Since this is a Celtics forum

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    Fierce - he is actually quite clever.  You bring up a point, he refutes it with garbage to get you off track - claims THAT is now the argument, keeps refuting it, and before you know it, you're not even arguing about the same thing anymore.


    Of course, it's not the correct way to argue - I present a point, you refute it with FACT, then I try to substantiate my claim.....and on and on.  He changes topics in mid-stream, edits your posts, picks and chooses what he wants to argue, then claims victory for something you never said..................pathological, but clever!!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:
    [QUOTE]


    It's a fact, live with it!
     
    Of course you're not worried about it, it's the truth! We all know you Laker trolls don't care about the truth.

    Seriously, the Celts had to face MJ, Dr. J, and Isiah Thomas. The Lakers only had to face Clyde Drexler and Dale Ellis? Tom Chambers?
     [/QUOTE]

    OK, you lie. State where the NBA said that the Western Conference was weak. That's interesting...




     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:

    The Celtics clearly dominated the Lakers in the Finals. It's 9-3 in favor of the Celtics.

    But since the Lakers have no match for the Celtics it's time to bring up the Lakers vs. other teams argument?

    Too bad the Lakers had to face the other teams when the Celtics weren't good enough to lose to the Lakers...

    It's clearly you have no clue on basketball. You advocate losing and early playoff exit as good.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:

    Fierce - he is actually quite clever.  You bring up a point, he refutes it with garbage to get you off track - claims THAT is now the argument, keeps refuting it, and before you know it, you're not even arguing about the same thing anymore.


    Of course, it's not the correct way to argue - I present a point, you refute it with FACT, then I try to substantiate my claim.....and on and on.  He changes topics in mid-stream, edits your posts, picks and chooses what he wants to argue, then claims victory for something you never said..................pathological, but clever!!



    Umm..... still smarting over the Bynum injury and Gasol trade? it's not even one day...
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]

    Umm... still smarting on the argument? See, I over-estimate you, I thought you could hide for a week.

    Projection mean nothing? according to whom? If that's you, then you have no evidence.
    So the Lakers pay him tens of millions of $ to play center only for 2 months? Did the Lakers dump him after Bynum recovered? I bet you'll dodge that again...

    So he was traded after the Bynum injury == "no Bynum injury => no Gasol trade"?

    You think you can get away with this cheap stunt?




     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not my argument, I wish you'd stay on topic.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh, so "no Bynum injury => no Gasol trade" is not your argument now? Don't forget this. I'll have this post captured.

    Getting you to confess that "no Bynum injury => no Gasol trade" is not your argument. It's time well spent, albeit it's over 2 years...

    So what exactly is your argument and what's "on topic"?


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    That's because you're too dumb too realize that the eastern conference was stronger than the western conference back in the 80s.

    The Lakers faced Philly, Boston, and Detroit in the Finals, in the 80s, and the Lakers lost to all 3 teams. Boston never lost to another western conference team, to date, in the Finals.

    6 rounds? You want to count rounds then go watch boxing.

    Nice try spinning the argument, but when it comes to winning, the Lakers are still in 2nd place. 

    In simple english, your Lakers sux!
    [/QUOTE]

    The Western Conference is weak? yet you still haven't been able to substantiate this wishy washy. In the Magic/Bird era:

    Lakers vs Boston/Philly/Detroit: 5-3
    Celtics vs Lakers/Philly/Detroit: 5-7

    Too bad facts are not your strong suit either.

    "Boston never lost to another western conference team, to date, in the Finals."

    Don't worry, this lie has been captured again as image again. And I know you'll delete it.

    1958 St. Louis Hawks

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1958.html

    I suggest you try this one. It suits your style other than deleting the post:

    "That's what I say, the Western Division is not the Western Conference. I am right!!!"

    See, your ignorance on NBA history is astounding...

    So when counting all finals, H2H and non-H2H, the non-H2H gap (Lakers +15) is bigger than the H2H gap (Celtics +6). You are worse than a team that "sux".




     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:
    [QUOTE]
    Western division is not the western conference? Fine! Still doesn't change the fact that the Celtics only lost to 2 teams in the Finals, the Lakers and the St. Louis Hawks. Can't say the same for the Lakers because the Lakers are the only team in the NBA that lost in the Finals more than a dozen times to multiple eastern teams.

    Western conference is not the western division. BIG DEAL! 

    The west is still the west no matter if it's a division or a conference, right?
     
    [/QUOTE]

    Right, then your

    "Boston never lost to another western conference team, to date, in the Finals."

    is a lie. Not to mention that the Lakers losing in the finals more than a dozen times is still better than the Celtics missing the playoffs more than a dozen times.

    16 missed playoffs - you should be proud...
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:

    Lakers vs Boston/Philly/Detroit: 5-3 
    Celtics vs Lakers/Philly/Detroit: 5-7 

    That's one hell of a "manipulation of facts". 

    Seriously, the Lakers versus all eastern teams and the Celtics versus the Lakers and other eastern teams? That's pure crappola!

    So now the Celtics will have to face Philly and Detroit in the Finals?  

    And you weren't manipulating facts? You said: "The Lakers faced Philly, Boston, and Detroit in the Finals, in the 80s, and the Lakers lost to all 3 teams"

    Why didn't you say the Lakers had a combined 5-3 records against these three teams?

    And don't forget your gem: Boston never lost to another western conference team, to date, in the Finals.

    Well, you used Boston, Philly and Detroit, that's why I used Boston's record against Lakers, Philly and Detroit, unless you can tell us Boston's record against Boston, Philly and Detroit. That would be interesting...





     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    When did I advocate losing? Is this one of your lies again?
    [/QUOTE]

    Your own words:

    "But since the Lakers have no match for the Celtics it's time to bring up the Lakers vs. other teams argument?"

    Why shouldn't I bring up the "other teams argument"? Other teams were better than the Celtics, that's why they, not the Celtics, played in the finals. Is it too tough for you to understand?

    So why are you so proud of 9-3 against the Lakers? when the Lakers had a 13-8 edge over your team in non H2H finals (and a +15 advantage in rounds)? That means you are all for early playoff exits, in order to avoid the Lakers in the finals just to preserve the 9-3.

    It proved that you advocate losing, QED.


     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I never said anything about the Lakers being 5-3 or otherwise. All I said was the Lakers lost to the Celtics, Pistons, and Sixers. What's wrong, can't handle the truth?
      [/QUOTE]

    All you said is not the whole truth.

    I can play that trick of "cherry-pick facts" too.

    "The Celtics are losers - they lost in the finals 4 times, not to mention in the prior rounds in the playoffs 29 times, and missed the playoffs 16 times."

    Try to dispute this fact.
     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to KingShaq's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Fiercest34 comment:
    [QUOTE]


    It's a fact, live with it!
     
    Of course you're not worried about it, it's the truth! We all know you Laker trolls don't care about the truth.

    Seriously, the Celts had to face MJ, Dr. J, and Isiah Thomas. The Lakers only had to face Clyde Drexler and Dale Ellis? Tom Chambers?
     [/QUOTE]

    OK, you lie. State where the NBA said that the Western Conference was weak. That's interesting...




     

    [/QUOTE]

    In 1987 the Lakers faced a Sonics team with a losing record in the west finals. That Sonics team had Dale Ellis, Tom Chambers, and Xavier McDaniel as their Big 3. A team with a losing record makes it to the western finals is not weak?

    The first time the Lakers beat the Celtics in 25 years was in 1985. That year the Lakers faced the Nuggets in the western finals. The Nuggets were led by Alex English and a bunch of role players.

    Seriously, the Celtics had to face the likes of Isiah Thomas, MJ, Dr. J, even Dominique to get to the Finals. And the Lakers just need to beat Dale Ellis or Alex English in the west finals?

    Of course the Lakers made it to the Finals, the opponents were WEAK!
    [/QUOTE]

    Their opponents are WEAK? that's your wishy, washy, not a fact.

    When the east were weak, i.e. 8th seed Knicks, Pacers, 76ers, Nets, etc as conference champs. Where were the Celtics, they couldn't even make the finals. They missed the playoffs and lost to the Nets twice (once a sweep).

    So even if (big IF) the conference was weak, the Celtics still couldn't make it. So there is no such thing as "OF COURSE" for your team.





     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to KingShaq's comment:

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I never said anything about the Lakers being 5-3 or otherwise. All I said was the Lakers lost to the Celtics, Pistons, and Sixers. What's wrong, can't handle the truth?
     



    All you said is not the whole truth.

    I can play that trick of "cherry-pick facts" too.

    "The Celtics are losers - they lost in the finals 4 times, not to mention in the prior rounds in the playoffs 29 times, and missed the playoffs 16 times."

    Try to dispute this fact.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You can say that because that's your opinion. I'm not here to tell you what say or do. I mean I'm not going to be the one who's going to look stupid and dumb by saying the Celts are losers when the Celts have the most NBA championships.
    [/QUOTE]

    And who's stupid by only saying the Lakers lost to Boston/Philly/Detroit while not saying the Lakers also beat them?

    Cherry pick facts - I can play that game too...




     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:

    Sorry, queenshag, your Lakers are still #2 as of Sept. 7, 2012.



    Nah, the Lakers are #1. Don't believe me?

    The NBA of the 50s/60s were weak, a farm league era. So at least Boston's first 4-5 championships in that era aren't worth a dam!!!

    Glad that you like to use the "weak" argument. I don't believe a second that the west (80s) was weak, but I am using your argument of weak competition to crush you...




     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share