Malone to the Spurs?

Sports Fan <sports.RemoveThis@fan.home> wrote in message news:<0o3gf098hp12kuett2de2flc63ffsn4gih.RemoveThis@4ax.com>...
> On 16 Jul 2004 08:02:02 -0700, ambchang.RemoveThis@hotmail.com (Albert) wrote:
>
> >"Gandalfe" <a.RemoveThis@b.c> wrote in message news:<BlKJc.90360$IQ4.77974@attbi_s02>...
> >> "Sports Fan" <sports.RemoveThis@fan.home> wrote in message
> >> news:6jjdf0hbme048k7ut0ens9cs9igevl8jh4@4ax.com...
> >> > On 15 Jul 2004 07:31:56 -0700, ambchang.RemoveThis@hotmail.com (Albert) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Oh no ... not that injured thing again ... Yes, Malone was playing
> >> > >hurt in game 1, but before he played hurt in the Wolves series, he
> >> > >wasn't playing all that great vs. the Spurs, a team with a similar
> >> > >defensive strategy compared with the Pistons.
> >> >
> >> > You must be a complete idiot, a liar, or simply didn't watch the Lakers
> >> > vs. Spurs series.
> >> >
> >> > Duncan was put under tight defense by Malone, that, and the Fisher shot,
> >> > Kobe's sent the Spurs out the playoffs.
> >> >
> >> > Next time, before you open your mouth, check some facts.
> >>
> >> Or just watch some tape. Malone absolutely frustrated Duncan in their
> >> series, but between defending Duncan (one of the best PF's in the game) and
> >> defending Garnett (one of the best players PERIOD), he just didn't have
> >> anything left, especially when he got injured again. Which is what happens
> >> when you're in your 40's. But, to say that he wouldn't have made a
> >> difference if he was healthy is just foolish.
> >
> > *Sigh* again, read the whole post. I was referring to Malone on
> >offense,
>
>
> Really?
> Then you must have some weird way of expressing yourself.
>
> "he wasn't playing all that great vs. the Spurs, a team with a similar
> defensive strategy compared with the Pistons."
>
>
> Read your own words.

What's wrong with that? He struggled (offensively) vs. the Spurs,
who have a similar defensive strategy compared with the Pistons, so by
that logic, Malone is likely going to struggle (offensively) vs. the
Pistons.
While he did well defensively vs. the Spurs, a majority of it was
low-post defense, which is something that is not much needed vs. the
Pistons. Is that clear now? Malone's offense is affected by the
opposing team's defense? Given your ability to understand, an
opposing team is meant to say the Lakers' opponent, which in this case
is the Spurs or the Pistons. Is there anything else I can say to make
this clearer?
It's also nice that you like to cut out sections of post of other
people and ignore them to "prove" you are right. Seems like a trait.
 >> Stay informed about: Malone to the Spurs? 

Sports Fan <sports.TakeThisOut@fan.home> wrote in message news:<ll3gf0t48apcvtmku8ak3nu3r972qa4ap5.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>...
> On 16 Jul 2004 07:57:13 -0700, ambchang.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com (Albert) wrote:
>
> >Sports Fan <sports.TakeThisOut@fan.home> wrote in message news:<6jjdf0hbme048k7ut0ens9cs9igevl8jh4.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>...
> >> On 15 Jul 2004 07:31:56 -0700, ambchang.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com (Albert) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Oh no ... not that injured thing again ... Yes, Malone was playing
> >> >hurt in game 1, but before he played hurt in the Wolves series, he
> >> >wasn't playing all that great vs. the Spurs, a team with a similar
> >> >defensive strategy compared with the Pistons.
> >>
> >> You must be a complete idiot, a liar, or simply didn't watch the Lakers
> >> vs. Spurs series.
> >>
> >> Duncan was put under tight defense by Malone, that, and the Fisher shot,
> >> Kobe's sent the Spurs out the playoffs.
> >>
> >> Next time, before you open your mouth, check some facts.
> >
> > Hmm ... next time, before you open your mouth, read the whole post .
> >
> >"Sure [Karl Malone], he is still a very good defensive post player in
> >the Spurs series, but do you need that against the Wallaces?"
>
> Nice excuse.
>
> You posted pure bullshit and got called on it.
> When you post nonsense, you get educated.
> Get used to it.

Bullshit as in a huge parts of the post completely ignored? I feel
funny about it, English is my second language, and I have to educate
you on it. It's really hard to "get used to it".
Let me explain ...
"Sure [Karl Malone], he is still a very good defensive post player in
the Spurs series, but do you need that against the Wallaces?" means,
Karl Malone ... wait, I can't really dumb it down any further, I never
took classes in special education.
 >> Stay informed about: Malone to the Spurs? 

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:42:26 -0700, Sports Fan <sports.TakeThisOut@fan.home>
wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:31:01 -0500, Prince Albert in a Can wrote:
>
>>On 16 Jul 2004 08:02:02 -0700, ambchang.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com (Albert) wrote:
>>
>>>"Gandalfe" <a.TakeThisOut@b.c> wrote in message news:<BlKJc.90360$IQ4.77974@attbi_s02>...
>>>> "Sports Fan" <sports.TakeThisOut@fan.home> wrote in message
>>>> news:6jjdf0hbme048k7ut0ens9cs9igevl8jh4@4ax.com...
>>>> > On 15 Jul 2004 07:31:56 -0700, ambchang.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com (Albert) wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > >Oh no ... not that injured thing again ... Yes, Malone was playing
>>>> > >hurt in game 1, but before he played hurt in the Wolves series, he
>>>> > >wasn't playing all that great vs. the Spurs, a team with a similar
>>>> > >defensive strategy compared with the Pistons.
>>>> >
>>>> > You must be a complete idiot, a liar, or simply didn't watch the Lakers
>>>> > vs. Spurs series.
>>>> >
>>>> > Duncan was put under tight defense by Malone, that, and the Fisher shot,
>>>> > Kobe's sent the Spurs out the playoffs.
>>>> >
>>>> > Next time, before you open your mouth, check some facts.
>>>>
>>>> Or just watch some tape. Malone absolutely frustrated Duncan in their
>>>> series, but between defending Duncan (one of the best PF's in the game) and
>>>> defending Garnett (one of the best players PERIOD), he just didn't have
>>>> anything left, especially when he got injured again. Which is what happens
>>>> when you're in your 40's. But, to say that he wouldn't have made a
>>>> difference if he was healthy is just foolish.
>>>
>>> *Sigh* again, read the whole post. I was referring to Malone on
>>>offense, and that's the Lakers had throughout the Pistons series, they
>>>couldn't score! Malone was not that great on offense throughout the
>>>whole playoffs (except a couple of games vs. the Rockets).
>>> My argument is that Malone's offense sucked, his defense wouldn't
>>>make much difference because Ben Wallace doesn't even need a defender
>>>on him, and Rasheed Wallace is as much an outside shooter as a post
>>>scorer. The Pistons don't score in the blocks, much of their offense
>>>is outside (read Billups, Hamilton, even Prince, Wallace, and Okur).
>>> Sure, Malone may stop a few inside scores, but he would also brick a
>>>bunch of wide open 18 footers (like he did in the Spurs and Wolves
>>>series), negating his effect. Malone in his mid 30's would make a
>>>huge difference, the Malone we saw this year wouldn't
>>
>>Don't try to have a rational discussion with Spurting Fanny. It
>>won't happen.
>>
>>
>
>Awww, my fan is back.
>Quick, switch your nym and news provider to post another hate message to
>show that you have supporters.
>
>Yeah, that's rational.

There you have it.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 >> Stay informed about: Malone to the Spurs? 

On 19 Jul 2004 07:03:04 -0700, ambchang.RemoveThis@hotmail.com (Albert) wrote:

> It's also nice that you like to cut out sections of post of other
>people and ignore them to "prove" you are right. Seems like a trait.

Typical comeback.
When you get called on your bullshit, you accuse others of cutting out
your post.

Go whine somewhere else or find a better excuse.
 >> Stay informed about: Malone to the Spurs? 

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 09:06:25 -0500, Prince Albert in a Can wrote:

>There you have it.

My dedicated fan is still following me.

I am not interested, and the people that you are ass-kissing are
ignoring your sorry ass.
It sucks to be you.
 >> Stay informed about: Malone to the Spurs? 

On 19 Jul 2004 07:08:16 -0700, ambchang RemoveThis @hotmail.com (Albert) wrote:

> I feel funny about it, English is my second language, and I have to educate
>you on it.

Glad you agree.

English seems to be your 4th and 5th language.
It is my second language, and I didn't feel challenged in English,
struggling to say something as you had.
 >> Stay informed about: Malone to the Spurs? 

Sports Fan <sports RemoveThis @fan.home> wrote in message news:<s9nof05gj24cld19n9nq8bl4n6685gu679 RemoveThis @4ax.com>...
> On 19 Jul 2004 07:08:16 -0700, ambchang RemoveThis @hotmail.com (Albert) wrote:
>
> > I feel funny about it, English is my second language, and I have to educate
> >you on it.
>
> Glad you agree.
>
> English seems to be your 4th and 5th language.
> It is my second language, and I didn't feel challenged in English,
> struggling to say something as you had.

Excellent, then please explain to me what is wrong with the original
you were retorting on:

"Oh no ... not that injured thing again ... Yes, Malone was playing
hurt in game 1, but before he played hurt in the Wolves series, he
wasn't playing all that great vs. the Spurs, a team with a similar
defensive strategy compared with the Pistons. Sure, he is still a
very good defensive post player in the Spurs series, but do you need
that against the Wallaces? Ben Wallace doesn't need defense, Rasheed
can light it up from the outside.
I am not sure about all those if 100% scenarios, but given the
minutes, Malone didn't played all that great vs. the Pistons,
actually, nobody did, with the exception of Shaq in one game."

Please explain why you can't read "Sure, he [Karl Malone] is still a
very good defensive post player in the Spurs series, but do you need
that against the Wallaces?" when you came back with the "argument" of
:

"You must be a complete idiot, a liar, or simply didn't watch the
Lakers
vs. Spurs series.

Duncan was put under tight defense by Malone, that, and the Fisher
shot,
Kobe's sent the Spurs out the playoffs.

Next time, before you open your mouth, check some facts."

and try to explain why you can't seem to grasp the fact that Malone's
offense is/was/will always be/ affected by the oppositions defense.
 >> Stay informed about: Malone to the Spurs? 

Sports Fan <sports RemoveThis @fan.home> wrote in message news:<b5nof0po8vqnrvc1h5r64dt632688t1i5t RemoveThis @4ax.com>...
> On 19 Jul 2004 07:03:04 -0700, ambchang RemoveThis @hotmail.com (Albert) wrote:
>
> > It's also nice that you like to cut out sections of post of other
> >people and ignore them to "prove" you are right. Seems like a trait.
>
> Typical comeback.
> When you get called on your bullshit, you accuse others of cutting out
> your post.
>
> Go whine somewhere else or find a better excuse.

Whine? So totally ignoring
"Sure, he [Karl Malone] is still a very good defensive post player in
the Spurs series, but do you need that against the Wallaces?" Explain
to me why this statement was totally irrelevant when you replied by
saying that Karl Malone was a strong defensive forces against Tim
Duncan as a retort to my original post.
Also, where is the explanation on how Malone on offense is affected
by the opposition's defense unclear?
 >> Stay informed about: Malone to the Spurs? 

Gary Collard <garycollard DeleteThis @netscape.net> wrote in message news:<40F46FFC.6230C8AA DeleteThis @netscape.net>...
> Ron wrote:
> >
> > In article <cd0rll$rm5@dispatch.concentric.net>,
> > "s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "I've had serious dialogue with them, and more than once," Malone said.
> > > "I've talked to coach (Gregg) Popovich two or three times and (general
> > > manager) R.C. (Buford) one or two times. They call about every other day.
> > > I've had great dialogue with them."
> >
> > Still willing to go whereever he can find some coattail to hang on.
> >
> > Wow.
>
> Somebody still, after his absence was arguably the deciding factor in the
> Finals, still throws out this "coattails" idiocy.
>
> Wow indeed.

He didn't do much when he was PRESENT! LA would have done better if
he would
have sat out the whole series. (But not that much better, maybe he
should have prayed on the bench more often during games ;-))
 >> Stay informed about: Malone to the Spurs? 

On 21 Jul 2004 06:57:14 -0700, ambchang.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com (Albert) wrote:

><whining and garbage deleted>

>Next time, before you open your mouth, check some facts

I think you should take that advice that was given to you several posts
earlier and shut up.
 >> Stay informed about: Malone to the Spurs? 

On 21 Jul 2004 07:00:58 -0700, ambchang RemoveThis @hotmail.com (Albert) wrote:

> Whine?

Yes.

Congratulations, you can read.
 >> Stay informed about: Malone to the Spurs? 

Sports Fan <sports DeleteThis @fan.home> wrote in message news:<f02uf0dv34qf72rg8v6069p4mvt8amqg5r DeleteThis @4ax.com>...
> On 21 Jul 2004 07:00:58 -0700, ambchang DeleteThis @hotmail.com (Albert) wrote:
>
> > Whine?
>
> Yes.
>
> Congratulations, you can read.

Apparently, you can't, you still haven't got back on:

So totally ignoring
"Sure, he [Karl Malone] is still a very good defensive post player in
the Spurs series, but do you need that against the Wallaces?" Explain
to me why this statement was totally irrelevant when you replied by
saying that Karl Malone was a strong defensive forces against Tim
Duncan as a retort to my original post.
Also, where is the explanation on how Malone on offense is affected
by the opposition's defense unclear?
 >> Stay informed about: Malone to the Spurs? 

Sports Fan <sports DeleteThis @fan.home> wrote in message news:<iu1uf05gdfou0umqn0h079617m8b47a6mv DeleteThis @4ax.com>...
> On 21 Jul 2004 06:57:14 -0700, ambchang DeleteThis @hotmail.com (Albert) wrote:
>
> ><whining and garbage deleted>
>
> >Next time, before you open your mouth, check some facts
>
> I think you should take that advice that was given to you several posts
> earlier and shut up.

To spare you from your own embarrassment? Oh no, you don't get off that easy.

Try to answer this:

"
Excellent, then please explain to me what is wrong with the original
you were retorting on:

"Oh no ... not that injured thing again ... Yes, Malone was playing
hurt in game 1, but before he played hurt in the Wolves series, he
wasn't playing all that great vs. the Spurs, a team with a similar
defensive strategy compared with the Pistons. Sure, he is still a
very good defensive post player in the Spurs series, but do you need
that against the Wallaces? Ben Wallace doesn't need defense, Rasheed
can light it up from the outside.
I am not sure about all those if 100% scenarios, but given the
minutes, Malone didn't played all that great vs. the Pistons,
actually, nobody did, with the exception of Shaq in one game."

Please explain why you can't read "Sure, he [Karl Malone] is still a
very good defensive post player in the Spurs series, but do you need
that against the Wallaces?" when you came back with the "argument" of
:

"You must be a complete idiot, a liar, or simply didn't watch the
Lakers
vs. Spurs series.

Duncan was put under tight defense by Malone, that, and the Fisher
shot,
Kobe's sent the Spurs out the playoffs.

Next time, before you open your mouth, check some facts."

and try to explain why you can't seem to grasp the fact that Malone's
offense is/was/will always be/ affected by the oppositions defense."
 >> Stay informed about: Malone to the Spurs?