Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="nomar, post: 3940197, member: 651"] Thank you for copying and pasting the dictionary definitions of "objective" and "egregious." You seem to think that someone shouldn't use the word "boring" in the place of "uncompetitive" and "poorly played." Perhaps you think it's a "subjective" opinion to think UNLV whipping Duke by 30 points was "not competitive." And maybe you think saying a game with the final score of 53-41 had "bad offense" is "subjective." I don't. Those are all facts, not opinions. We live in a world where a lot of people refuse to acknowledge facts. I'm not one of those people. They were both objectively non-competitive basketball games. The 2011 game was an objectively terrible basketball game. I have no problem with someone using the phrase "objectively boring" to describe a game that as a matter of fact was non-competitive and/or poorly played. (We're posting in the midst of a thread where there is universal agreement among the fans of the team who won the titles that the games were boring.) So I don't think he misused it at all, certainly not "flagrantly," but then again I don't engage in pedantry on message boards even though IRL I tend to be a grammar/spelling fanatic. Can you point me to a single fact or metric that supports the conclusion that the 2011 title game was exciting? Is there someone disputing it? There might be someone out there who's not bored by John Cage's 4'33" but can you find someone who was riveted by the 2011 title game? I'd think that the only people who weren't bored to death watching the game were people who bet on the spread (anybody who bet on the over-under turned the channel at halftime). [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach