Hawks rumored to be shopping their lottery pick(s)?

[Jamaaliver]

No...I'm saying it's about you.

It's always about you.

[D21]

A potential trade idea from New Orleans Fansided writers:

Ok I'll say it! Fake News!!!!

Understood. And this is just a fan site. But it is interesting to hear these guys describe what they (or their front office) might be looking for in a trade for #4.

I've long feared that Huerter would be a coveted trade piece in any aggressive move going forward.

I seriously doubt that ATL can be better with the 4th pick than with the 10th pick (I won't even consider the 8th) and filler (17, 2nd round, or future pick) and Huerter. NOP fans should know it, and more important Schlenk knows it.

[kg01]

No...I'm saying it's about you.

It's always about you.

[MaceCase]

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

...not that I'm coming to the dude's defense but I have seen some good content from him lately. I think you have a great point, just picked the wrong springboard to leap off of.

It's just getting really frustrating listening to guys use the Donald Trump approach to any news item they don't like...

Fake News --> personal attacks on credentialed, esteemed journalists.

"I don't like what they are saying, so I will undermine their very existence/employment unless they starting reporting news that jibes with my personal preferences."

Not every so called journalist is dependable, but if we're checking the Linked-In page and alma mater of a Sports Illustrated writer because he linked us to a prospect we don't personally like...

<sigh>


It's a problem.



It feels like desperate people...wanting to seem important. And tearing down other established insiders to do so.

1. Desperate to feel important?... hehe...

So I have no idea how it makes me "important" to post on a relatively small corner of the internet universe in the first place. If I want to feel important and that's what I'm doing, then there are bigger delusional problems you should be chiding me about.

2. So, you rather like that people repeat "news" and essentially plagiarize it as their own, since they can say "based on what I'm hearing."... ? And mislead people to think it is, indeed, news...?

Can't say I'm that surprised.

3. There's a reason the most esteemed credible journalists routinely tell you where they got their information if they're repeating something someone else has already indicated... or, if they're just speaking based on their own insider intel.

There's a reason, then, why some don't do that.

4. You would like to obfuscate between the political realm and this journalistic one. But you're just wrong to do that. Maybe also unperceptive and don't know any better, but I doubt that. More likely, you're just trying to win an argument, and not actually that interested in anything but a surface analysis. But I'll humor you...

You are correct that, in politics, there are actual meaningful issues to be discussed, and/but some politicians seem to avoid digging into actual meaningful point-counterpoint factual substance, and rather, just deal in ad hominem attack, hoping/thinking they can best injure the opposing point(s) of view by degrading their opponent.

NOTE, if you will, the political opponent is not the actual researcher who came up with the factual substance him/herself normally... that's arisen from some university study or from some quote pulled from some newspaper that establishes what someone specifically said previously or some news story that asserts the what/when/where/who/how of some event.

THAT is the pivotal difference.

When it's one's actual job to be the person dealing with the content of the message, and instead, s/he peels off and begins beating down on the messenger, intelligent people pick up on that and recognize s/he's deflecting/avoiding because s/he has no better alternative to defend his/her position.

But. When it's one's actual job to be the messenger, then one's credibility is inherently connected to how well that person has previously performed that role. And we rightfully assess/discern that person's credibility.

Let me explain further if it's still cloudy...

If my political opponent cites some blogger as his/her source for some key piece of information... and I call him on it... in YOUR world, evidently that's out of bounds.

I disagree entirely.

I say it's actually important that we not assume every conveyor of information is just as RELIABLE as the next one.

I say it's actually important to draw a distinction between primary source reporting and everything else.

I say it's actually important to understand how much credibility a given conveyor of information/reporter has earned in his/her career first, as opposed to just assuming the best.

So, sue me.

I hope you will. I'd like to see the circus that would be your attempt to tear down any of that and try to persuade a judge and/or jury that discernment is a bad thing.

To be clear, I have no problem with you passing along all these internet stories and tweets as you do.

To be clear, you also should have no problem with me jumping in as I see it warranted to say, "Yeah, this one isn't actually doesn't seem like it should be taken as that important... for reason x, y or z."

And then, if you want to debate reason x, y or z, that's fine, too.

But debate reason x, y or z then, Liver. (Just my observation, but instead, you seem lately to be diving into your own brand of kill the messenger when you don't like something you've posted having been contested.)

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

No...I'm saying it's about you.

It's always about you.

What a surprise that you would provide such a vivid example of what I just said.

Right? hehe

Bears repeating... you... and, ironically enough, certain politicians you cited earlier... do themselves no favors to go the insult route. People see through that. If you've got substance to argue, argue the substance.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

No...I'm saying it's about you.

It's always about you.

[Jamaaliver]

^so many words...


It's just weird that this week that Athletic writer is an "umemployed NBA follower".

But last month you started an entire thread to discuss an "exceptional" article he wrote. (Even recommending a trial subscription to The Athletic just to read it.)





When YOU personally like what he has to say, it's worth posting and quoting ad nauseam.

When you dislike what he has to say...he's a nobody with no more insight than anyone else.

[kg01]

Aye schooch over, MJ. Lemme get some-a that popcorn. This one's getting good.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

^so many words...

"So many words"... another attempt to insult when substance seems lacking?... yes.

If you want to play "I'm better than you" games, then go right ahead. You might win. You might lose. I'm not participating though. I suppose in your world that just makes me seem self-important. Ironically enough since, in mine, it's the guy begging for "I'm better than you" games. It's not important to me. I'm not a better or worse person based on what anyone on an internet board thinks about me. I'm just here to talk about substance.

It's just weird that this week that Athletic writer is an "umemployed NBA follower".

But last month you started an entire thread to discuss an "exceptional" article he wrote. (Even recommending a trial subscription to The Athletic just to read it.)

Wait.

I'm talking about this Keith Smith guy, whose Twitter account when I click the link says he's a contributor (ie, free lance) on occasion, and says flat out that he's looking for a job somewhere in basketball.



What are you talking about?

[kg01]

Not that I want to get back in the middle of this but, when I read your post, it seemed like you were calling Kirschner the unemployed so-and-so. Now it seems you intended that to reference Smith? I think you misspoke or got lost in your wall of words, maybe?

Maybe I should play the role of Dennis Rodman when he got Trump and the N. Korean guy together. I'll let you and jamall battle out who gets to be Trump in my scenario.

[Jamaaliver]

I'm talking about you constantly undermining journalists when you don't like what they have to say.

Whether it's deciding you need to investigate where Jeremy Woo received his undergrad degree...because he claims sources link us to Culver.

Or dismissing Keith Smith this week.

Or dismissing Chris Kirschner last week.

Spoiler:

Seems we know where The Athletic beat writer's opinion stands.... really?.... we're interviewing AAU coaches to see if they would endorse their former player?... compelling stuff right there, let me tell ya.

I become more skeptical when the one source that claims he's understanding that Bol isn't favored (ie, the beat reporter for The Athletic) is being led to believe that Hayes ***is*** someone they would consider.

I don't think the beat reporter is lying, mind you... not at all.

I just think he might be being purposefully misled.

It's a constant need to silence and discredit voices that don't fit your personal narrative.


You don't have to agree with those voices. You don't have to even believe them. But repeatedly undermining everything that they are because of something they once said...is not okay.




NOTE: It's clear the sentiment you were trying to get across in that previous post is...unclear from what was actually posted.

Spoiler:

This umemployed NBA follower is "hearing" it probably because we've all heard it already...

Read on Twitter

Sheesh you are such a meany. Isn't he with the athletic?

Either way, so mean.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Not that I want to get back in the middle of this but, when I read your post, it seemed like you were calling Kirschner the unemployed so-and-so. Now it seems you intended that to reference Smith? I think you misspoke or got lost in your wall of words, maybe?

So, how should I have done it, in your opinion?

I followed the tweet by Smith with a comment, then supported my comment by pointing to the original tweet that Smith apparently was using for the basis of his "hearing."... and you get it now why I put "hearing" in quotes, right???

I mean, it's like sometimes maybe just maybe people are looking for things and presume, when it's not actually there.

Fair assertion?

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

I'm talking about you constantly undermining journalists when you don't like what they have to say.

Whether it's deciding you need to investigate where Jeremy Woo received his undergrad degree...because he claims sources link us to Culver.

Why is that wrong to "investigate?"

Maybe, just maybe, my friend you should look in the mirror... maybe it's that you're getting all rankled when it comes to me raising issues with things *you* would prefer not to see challenged...??? Maybe.

It's never wrong to investigate.

Now, if someone wants to consider the results of the investigation to be not all that compelling, that's their right... so, if I find that Jeremy Woo is not actually that experienced and might not have the length and depth of sources that a more experienced guy might... that's completely up to you to decide whether that's worth taking into consideration.

But I assert one is *never* wrong to investigate and try to learn more about x, y or z.

And I also assert that just as it's completely up to you to decide whether Woo's experience is worth taking into consideration, so it is for me, too. I'm no less than you or you than me.

[kg01]

Not that I want to get back in the middle of this but, when I read your post, it seemed like you were calling Kirschner the unemployed so-and-so. Now it seems you intended that to reference Smith? I think you misspoke or got lost in your wall of words, maybe?

So, how should I have done it, in your opinion?

I followed the tweet by Smith with a comment, then supported my comment by pointing to the original tweet that Smith apparently was using for the basis of his "hearing."... and you get it now why I put "hearing" in quotes, right???

I mean, it's like sometimes maybe just maybe people are looking for things and presume, when it's not actually there.

Fair assertion?

In reference to me? No. You know where you and I stand. I gots no reason to get cute about it.

How should you have done it? I mean, now that you've spelled it out, I understand what you were trying to do. The original post was unclear.

But all this is window-dressing. The issue here is the simmering beef that's bubbling to the surface. Y'all need to get it together.

[Jamaaliver]

This 'so-called' beef?

...it's just desperate people wanting to seem important...

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Get it together, kg? I'm not here necessarily for social purposes. I'm just here to talk Hawks basketball, and substance. It's fun when the social part works out, but it's not really that big of a deal if it doesn't. To my mind, as long as we all stick to talking meat, and not getting off in the weeds of personal jabs, it all takes care of itself.

And.

If the original post was unclear, then tell me how I should have written it.

Until then, one is left to conclude it wasn't how the message was sent, but how the message was received that made it an incomplete pass.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

This 'so-called' beef?

...it's just desperate people wanting to seem important...

I'm listening. Do you have a counterpoint? Until you do, that remains my best guess as to why a Keith Smith decides to tweet something and pretend that he's "hearing" something that we all already have heard.

[kg01]

Get it together, kg? I'm not here necessarily for social purposes. I'm just here to talk Hawks basketball, and substance. It's fun when the social part works out, but it's not really that big of a deal if it doesn't. To my mind, as long as we all stick to talking meat, and not getting off in the weeds of personal jabs, it all takes care of itself.

And.

If the original post was unclear, then tell me how I should have written it.

Until then, one is left to conclude it wasn't how the message was sent, but how the message was received that made it an incomplete pass.

Wait, we're not ... friends?



ETA: Based on jamall's likes, I am now on team-sturt

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

And, should I take that response to mean maybe you would have worded the post above the same way I did after all? (... I mean, since you didn't go there.)