretation is not.

Okay, this is just completely ridiculous, not least of which because, again, I was the only person in the entire quoted chain that even used the word “minutes,” which your response then focused on, and you were not posting general information “of interest to everyone in the chain” but rather accusing a specific person of doing “backflips.” But I’m not going to argue about it further, since it is a dumb rabbit hole that doesn’t substantively matter and I am confident that any reasonable person who actually reads through this would easily see that I’m clearly right about what happened and that your behavior is odd and that these subsequent gaslighting posts of yours don’t reflect well on you.

[OhayoKD]

Lol, you literally quoted my post and straw-manned it and now are saying that, despite quoting my post specifically, you weren’t responding to me but rather were responding to other people whose quotes were nested within my post??? That plainly makes no sense and is not how people interact on internet forums.

That is in fact how people often interact on internet forums because it mirrors actual conversation. Most people are capable of tracking discussion beyond one line. If you did not say something, and there is a quoted post above yours which did, you assuming a line that specifically disagrees with something the above poster says, was directed at you is silly.

I posted information that may be of interest to everyone in the chain, that does not mean it directly challenges what everyone in the chain is claiming.

then I’d advise you to do what everyone else does and actually directly quote the post you’re meaning to respond to, rather than quoting a post of someone you’re purportedly not responding to.

I'd advise you to quit while you're behind. What I did is standard fare. Your interpretation is not.

Okay, this is just completely ridiculous, not least of which because, again, I was the only person in the entire quoted chain that even used the word “minutes,” which your response then focused on.

Because a word overrules what is actually argued/addressed when interpreting what someone is saying...

But I’m not going to argue about it further, since it is a dumb rabbit hole that doesn’t substantively matter and I am confident that any reasonable person who actually read through this would easily see that I’m clearly right about what happened and that your behavior is odd.

Oh I'm sure.

A tip though: You don't need to add "clearly" when you've already said "easily". They both essentially serve the same function in your sentence and that sort of redundancy often makes readers think the writer isn't really confident.

[lessthanjake]

That is in fact how people often interact on internet forums because it mirrors actual conversation. Most people are capable of tracking discussion beyond one line. If you did not say something, and there is a quoted post above yours which did, you assuming a line that specifically disagrees with something the above poster says, was directed at you is silly.

I posted information that may be of interest to everyone in the chain, that does not mean it directly challenges what everyone in the chain is claiming.


I'd advise you to quit while you're behind. What I did is standard fare. Your interpretation is not.

Okay, this is just completely ridiculous, not least of which because, again, I was the only person in the entire quoted chain that even used the word “minutes,” which your response then focused on.

Because a word overrules what is actually argued/addressed when interpreting what someone is saying...

But I’m not going to argue about it further, since it is a dumb rabbit hole that doesn’t substantively matter and I am confident that any reasonable person who actually read through this would easily see that I’m clearly right about what happened and that your behavior is odd.

Oh I'm sure.

A tip though: You don't need to add "clearly" when you've already said "easily". They both essentially serve the same function in your sentence and that sort of redundancy often makes readers think the writer isn't really confident.

Lol, I promise you that you’re way out of your depth in trying to didactically lecture me on how to properly word things, as you’re obviously a college-aged kid at most and I’m a Harvard Law School educated lawyer who was an editor of the Harvard Law Review and basically write legal briefs for a living including in cases that I guarantee you you’ve read about in the national news. Sorry, but I definitely don’t need a writing “tip” or advocacy advice from you.

[Peregrine01]

I feel like there's some people on this forum that are either 1) deliberately trying to piss people off; or 2) enjoy going into a crowded room telling everyone that they have all the answers. Best to place them on ignore.

[MyUniBroDavis]

You guys are fighting over a post written by a high-schooler.

I mean, 95% of the "this is REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME" LeBron vs Jordan discussion is high-schoolers vs people that peaked at high school 30 years ago.

This is hilarious

[MyUniBroDavis]

Okay, this is just completely ridiculous, not least of which because, again, I was the only person in the entire quoted chain that even used the word “minutes,” which your response then focused on.

Because a word overrules what is actually argued/addressed when interpreting what someone is saying...

But I’m not going to argue about it further, since it is a dumb rabbit hole that doesn’t substantively matter and I am confident that any reasonable person who actually read through this would easily see that I’m clearly right about what happened and that your behavior is odd.

Oh I'm sure.

A tip though: You don't need to add "clearly" when you've already said "easily". They both essentially serve the same function in your sentence and that sort of redundancy often makes readers think the writer isn't really confident.

Lol, I promise you that you’re way out of your depth in trying to didactically lecture me on how to properly word things, as you’re obviously a college-aged kid at most and I’m a Harvard Law School educated lawyer who was an editor of the Harvard Law Review and basically write legal briefs for a living including in cases that I guarantee you you’ve read about in the national news. Sorry, but I definitely don’t need a writing “tip” or advocacy advice from you.

there is no way ur bringing up ur resume in a basketball forum to user whose name is ohayokd

[toodles23]

Okay, this is just completely ridiculous, not least of which because, again, I was the only person in the entire quoted chain that even used the word “minutes,” which your response then focused on.

Because a word overrules what is actually argued/addressed when interpreting what someone is saying...

But I’m not going to argue about it further, since it is a dumb rabbit hole that doesn’t substantively matter and I am confident that any reasonable person who actually read through this would easily see that I’m clearly right about what happened and that your behavior is odd.

Oh I'm sure.

A tip though: You don't need to add "clearly" when you've already said "easily". They both essentially serve the same function in your sentence and that sort of redundancy often makes readers think the writer isn't really confident.

Lol, I promise you that you’re way out of your depth in trying to didactically lecture me on how to properly word things, as you’re obviously a college-aged kid at most and I’m a Harvard Law School educated lawyer who was an editor of the Harvard Law Review and basically write legal briefs for a living including in cases that I guarantee you you’ve read about in the national news. Sorry, but I definitely don’t need a writing “tip” or advocacy advice from you.

Lmao. This is definitely one of the most pathetic things I've ever read.

As somebody who grew up in an upper class town and knows plenty of people who went to elite schools, including Harvard: nothing said here should impress anybody in the slightest.

[Jaivl]

Wow, so much competition for a new signature, man.