RGM GOAT Debate Thread (Part 3)

[michaelm]

You are mentally-ill or suffering from dyslexia.
Quote me where I said I wasn’t a Lebron fan.

Find a single post of mine on the PC boards. I actively avoid that place because I know there are others like you on there.

One can be a fan of both players (or just the one as in your case) without being a complete lunatic.


Allow me to help you out, yet again.




I will now be taking my own advice from that first paragraph in the quoted. All the best and I wish you a speedy recovery.

We hereby appoint you the new ScrantonBulls of this forum! Keep up the quality posts.

I’m not at all surprised that you don’t understand how analogies work or that you would come to the conclusion of associating ScrantonBulls and the PC board with myself. Considering how your brain malfunctions to even remember what you read on the very same page of your responses, it makes sense why you’re inept at player comparisons or comparisons all together. Embarrassing stuff.

I suggest we create the new title of the ‘Bledredwine Windbag’.
RealGM’s friendly neighbourhood charlatan with the memory of a goldfish, who goes on the most head-scratching tangents and trails of thought. To be a member of this prestigious honour, one must first master the ways of goalpost moving, deflection of topic when refuted, selective sampling, falsifying records, and unyielding dogmatism. The more unabashed and unscrupulous, the better. Any takers or nominations?

Schoolboy insults remain so however erudite you attempt to make them.

[michaelm]

They were made for each other.
Oh to be a fly on the wall while these two sit, hand-in-hand, and have an in-depth lengthy discussion of their basketball worlds through their brilliant lenses made of copium. One barking through a megaphone listing away every Lebron turnover. The other lackadaisical but nodding away as he mumbles more gibberish. When’s the last time you heard someone in person use the word ‘partisan’? Like seriously, it’s okay to use fan or stan, my friend. No one will think you less.

I would pay good money. Should honestly start a podcast together.

So like Scranton Bulls you don’t know the meaning of the word partisan, just as is the case with the words irony and revisionism, and this is supposed to make me feel bad ?. Again argumentum ad hominem is all you have.

Bledredwine has never pretended to be other than what he is, putting him a long way ahead of someone pretending to be a Bulls fan, or pretending to rate Jordan ahead of LeBron, or to have been a dispassionate observer/witness of LeBron and/or Jordan, if the three of you are actually separable, I Was a Witness having been somewhat mysteriously absent.

You're adorable. Do you enjoy reading? What are some of your favourite books?
Drop the sly act and cheeky jabs you clown. Not even man enough to be direct about it. Your accusations of me in this thread just may end being the most hypocritical claims in this entire thread. This includes bledredwine's manic episode.

I am flattered. I actually don’t really need to post anything, given that I only need point out that argumentum ad hominem is your first and only resort to have you reply with more of the same, hardly disproving my point. What is really amusing is your attempt to sound erudite while delivering schoolboy level insults.

[Kawaii Leonard]

So like Scranton Bulls you don’t know the meaning of the word partisan, just as is the case with the words irony and revisionism, and this is supposed to make me feel bad ?. Again argumentum ad hominem is all you have.

Bledredwine has never pretended to be other than what he is, putting him a long way ahead of someone pretending to be a Bulls fan, or pretending to rate Jordan ahead of LeBron, or to have been a dispassionate observer/witness of LeBron and/or Jordan, if the three of you are actually separable, I Was a Witness having been somewhat mysteriously absent.

You're adorable. Do you enjoy reading? What are some of your favourite books?
Drop the sly act and cheeky jabs you clown. Not even man enough to be direct about it. Your accusations of me in this thread just may end being the most hypocritical claims in this entire thread. This includes bledredwine's manic episode.

I am flattered. I actually don’t really need to post anything, given that I only need point out that argumentum ad hominem is your first and only resort to have you reply with more of the same, hardly disproving my point. What is really amusing is your attempt to sound erudite while delivering schoolboy level insults.

Give it a rest man. Are you this hurt over getting called a clown, once? Maybe stop talking so outlandishly while looking like the biggest hypocrite in the room. Take a good hard look in the mirror before you accuse people of preposterous things then.

[michaelm]

You're adorable. Do you enjoy reading? What are some of your favourite books?
Drop the sly act and cheeky jabs you clown. Not even man enough to be direct about it. Your accusations of me in this thread just may end being the most hypocritical claims in this entire thread. This includes bledredwine's manic episode.

I am flattered. I actually don’t really need to post anything, given that I only need point out that argumentum ad hominem is your first and only resort to have you reply with more of the same, hardly disproving my point. What is really amusing is your attempt to sound erudite while delivering schoolboy level insults.

Give it a rest man. Are you this hurt over getting called a clown, once? Maybe stop talking so outlandishly while looking like the biggest hypocrite in the room. Take a good hard look in the mirror before you accuse people of preposterous things then.

Another substantial post.

Why would I be dismayed by schoolboy insults ?, as I already said. If you are not a schoolboy it is even more puerile. And why exactly am I required to “give it a rest” as you say ?, apart from the contest being uneven given you have admitted to not even knowing the meaning of the word “partisan”.

[Kawaii Leonard]

I am flattered. I actually don’t really need to post anything, given that I only need point out that argumentum ad hominem is your first and only resort to have you reply with more of the same, hardly disproving my point. What is really amusing is your attempt to sound erudite while delivering schoolboy level insults.

Give it a rest man. Are you this hurt over getting called a clown, once? Maybe stop talking so outlandishly while looking like the biggest hypocrite in the room. Take a good hard look in the mirror before you accuse people of preposterous things then.

Another substantial post.

Why would I be dismayed by schoolboy insults ?, as I already said. If you are not a schoolboy it is even more puerile. And why exactly am I required to “give it a rest” as you say ?, apart from the contest being uneven given you have admitted to not even knowing the meaning of the word “partisan”.

Partisan:

1. a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.

2. a member of an armed group formed to fight secretly against an occupying force, in particular one operating in enemy-occupied Yugoslavia, Italy, and parts of eastern Europe in World War II.

- A partisan is someone who strongly supports a particular political party, cause, or idea. This often means a person who is deeply committed to their party's policies and is unwilling to compromise with opponents. The term can also refer to a member of a group engaged in irregular warfare, often against an occupying force.

Yes continue to use a word primarily associated and used in the affairs of politics, military resistance movements in WW2 and ideological allegiances, when a simple “fan”, “stan”, “supporter”, “devotee”, heck even “homer” suffices and are far more natural. It’s outdated and pretentious considering context. If you disagree, move on instead of picking at the scab.

Now would you like the definition for irony? You sure have let examples of this word go right over your head throughout this discussion as a Bledredwine Windbag partisan.

How’s this for an example. It’s ironic that the poster accusing others of replying more of the same and resorting to argumentum ad hominem, happens to have contributed anything meaningful in the discourse—for the last 3 pages—but questioning others on their knowledge of the english dictionary while calling them “schoolboys”. A hypocrite’s actions (preaching one thing, doing the opposite) is ironic because their behaviour contradicts what they publicly stand for.
I’m sure you at least know what a ‘hypocrite’ means or perhaps some examples of why I think you’re an exemplary case will help?

[michaelm]

Give it a rest man. Are you this hurt over getting called a clown, once? Maybe stop talking so outlandishly while looking like the biggest hypocrite in the room. Take a good hard look in the mirror before you accuse people of preposterous things then.

Another substantial post.

Why would I be dismayed by schoolboy insults ?, as I already said. If you are not a schoolboy it is even more puerile. And why exactly am I required to “give it a rest” as you say ?, apart from the contest being uneven given you have admitted to not even knowing the meaning of the word “partisan”.

Partisan:

1. a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.

2. a member of an armed group formed to fight secretly against an occupying force, in particular one operating in enemy-occupied Yugoslavia, Italy, and parts of eastern Europe in World War II.

- A partisan is someone who strongly supports a particular political party, cause, or idea. This often means a person who is deeply committed to their party's policies and is unwilling to compromise with opponents. The term can also refer to a member of a group engaged in irregular warfare, often against an occupying force.

Yes continue to use a word primarily associated and used in the affairs of politics, military resistance movements in WW2 and ideological allegiances, when a simple “fan”, “stan”, “supporter”, “devotee”, heck even “homer” suffices and are far more natural. It’s outdated and pretentious considering context. If you disagree, move on instead of picking at the scab.

Now would you like the definition for irony? You sure have let examples of this word go right over your head throughout this discussion as a Bledredwine Windbag partisan.

How’s this for an example. It’s ironic that the poster accusing others of replying more of the same and resorting to argumentum ad hominem, happens to have contributed anything meaningful in the discourse—for the last 3 pages—but questioning others on their knowledge of the english dictionary while calling them “schoolboys”. A hypocrite’s actions (preaching one thing, doing the opposite) is ironic because their behaviour contradicts what they publicly stand for.
I’m sure you at least know what a ‘hypocrite’ means or perhaps some examples of why I think you’re an exemplary case will help?

I know exactly what the word means, in this context your first definition, and used it advisedly, to indicate someone who goes beyond the point of common fandom to something akin to political partisanship. The word is used widely around the world in regard to sports fandom, and I hate to break it to you but the English language was not invented in the USA and nor does the USA control the usage of that language.

[Kawaii Leonard]

Another substantial post.

Why would I be dismayed by schoolboy insults ?, as I already said. If you are not a schoolboy it is even more puerile. And why exactly am I required to “give it a rest” as you say ?, apart from the contest being uneven given you have admitted to not even knowing the meaning of the word “partisan”.

Partisan:

1. a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.

2. a member of an armed group formed to fight secretly against an occupying force, in particular one operating in enemy-occupied Yugoslavia, Italy, and parts of eastern Europe in World War II.

- A partisan is someone who strongly supports a particular political party, cause, or idea. This often means a person who is deeply committed to their party's policies and is unwilling to compromise with opponents. The term can also refer to a member of a group engaged in irregular warfare, often against an occupying force.

Yes continue to use a word primarily associated and used in the affairs of politics, military resistance movements in WW2 and ideological allegiances, when a simple “fan”, “stan”, “supporter”, “devotee”, heck even “homer” suffices and are far more natural. It’s outdated and pretentious considering context. If you disagree, move on instead of picking at the scab.

Now would you like the definition for irony? You sure have let examples of this word go right over your head throughout this discussion as a Bledredwine Windbag partisan.

How’s this for an example. It’s ironic that the poster accusing others of replying more of the same and resorting to argumentum ad hominem, happens to have contributed anything meaningful in the discourse—for the last 3 pages—but questioning others on their knowledge of the english dictionary while calling them “schoolboys”. A hypocrite’s actions (preaching one thing, doing the opposite) is ironic because their behaviour contradicts what they publicly stand for.
I’m sure you at least know what a ‘hypocrite’ means or perhaps some examples of why I think you’re an exemplary case will help?

I know exactly what the word means, in this context your first definition, and used it advisedly, to indicate someone who goes beyond the point of common fandom to something akin to political partisanship. The word is used widely around the world in regard to sports fandom, and I hate to break it to you but the English language was not invented in the USA and nor does the USA control the usage of that language.

I am not American and how does my view of this topic demonstrate anything remotely to a political partisanship. If anyone here is going on a crusade for his cause, it’s the poster you continuously defend. And no, link me a single sports related article online that uses ‘partisan’ in place of any of the examples I’ve taught you above.

[michaelm]

Give it a rest man. Are you this hurt over getting called a clown, once? Maybe stop talking so outlandishly while looking like the biggest hypocrite in the room. Take a good hard look in the mirror before you accuse people of preposterous things then.

Another substantial post.

Why would I be dismayed by schoolboy insults ?, as I already said. If you are not a schoolboy it is even more puerile. And why exactly am I required to “give it a rest” as you say ?, apart from the contest being uneven given you have admitted to not even knowing the meaning of the word “partisan”.

Partisan:

1. a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.

2. a member of an armed group formed to fight secretly against an occupying force, in particular one operating in enemy-occupied Yugoslavia, Italy, and parts of eastern Europe in World War II.

- A partisan is someone who strongly supports a particular political party, cause, or idea. This often means a person who is deeply committed to their party's policies and is unwilling to compromise with opponents. The term can also refer to a member of a group engaged in irregular warfare, often against an occupying force.

Yes continue to use a word primarily associated and used in the affairs of politics, military resistance movements in WW2 and ideological allegiances, when a simple “fan”, “stan”, “supporter”, “devotee”, heck even “homer” suffices and are far more natural. It’s outdated and pretentious considering context. If you disagree, move on instead of picking at the scab.

Now would you like the definition for irony? You sure have let examples of this word go right over your head throughout this discussion as a Bledredwine Windbag partisan.

How’s this for an example. It’s ironic that the poster accusing others of replying more of the same and resorting to argumentum ad hominem, happens to have contributed anything meaningful in the discourse—for the last 3 pages—but questioning others on their knowledge of the english dictionary while calling them “schoolboys”. A hypocrite’s actions (preaching one thing, doing the opposite) is ironic because their behaviour contradicts what they publicly stand for.
I’m sure you at least know what a ‘hypocrite’ means or perhaps some examples of why I think you’re an exemplary case will help?

I called your insults/ad hominem schoolboyish which is an opinion I continue to hold, and left it open as to whether you were a schoolboy, just as as I said rightly or wrongly in regard to how Jordan was regarded during his heyday which you obviously didn’t observe, and are hence not in much of a position to determine whether Bledred was being revisionist or employing rose coloured glasses as you claimed, which prompted your last bout of ad hominem, to which my most recent posts have replied. I followed the site rules and took issue with your opinions and arguments and in particular your constant employment of ad hominem when anyone disagrees with you, a logical fallacy btw, rather than employing personal insults myself, obviously anticipating your reply apart from anything else.

[SlimShady83]

[Kawaii Leonard]

Another substantial post.

Why would I be dismayed by schoolboy insults ?, as I already said. If you are not a schoolboy it is even more puerile. And why exactly am I required to “give it a rest” as you say ?, apart from the contest being uneven given you have admitted to not even knowing the meaning of the word “partisan”.

Partisan:

1. a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.

2. a member of an armed group formed to fight secretly against an occupying force, in particular one operating in enemy-occupied Yugoslavia, Italy, and parts of eastern Europe in World War II.

- A partisan is someone who strongly supports a particular political party, cause, or idea. This often means a person who is deeply committed to their party's policies and is unwilling to compromise with opponents. The term can also refer to a member of a group engaged in irregular warfare, often against an occupying force.

Yes continue to use a word primarily associated and used in the affairs of politics, military resistance movements in WW2 and ideological allegiances, when a simple “fan”, “stan”, “supporter”, “devotee”, heck even “homer” suffices and are far more natural. It’s outdated and pretentious considering context. If you disagree, move on instead of picking at the scab.

Now would you like the definition for irony? You sure have let examples of this word go right over your head throughout this discussion as a Bledredwine Windbag partisan.

How’s this for an example. It’s ironic that the poster accusing others of replying more of the same and resorting to argumentum ad hominem, happens to have contributed anything meaningful in the discourse—for the last 3 pages—but questioning others on their knowledge of the english dictionary while calling them “schoolboys”. A hypocrite’s actions (preaching one thing, doing the opposite) is ironic because their behaviour contradicts what they publicly stand for.
I’m sure you at least know what a ‘hypocrite’ means or perhaps some examples of why I think you’re an exemplary case will help?

I called your insults/ad hominem schoolboyish which is an opinion I continue to hold, and left it open as to whether you were a schoolboy, just as as I said rightly or wrongly in regard to how Jordan was regarded during his heyday which you obviously didn’t observe, and are hence not in much of a position to determine whether Bledred was being revisionist or employing rose coloured glasses as you claimed. I followed the site rules and took issue with your opinions and arguments and in particular your constant employment of ad hominem when anyone disagrees with you, a logical fallacy btw, rather than employing personal insults myself, obviously anticipating your reply apart from anything else.

Broken record.
The mental gymnastics is strong with this one. It makes sense why you’re his lapdog. Still waiting on that article with partisan used since it’s so universally repeated, as you claim, instead of the examples above.

[michaelm]

Partisan:

1. a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.

2. a member of an armed group formed to fight secretly against an occupying force, in particular one operating in enemy-occupied Yugoslavia, Italy, and parts of eastern Europe in World War II.

- A partisan is someone who strongly supports a particular political party, cause, or idea. This often means a person who is deeply committed to their party's policies and is unwilling to compromise with opponents. The term can also refer to a member of a group engaged in irregular warfare, often against an occupying force.

Yes continue to use a word primarily associated and used in the affairs of politics, military resistance movements in WW2 and ideological allegiances, when a simple “fan”, “stan”, “supporter”, “devotee”, heck even “homer” suffices and are far more natural. It’s outdated and pretentious considering context. If you disagree, move on instead of picking at the scab.

Now would you like the definition for irony? You sure have let examples of this word go right over your head throughout this discussion as a Bledredwine Windbag partisan.

How’s this for an example. It’s ironic that the poster accusing others of replying more of the same and resorting to argumentum ad hominem, happens to have contributed anything meaningful in the discourse—for the last 3 pages—but questioning others on their knowledge of the english dictionary while calling them “schoolboys”. A hypocrite’s actions (preaching one thing, doing the opposite) is ironic because their behaviour contradicts what they publicly stand for.
I’m sure you at least know what a ‘hypocrite’ means or perhaps some examples of why I think you’re an exemplary case will help?

I called your insults/ad hominem schoolboyish which is an opinion I continue to hold, and left it open as to whether you were a schoolboy, just as as I said rightly or wrongly in regard to how Jordan was regarded during his heyday which you obviously didn’t observe, and are hence not in much of a position to determine whether Bledred was being revisionist or employing rose coloured glasses as you claimed. I followed the site rules and took issue with your opinions and arguments and in particular your constant employment of ad hominem when anyone disagrees with you, a logical fallacy btw, rather than employing personal insults myself, obviously anticipating your reply apart from anything else.

Broken record.
The mental gymnastics is strong with this one. It makes sense why you’re his lapdog. Still waiting on that article with partisan used since it’s so universally repeated, as you claim, instead of the examples above.

So you have moved on from ad hominem to calling arguments you haven’t disproved ‘mental gymnastics’ now ?.

I hate to break it to you but the English language was not invented in the USA nor does the USA control English usage.

I am well aware of the meaning of the word partisan and used it quite advisedly, in this context your first definition being relevant. It implies taking things past the point of normal sports fandom to the point of ideology/a fixed position and is common usage in the context of sporting fandom in Australia and England. I have mostly applied it generically to those who are imo extreme LeBron fans, but if I have inattentively applied it to you directly you might have me on ad hominem. I would admit to being a Steph Curry partisan, in regard to whom I am able to see little wrong, and before him my favourite player was Tim Duncan. I do consider Jordan the GOAT having watched many of the finals games from the dual threepeats in various sports bars because I was mostly in the USA at the time, and followed the 2nd threepeat team more intently because the Australian player Luc Longley was involved, but would not classify myself as a fan in the same sense that I am a Curry or Duncan fan.

[Just for the heck of it I googled partisan fan myself, and the first thing which came up in Australia was from Reddit, viz-
“A partisan fan is one who strongly supports a team or athlete, prioritizing their success over all else, even the quality of the game itself. They are deeply invested in their team’s wins and losses, often exhibiting a strong emotional connection. This contrasts with a ‘purist’ fan who appreciates the sport itself and may follow multiple teams or focus on the overall quality of play”}.

Reddit is I believe an American/US site hence the spelling of “prioritizing”. "Partisan fan“ employs partisan as an adjunctive noun, but I just say partisan because it is both more efficient and avoids tautology.

[Kawaii Leonard]

I called your insults/ad hominem schoolboyish which is an opinion I continue to hold, and left it open as to whether you were a schoolboy, just as as I said rightly or wrongly in regard to how Jordan was regarded during his heyday which you obviously didn’t observe, and are hence not in much of a position to determine whether Bledred was being revisionist or employing rose coloured glasses as you claimed. I followed the site rules and took issue with your opinions and arguments and in particular your constant employment of ad hominem when anyone disagrees with you, a logical fallacy btw, rather than employing personal insults myself, obviously anticipating your reply apart from anything else.

Broken record.
The mental gymnastics is strong with this one. It makes sense why you’re his lapdog. Still waiting on that article with partisan used since it’s so universally repeated, as you claim, instead of the examples above.

So you have moved on from ad hominem to calling arguments you haven’t disproved ‘mental gymnastics’ now ?.

I hate to break it to you but the English language was not invented in the USA nor does the USA control English usage.

I am well aware of the meaning of the word “ and used it quite advisedly, in this context your first definition being relevant. It implies taking things past the point of normal sports fandom to the point of ideology/a fixed position and is common usage in the context of sporting fandom in Australia and England. I have mostly applied it generically to those who are imo extreme LeBron fans, but if I have inattentively applied it to you directly you might have me on ad hominem. I would admit to being a Steph Curry partisan, in regard to whom I am able to see little wrong, and before him my favourite player was Tim Duncan. I do consider Jordan the GOAT having watched many of the finals games from the dual threepeats in various sports bars because I was mostly in the USA at the time, and followed the 2nd threepeat team more intensively because the Australian player Luc Longley was involved, but would not classify myself as a fan in the same sense that I am a Curry or Duncan fan.

Just for the heck of it I googled partisan fan myself, and the first thing which came up was from Reddit, viz-
“A partisan fan is one who strongly supports a team or athlete, prioritizing their success over all else, even the quality of the game itself. They are deeply invested in their teams wins and losses, often exhibiting a strong emotional connection. This contrasts with a ‘purist’ fan who appreciates the sport itself and may follow multiple teams or focus on the overall quality of play”.


Reddit is I believe an American/US site hence the spelling of “prioritizing”. “Partisan fan “ employs partisan as an adjunctive noun, but I just say partisan because it is both more efficient and avoids tautology.

Using reddit as a citation, dear lord. What’s even more hilarious is the word used right after in redundancy.

[bledredwine]

We hereby appoint you the new ScrantonBulls of this forum! Keep up the quality posts.

I’m not at all surprised that you don’t understand how analogies work or that you would come to the conclusion of associating ScrantonBulls and the PC board with myself. Considering how your brain malfunctions to even remember what you read on the very same page of your responses, it makes sense why you’re inept at player comparisons or comparisons all together. Embarrassing stuff.

I suggest we create the new title of the ‘Bledredwine Windbag’.
RealGM’s friendly neighbourhood charlatan with the memory of a goldfish, who goes on the most head-scratching tangents and trails of thought. To be a member of this prestigious honour, one must first master the ways of goalpost moving, deflection of topic when refuted, selective sampling, falsifying records, and unyielding dogmatism. The more unabashed and unscrupulous, the better. Any takers or nominations?

Schoolboy insults remain so however erudite you attempt to make them.

He’s probably an actual child, like Scranton.

[michaelm]

Broken record.
The mental gymnastics is strong with this one. It makes sense why you’re his lapdog. Still waiting on that article with partisan used since it’s so universally repeated, as you claim, instead of the examples above.

So you have moved on from ad hominem to calling arguments you haven’t disproved ‘mental gymnastics’ now ?.

I hate to break it to you but the English language was not invented in the USA nor does the USA control English usage.

I am well aware of the meaning of the word “ and used it quite advisedly, in this context your first definition being relevant. It implies taking things past the point of normal sports fandom to the point of ideology/a fixed position and is common usage in the context of sporting fandom in Australia and England. I have mostly applied it generically to those who are imo extreme LeBron fans, but if I have inattentively applied it to you directly you might have me on ad hominem. I would admit to being a Steph Curry partisan, in regard to whom I am able to see little wrong, and before him my favourite player was Tim Duncan. I do consider Jordan the GOAT having watched many of the finals games from the dual threepeats in various sports bars because I was mostly in the USA at the time, and followed the 2nd threepeat team more intensively because the Australian player Luc Longley was involved, but would not classify myself as a fan in the same sense that I am a Curry or Duncan fan.

Just for the heck of it I googled partisan fan myself, and the first thing which came up was from Reddit, viz-
“A partisan fan is one who strongly supports a team or athlete, prioritizing their success over all else, even the quality of the game itself. They are deeply invested in their teams wins and losses, often exhibiting a strong emotional connection. This contrasts with a ‘purist’ fan who appreciates the sport itself and may follow multiple teams or focus on the overall quality of play”.


Reddit is I believe an American/US site hence the spelling of “prioritizing”. “Partisan fan “ employs partisan as an adjunctive noun, but I just say partisan because it is both more efficient and avoids tautology.

Using reddit as a citation, dear lord. What’s even more hilarious is the word used right after in redundancy.

You asked for an example in common parlance. You got it.

Your dictionary definition (the first one) also applied as I rather patiently explained to you before finding or quoting what was on Reddit. Reddit should be expert in regard to partisan fandom being a site notable for such fans as you pretty much imply while contending I am the one who doesn’t know the meaning of the word partisan. Hoist with your own petard is the expression used by the English in the language they invented I believe.

[Jamaaliver]

Read on Twitter

[SaveTheHens]

How much do dynasties matter in being GOAT, and does Lebron have one? 4 years, 2 rings.. is that enough?

[The4thHorseman]

How much do dynasties matter in being GOAT, and does Lebron have one? 4 years, 2 rings.. is that enough?

He achieved 3 titles and 3 fmvp's in 5yrs with two different teams.

That's definitely considered an individual dynasty.

[bledredwine]

Broken record.
The mental gymnastics is strong with this one. It makes sense why you’re his lapdog. Still waiting on that article with partisan used since it’s so universally repeated, as you claim, instead of the examples above.

So you have moved on from ad hominem to calling arguments you haven’t disproved ‘mental gymnastics’ now ?.

I hate to break it to you but the English language was not invented in the USA nor does the USA control English usage.

I am well aware of the meaning of the word “ and used it quite advisedly, in this context your first definition being relevant. It implies taking things past the point of normal sports fandom to the point of ideology/a fixed position and is common usage in the context of sporting fandom in Australia and England. I have mostly applied it generically to those who are imo extreme LeBron fans, but if I have inattentively applied it to you directly you might have me on ad hominem. I would admit to being a Steph Curry partisan, in regard to whom I am able to see little wrong, and before him my favourite player was Tim Duncan. I do consider Jordan the GOAT having watched many of the finals games from the dual threepeats in various sports bars because I was mostly in the USA at the time, and followed the 2nd threepeat team more intensively because the Australian player Luc Longley was involved, but would not classify myself as a fan in the same sense that I am a Curry or Duncan fan.

Just for the heck of it I googled partisan fan myself, and the first thing which came up was from Reddit, viz-
“A partisan fan is one who strongly supports a team or athlete, prioritizing their success over all else, even the quality of the game itself. They are deeply invested in their teams wins and losses, often exhibiting a strong emotional connection. This contrasts with a ‘purist’ fan who appreciates the sport itself and may follow multiple teams or focus on the overall quality of play”.


Reddit is I believe an American/US site hence the spelling of “prioritizing”. “Partisan fan “ employs partisan as an adjunctive noun, but I just say partisan because it is both more efficient and avoids tautology.

Using reddit as a citation, dear lord. What’s even more hilarious is the word used right after in redundancy.

It's better than the trash you've been posting like offensive plus minus and blaming points per game doesn't matter! You have embodied the word redundancy with your last several posts. Dear lord.

[bledredwine]

"I just want to remind everybody that it's still about one thing- winning" - Magic

He then went on to discuss how Jordan didn't care about the stats and just wanted to win.
2 3-peats .... not 5, but 6.

Lebron, not 5, not 6, not 7, not 8. With Miami, not 3.....

Despite that and playing in the era before inflated stats, Jordan STILL dominates the discussion statistically.
And unlike Lebron, he was actually facing double teams. In his earlier years? Far beyond that.

As soon as he got that other Allstar, there was sheer consistent domination, individually and as a team.

[SaveTheHens]

How much do dynasties matter in being GOAT, and does Lebron have one? 4 years, 2 rings.. is that enough?

He achieved 3 titles and 3 fmvp's in 5yrs with two different teams.

That's definitely considered an individual dynasty.

Not sure the 'two different teams' was more of an achievement or a failure though... Had he stayed in Miami another two years & got a championship id find it more impressive, than ditching on a team who's stars are declining & teaming up with two younger all-nba players. It's still a good personal achievement, but stressing that he did it with 2 teams doesn't necessarily mean that it's a harder feat. It's harder imo to maintain that dominance with one team and get at least 3 rings that way than move from superteam to the better superteam.