Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="hoophuskee, post: 2510002, member: 3535"] We can agree to disagree here. I was going to PM (part of my PM was going to be my big issue with the poster defensebb - but it feels weird to post to you and I don't send to defensebb. Just a quick point on that. His posts to me were nothing like yours. I can elaborate with you or him if you really wish.) you but instead I have one basic question I'll put in italics below. Because I don't "see" everything you speak/ disagree as well. Anyways I'd like to ask you a question on here though if anyone else that would like to chime in would love to hear their response that disagrees with me. The poster Olddude even referred on this thread- "Others might suggest Bird, Charles et al." So by asking this question I am not trying to "completely" prove a point (which you've indicated I was doing?) -- but the question it's not only for me [U]and[/U] for the poster Los24 who said Mojeff should be on. [U]And[/U] it's for the poster mrhuskies who said KBascom should be on. [U]And[/U] it's for the poster bootonbomber who said Tina should be on. My post that set off the response by the poster defenseebb to me and subsequently you sent others posts to me- in which I asked the poster justineguy why he thought Lobo was a lock. I am not bashing justineguy. But I replied to justine guy with questions why maybe she isn't a lock. He was sort of saying the others (anyone) were crazy not to have Lobo on the list, wasn't he? (No offense to justineguy). I wanted to pursue that line of thought. It seemed more put Lobo on here for top 4. So my question to you or anyone else is "[I][U]Why Lobo over each of Bascom, Bird, Tina and Mojeff[/U][/I]?" It seems to me the criterion to “fit” Rebecca in this Rushmore is a "personal whim" of selecting criterion that fits Rebecca perfectly. I don’t know the 4th player. But I'd like to know why her over the others "is a lock" which was the post/point I made to justine. And I think for it to be a lock you (not you personally) are cherry-picking / using personal whim/selective factors such as for example- "[B]well NC's count but not so much. But it counts for Rebecca over Bascom but it doesn't count for Bird/MoJeff or Tina over Rebecca.[/B]" IMO that is a personal whim/ randomly picking/ pre-determining what stats to use for those that are close. As I stated to the poster defenssebb I called it "arbitrary [U]at a certain point[/U]." At a certain point -- the players generally thought to be close for the 4th spot- I don't see the rhyme or reason to refer to Lobo as a lock. The cherry-picking is a personal whim isn't it? And I don't believe this is being pedantic. I believe it is encouraging further dialogue. Asking for further clarification. Coming back at me "well that's his opinion." That's fine-- but I asked "why?" That's not a big deal to ask the question. And my question I believe was "the common ground" which you refer to- it's from my perspective. I wanted to know "Why her?" It was not for me to have to make a list. Instead, why is it Lobo over the others? And not only that but . . . "she's a [B]lock[/B]?" I find it fun to have further dialogue on this. Maybe someone can convince me. I got convinced as I said a while ago to have Lobo as one of the top 5 for the 1st team over Tina. A poster got me a long time ago to change my pov. My pov on issues can be changed. :) Anyways thanks for the posts. Loved the discussions with ya as usual. And from this point on I'll take your advice for as long as I can remember; No more CAPS. errr- I mean "No more caps." :):) And just to reiterate I don't get irritated or frustrated unless I'm "talked down to" or worse. You never do that to anyone. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach