gtn130 wrote:tontoz just got straight rekt. feel bad for him tbh
What is Steve Mills job title with the Knicks?
While you are at it please explain how they "easily" could have kept Harden.
Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart
gtn130 wrote:tontoz just got straight rekt. feel bad for him tbh
tontoz wrote:What is Steve Mills job title with the Knicks?
gtn130 wrote:tontoz wrote:What is Steve Mills job title with the Knicks?
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion.
There is no reason to engage with you when you're arguing in bad faith. RIP tontoz
tontoz wrote:gtn130 wrote:tontoz wrote:What is Steve Mills job title with the Knicks?
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion.
There is no reason to engage with you when you're arguing in bad faith. RIP tontoz
Bad faith![]()
Like saying OKC traded Harden for nothing? Like pretending they could have "easily" have kept Harden if they traded Perkins, who by your own admission sucked from day 1.And even if they did trade Perkins they would have to trade him to a team well below the cap so they wouldnt have to take back equal salary, yet another fact you ignore.
Jackson can fire the GM and hire another if he chooses. He is above the GM and he has only had the position two years, hardly enough time to make an "infinite" number of bad moves.
gtn130 wrote:tontoz wrote:gtn130 wrote:
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion.
There is no reason to engage with you when you're arguing in bad faith. RIP tontoz
Bad faith![]()
Like saying OKC traded Harden for nothing? Like pretending they could have "easily" have kept Harden if they traded Perkins, who by your own admission sucked from day 1.And even if they did trade Perkins they would have to trade him to a team well below the cap so they wouldnt have to take back equal salary, yet another fact you ignore.
Jackson can fire the GM and hire another if he chooses. He is above the GM and he has only had the position two years, hardly enough time to make an "infinite" number of bad moves.
tontoz wrote:I understand. Your command of English and of the facts is so bad that you have been reduced to posting pictures so your ignorance won't get any more exposed.
gtn130 wrote:tontoz wrote:I understand. Your command of English and of the facts is so bad that you have been reduced to posting pictures so your ignorance won't get any more exposed.
Lots of wanting here.
We've already established that there's simply no reason to continue engaing with you when you're going to make nitty bad faith arguments about Phil Jackson's technical title with the Knicks that completely derail the conversation. Sorry if that makes you feel bad.
gtn130 wrote:tontoz is so mad lol
AFM wrote:Can you two shut the phukk up?
fishercob wrote:AFM wrote:Can you two shut the phukk up?
Or just give into their true feelings and make love already!
AFM wrote:fishercob wrote:AFM wrote:Can you two shut the phukk up?
Or just give into their true feelings and make love already!
That's you and me daddy! They call me the prostate kid!