Are you suggesting that I am insane, or that someone would have to be insane to see my statements about Bush as insulting? It is insult by implication, which is flat out name-calling, and although I don’t know to what degree sanity plays a role in understanding that, I suspect a certain degree of higher order thinking might be required.
I think your responses in this thread have done all the suggesting that needs to be done.
One would think.
Why does the origin of the words matter in any way shape or form? Anybody who read about the incident could likely come to the conclusion that Boozer reneged on a verbal agreement (unprincipled) for the purpose of cashing in (greedy). Again, Furt, didn’t want to discuss Boozers role, he wanted to discuss the agents role in the scenario, hence:
The fact that you are the only one questioning the statement doesn’t make the question invalid. It tells me that your reading comprehension isn’t the same as everybody else who read the story or the OP.
Because they are his words. He is not refuting what anyone else has said. He has apparently constructed then from whole cloth.
Again, what was the point of mentioning it at all? Especially if, according to you, anyone would already think that anyway. Why say that the debate is not about a topic about which there is no debate?
The phrase “I suppose you could say he is,” is an elliptical phrase, the unspoken part of which is “a greedy, unprincipled liar”. The “you” is the indefinite “you” which translates to the British “one”. The sentence thus parses like this-“I suppose one could say he is a greedy unprincipled liar.” That is tantamount to calling him a greedy unprincipled liar. I suggested to the OP that this is a bit harsh. You and Neurotik have jumped in to call me insane and impugn my reading comprehension, both accusations being demonstrably false and not adding to the debate at all. Are you sure a debate is what you are interested in, or is name-calling your reason for being here?
Oops, messed up the coding in my last post. In the second quote, the first sentence is adam yax’s. The rest is mine.
First, that they are ‘demonstrably false’ is your opinion and not mine.
If you have any reason to feel that I am flaming you outside of The Pit in violation of board rules I invite you to A) open a thread in The Pit and/or B) report me to a mod or admin.
If you have any reason to feel that I am flaming you outside of The Pit in violation of board rules I invite you to A) open a thread in The Pit and/or B) report me to a mod or admin.
[/QUOTE]
Dang it. I hit submit way too soon.
Let me put it another way. It is demonstrably true that I am not insane, whether you believe it or not, and is in no way a matter for your opinion. And to claim I lack reading comprehension is just silly, as you have nothing on which to base such a claim.
Now there you go reading something into my words that is not there. Is that what you mean by reading comprehension? Perhaps you are right. I do lack that ability. You and your partner prefer to use ad hominem attacks rather than to debate the points I have raised. I merely suggested that, that being the case, perhaps a debate is not really what you want. Nothing more, nothing less. No mention of rules violations.
Last post in this thread on this subject.
I never made any comment about your mental state - anywhere. Period. End of story.
Name calling outside of The Pit has long been held to be a violation of board policy, so again open a thread in the Pit or report me. Flaming outside of the Pit, same story. If you think that my questioning your reading comprehension is a flame, again report me to a mod or admin.
I want nothing more to do with this ongoing hijack of this thread.
Sorry for all of this Furt but how do you think everything is going to shake out now that Boozer has signed the Jazz offer sheet?
You said that you did not share my opinion that I was not insane. I’d call that a comment.
It’s established that you were name calling. Am I required to report violations? I don’t need the mods to fight my battles for me.
I did not say it was a flame, I said it was silly. Was it a flame? Only you would know. Why don’t you report yourself since you seem to be so fixated on reporting stuff. Were you by any chance a hall monitor in high school?
Moderator’s Note: Trandallt, please calm the hell down. No one has insulted you in this thread (the sentence you seem to be chiefly objecting said that most sane people would share a particular interpretation of a statement).
If any of you absolutely must, feel free to start a Pit thread about this.
Was this an admonishment? Was it necessary to swear to make your point? Obviously I’m new here and If I have screwed up I sincerely apologize.
What I mainly objected to was the fact that I was attempting a debate and some posters were responding with innuendo and insult (and I do consider it an insult to be told I lack reading comprehension ability, as well as to be told that I had taken a positon that few sane people would take.) To me this is not debating. Attack my position, not me.
I truly don’t understand this thing about the Pit. All talk of flaming and the Pit was done by the other guys, not me. Their remarks were silly and not responsive, but hardly worthy of a slap fight. Really. Help me out here.
To clarify–Yes I am claiming insult and innuendo but my reason for doing so was not to accuse anyone of a violation, but to point out that those kinds of responses are not proper debating technique. I obviously could have done a better job of that.
Thanks for the input.
Moderator’s Notes:
-
When I begin or title a post “Moderator’s Note”, it indicates I’m speaking as a moderator, and not just as a poster. When I tell someone to stop doing something in a post, then yes, that’s an admonishment.
-
People swear in order to express emotion or for emphasis. In this case, it indicated peevishness or irritation.
-
The Pit is for posters to “flame” each other–to sling insults and so on. It’s also the place for complaints and other discussions of decisions by moderators. Extended discussions of decisions by moderators should not be held in the middle of Great Debates threads, because otherwise the discussion of the decision by the moderator overwhelms the point of whatever the thread was supposed to be about.
-
Your responses to other poster’s “ad hominem” arguments–which also included various “ad hominem” remarks (“Were you by any chance a hall monitor in high school?”)–are having the effect of driving this thread, such as it is, completely off the rails. If you want to respond to another poster on a personal level like that–i.e., to launch an extensive critique of their posting style or online personality–then you should start a thread in the BBQ Pit.
-
Everyone please carry on discussing whatever the hell the actual subject of this thread is. I believe the subject is whether or not Carlos Boozer’s agent acted in an unethical fashion in contract negiotiations with the Cleveland Cavaliers, correct?
After giving this more thought, I think Boozer is in the right.
The Cavs had Boozer under contract for $700,000 this year. Obviously, far below his market value, but a contract is a contract.
The Cavaliers’ goal was to try to get Boozer under a long-term contract. But how could they accomplish this? If they wait until Boozer becomes a free agent next year, then Boozer commands far more in the open market than they will be able to pay.
So they use Boozer’s current small contract to try to wrangle him into a long-term deal. They try to tempt Boozer with the idea of letting him out of the $700,000 year in exhange for a $41 million-dollar deal (more than $25 million below his actual market value).
In other words, they tried to play him for a chump in just the same way that a pawnbroker making usurious payday loan plays its customers for chumps-- offering a short-term financial benefit at a terrible long-term cost.
I don’t believe Boozer is lying. I believe he studiously avoided saying that he would agree to sign the long-term deal. (If the Cavs wanted to believe he would, let them. I’m sure Boozer also didn’t disabuse them of the notion.)
So in my estimation, the Cavs tried to play Boozer for a chump, and he outfoxed them.
In essence, they were trying to take advantage of Boozer to the tune of $26 million and he turned the tables on them. I feel no more sympathy for them than I would for a pawnbroker who got out-slickered while trying to sign someone up for a loan at 75% interest.
I thought that after the three years teams had an exemption that would allow them to sign a player at an amount that would let them go over the salary cap. There is no doubt that the Cavs wanted him on a long term contract and if they could get it below market they would have been happy, but I have a hard time seeing how they would allow themselves to be in a position to lose Boozer for nothing.
If this is all true, how do you explain Pelinka walking away from Boozer as a client? I think that he saw, after the fact mind you, that this whole thing was going to look bad on him and on Boozer.
You may be right about that. I’m not sure. It’s not central to my argument, though. The point is that the Cavs were trying to lure/trick Boozer into accepting a long-term contract significantly below his market value.
Looks like you’ve answered your own question. Pelinka may or may not have been privy to Boozer’s strategic thought process. He may have intended for Boozer to follow through and sign a deal with the Cavs and Boozer just fooled him. Or he may have been out there actively soliciting the deal from the Jazz and fully prepared to watch his client jilt Cleveland.
Either way, Pelinka saw (after the fact, as you say) that the way Boozer had played this little chess match (or the way *he and * Boozer had played it) was going to make him look like an agent who can’t be trusted by management. So to save his own career, he had to distance himself from Boozer.
spoke-, I read an article on CNN this morning that says just what you did, and I think I’m sold.
People do this all the time, without being made chumps. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. He could have kept his original contract and chanced the free agent market next year, but there is no certainty that he would get the big dollars. A knee injury, bad performance or some other problem could have interfered. Taking the $42 mil today is potentially a better deal than maybe getting more next year.
I have no doubt that if they could have offered him the $42 mil without releasing him from his current contract he would have taken it in a heartbeat and not been thought a chump. There is a world of difference between a guarantee of being set in high style for life, and a good chance of being set in even higher style for life. That good chance can turn into nothing with one bad fall.
Perhaps Boozer did play the Cavs like chumps. Goody for him. I’m sure the Cavs really deserved it. “We want you on this team long term, want to sign you right away and will pay you the absolute maximum amount we can under salary cap rules.” as if that’s not just a straight up slap in the face. The nerve of them, offering him a deal like that! He deserves better :rolleyes:
Looked it up: Here’s the CNN/SI article
Upon reading it, the author’s theory may be an improvement over mine. Maybe Boozer didn’t realize the Cavs were trying to bamboozle him until the Jazz offer came in. Either way, bully for Boozer I say, for refusing to be bamboozled. I shed no tears for the Cleveland brass.