Something for the Laker fans here...

[Spur-Addict]

Move along now, nothing to see here

[TheMACHINE]

[sook]

all the lakers fans know i have doubted bynum, but dayamnn....after seeing those pics it seems he has a frame close to dwight howard's and im sure he should have more post moves

[Allanon]

If you look closely at that video :28 seconds, Kobe never touched Raja Bell's face, it was a flop.

[ShoogarBear]

Ooh, pretty dangerous. I hope he doesn't come down on that leg wrong.

[Spur-Addict]

[CENTER]

If you look closely at that video :28 seconds, Kobe never touched Raja Bell's face, it was a flop.

Good job keeping with the two team format, genius.



Allanon=



And i don't respond to Kwame highlights

[Allanon]

Good job keeping with the two team format, genius.

Yours was Vid #1

Alright...

[Spur-Addict]

Barack Obama represents all black people

[Allanon]

Barack Obama represents black people

[Spur-Addict]

I'm Allanon and I speak horribly ambiguous and back peddle. I also edit 50% of my posts.

[Allanon]

I'm Allanon and I speak horribly ambiguous and back peddle.

Proof? Examples? Links?

[TheMACHINE]

aww..i thought we had a phx/LA video battle going on?! whats up with the other videos Allanon...

[Allanon]

, I didn't know it was Phx, sorry.

[TheMACHINE]

Carry on!

[TheMadHatter]

Please no more Smush Parker. My eyes can't take it anymore.

[IronMexican]

Good job keeping with the two team format, genius.



Allanon=



And i don't respond to Kwame highlights

Discosean21 is a G.

This is his best video though

[Sissiborgo]

Damn straight....This will be like that all season....

[Spur-Addict]

Proof? Examples?

Allanon: Somebody had PM'ed me saying that it was pointless debating with you because you'll never admit it when you are wrong. Now I see they were right.

I'm done.
----------------------------

Looks like someone isn't arguing the ambiguous notion.

[Spur-Addict]

I know this one still hurts

[Allanon]

Looks like someone isn't arguing the ambiguous notion.

Ambiguity is determined by the reader and their level of knowledge. For those with little knowledge, it may be ambiguous, for others it may be clear as day. Either way, it's a subjective statement and not provable.

But this is:

I'm Allanon and I speak horribly ambiguous and back peddle.

Proof? Examples? Links?

[Spur-Addict]

I never said every single black person. I said the black people...and when you speak of a people, you speak of the majority, not the minority.

This is the back peddle.

When one black person in a public position says something racial, it represents his race. The world is not black and white where what person A says does not affect person B.

Back in the earlier racial days, if 1 black man raped a white woman, you'd hear of other black people getting beat up because of what that 1 black man did.

Just like Obama, he is only 1 black man and an American. But he represents the black race, if he screws it up, you won't see another black man in office for 50 years.

One man can cause an entire race to be labeled.



Josh Howard is not directly using slavery because if he was still a slave, he wouldn't be a rich ass dude. But, he is using the benefits which slavery ultimately provided...a chance to make it rich in America. He would never have been in America in the first place if it weren't for slavery.

Represents his race? Seems all inclusive to me. One man can cause an entire race to be labeled? Seems like entire is all.

I agree too, Josh Howard's a friggin' idiot over this national anthem stunt.

I don't care what he believes but he's talking into a camera, what did he think would happen?

1) He's set back black people 100 years by making them look ignorant and un-patriotic.
2) WTF does being black have to do with not celebrating the Star Spangled Banner? I've seen quite a few soul groups get jiggity with the Star Spangled Banner, so why is he dragging them into the hole with him?
3) He's a sports star and for better or worse, there be kids looking up to him
4) If he had any chances for endorsement deals, they're now officially blown

If he's trying to protest the Star Spangled Banner cuz of Slavery, I'd love to see if he'd be making millions in Africa now. You can't be enjoying a millionaire easy life style and criticizing slavery of 200 years ago. If he wants to protest slavery, donate his Lexus and his house to an African charity and then I'd understand his "protest".

And with that video, he can be assured he's screwed himself of several million at his next contract extension. There just won't be that many teams competing for an ignorant, unpatriotic "black" man who smokes pot and drag races cars.

If he doesn't want to stand at attention during the star spangled banner, sure whatever. But saying so on camera is just stupid and 100x more stupid for saying "cuz I'm black".

Chris Rock said it best, "There's Black people, and then theres N..... I love Black people, but I hate N......"

Seems like Josh Howard set the entire black race back too.

See, you back peddled because of the ambiguous nature, it has nothing to do with my knowledge. Am I supposed to assume? Am I to read your mind? Nope, and nobody else should have to either.

If you would have stated originally, "When one black person in a public position says something racial, it represents the majority of his/her race", then the ambiguity is gone. I know right out that you mean the majority. But instead, you opted to argue when you could of just said I did not state things properly. Here, this is what I mean. But, you decided to defend it.

When you defend it, it seems like you are back peddling. In fact, I even let the "Entire" word go by hoping you would just see it and be real with me. Maybe you just missed it, that's cool.

What happened here is you were poor with your words. If you would have stated things properly, there wouldn't be an issue. So, you can't prove whether or not you actually did not back peddle. But I, I can point to your ambiguity and show serious doubt on your case. The word, "Entire" is pretty damning.


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...84#post2776884

Honestly, I have nothing against you, I just wish you'd be more clear.

[Allanon]

This is the back peddle.

Represents his race? Seems all inclusive to me. One man can cause an entire race to be labeled? Seems like entire is all.

This is craziness. That's a back peddle? When I or anybody says black people, that's a generalization, that does not mean every black person on the planet.

Seems like Josh Howard set the entire black race back too.

See, you back peddled because of the ambiguous nature, it has nothing to do with my knowledge. Am I supposed to assume? Am I to read your mind? Nope, and nobody else should have to either.

If you would have stated originally, "When one black person in a public position says something racial, it represents the majority of his/her race", then the ambiguity is gone. I know right out that you mean the majority.

But instead, you opted to argue when you could of just said I did not state things properly. Here, this is what I mean. But, you decided to defend it.

When you defend it, it seems like you are back peddling. In fact, I even let the "Entire" word go by hoping you would just see it and be real with me. Maybe you just missed it, that's cool.

What happened here is you were poor with your words. If you would have stated things properly, there wouldn't be an issue. So, you can't prove whether or not you actually did not back peddle. But I, I can point to your ambiguity and show serious doubt on your case. The word, "Entire" is pretty damning.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...84#post2776884

That's ambiguous? Then the entire world is ambiguous if you have to quality a generalization. You're nitpicking. If I say "the Spurs have good players" does that mean everybody on the roster is good? Or the "the Spurs have good fans", does that mean every fan is good? Nope, it's a generalization and again ambiguity is limited to knowledge. Only a person with half a brain would think that it means every single fan.

With your logic of having to spell everything out here are more "ambiguous" statements:

• "Today is a nice day", ambiguous because it might be nice here but not in China.
• "That game was awesome", ambiguous because there might have been ty turnovers but overall it was a great game
• "In 'n Out has great hamburgers", ambiguous because some days, their hamburgers are too greasy
• "Tim Duncan plays great basketball", ambiguous because somedays he doesn't play so great.
• "Laker tickets are expensive", ambiguous because they also have $10 seats which are cheap.
• "Toyota makes great cars", ambiguous because they have some lemons

Honestly, I have nothing against you, I just wish you'd be more clear.

It's certainly not arguing about.

[Spur-Addict]

[QUOTE=Allanon;2801787]This is craziness. That's a back peddle? When I or anybody says black people, that's a generalization, that does not mean every black person on the planet.



That's ambiguous? Then the entire world is ambiguous if you have to quality a generalization. You're nitpicking. If I say "the Spurs have good players" does that mean everybody on the roster is good? Or the "the Spurs have good fans", does that mean every fan is good? Nope, it's a generalization and again ambiguity is limited to knowledge. Only a person with half a brain would think that it means every single fan.

With your logic of having to spell everything out here are more "ambiguous" statements:

• "Today is a nice day", ambiguous because it might be nice here but not in China.
• "That game was awesome", ambiguous because there might have been ty turnovers but overall it was a great game
• "In 'n Out has great hamburgers", ambiguous because some days, their hamburgers are too greasy
• "Tim Duncan plays great basketball", ambiguous because somedays he doesn't play so great.
• "Laker tickets are expensive", ambiguous because they also have $10 seats which are cheap.
• "Toyota makes great cars", ambiguous because they have some lemons

[QUOTE] <<End quote, I don't have the time.

I think ambiguity is crazy.

When you say anybody, you are putting me as a possibility, I don't like that.

You're damn right i'm nitpicky, that's because there are people who intentionally hide behind cloaks of ambiguity. I'm not saying you are one, but since you were ambiguous, that's how I approached the situation. How am I to really know what you are saying? Expect this precise line of questioning from me.

If someone did your tax return, would you want them to be exact? The same scenario for a lawyer that may represent you, or your bank statement, or the cost of something in an advertisement, the list can go on and on. If you say to me, you want some things ambiguous, then hey we obviously won't be able to have much conversation/debate because you want things to be unknown.

[Allanon]

With your logic of having to spell everything out here are more "ambiguous" statements:

• "Today is a nice day", ambiguous because it might be nice here but not in China.
• "That game was awesome", ambiguous because there might have been ty turnovers but overall it was a great game
• "In 'n Out has great hamburgers", ambiguous because some days, their hamburgers are too greasy
• "Tim Duncan plays great basketball", ambiguous because somedays he doesn't play so great.
• "Laker tickets are expensive", ambiguous because they also have $10 seats which are cheap.
• "Toyota makes great cars", ambiguous because they have some lemons

You're damn right i'm nitpicky, that's because there are people who intentionally hide behind cloaks of ambiguity. I'm not saying you are one, but since you were ambiguous, that's how I approached the situation. How am I to really know what you are saying? Expect this precise line of questioning from me.

If someone did your tax return, would you want them to be exact? The same scenario for a lawyer that may represent you, or your bank statement, or the cost of something in an advertisement, the list can go on and on. If you say to me, you want some things ambiguous, then hey we obviously won't be able to have much conversation/debate because you want things to be unknown.

This is a fun forum, not a place of business. If that is what you call ambiguity, the entire forum is ambiguous. That is utterly ridiculous. If I were to say "Duncan had a great game", that is ambiguous because he might have had 2 turnovers. I would have to say "Duncan had a great game other than his 2 turnovers".

If you wish to further waste our time with this craziness, we can pull up your posts and find an "ambiguous" statement in there. I can guarantee you've had a couple of "ambiguous" statements in your 772 posts according to your own logic

[Spur-Addict]

This is a fun forum, not a place of business. If that is what you call ambiguity, the entire forum is ambiguous. That is utterly ridiculous. If I were to say "Duncan had a great game", that is ambiguous because he might have had 2 turnovers. I would have to say "Duncan had a great game other than his 2 turnovers".


If you wish to further waste our time with this craziness, we can pull up your posts and find an "ambiguous" statement in there. I can guarantee you've had a couple of "ambiguous" statements in your 772 posts according to your own logic

The examples could've been anything, such as player stats. So there goes the business thing.

Saying someone has a great game is all inclusive. It's all inclusive to that single game played. We can certainly debate on what is great, but stats are included in the game, so it's in the all inclusive. What is ambiguous is what game played we are talking about.

If kobe has a great game, he has a great game. Kobe Bryant had a great game against the Raptors in 2006, January 26th. Now if I said he had a great game but his assist to turnover ratio is poor, that's different. Then it's worth debating in regards to his assist/turn. ratio. His 81 point performance was great overall, but he had three turnovers, but only two assists. Although his overall performance was great, his a/t ratio was poor. Then you could argue he was too busy shooting etc. Blahh.....

There may be (in my posts), but to the extent of which you are dragging this out warrants exactness. That's why this is important. In fact, you try to seem so matter of fact with the argumentative portion of your posts, so don't try and deny it. That is apart of why you go back and edit your posts.

If someone didn't understand me i'd clarify, not deny. You'll clarify with editing, but not in new posts in regards to previous posts. There is nothing wrong with clarifying, you seem to think it makes the person doing the clarifying look bad. I don't know why. Or maybe you just don't want to clarify with me.

No part of understanding another person is craziness, there are posts that are fun, and there are posts that are arguments, things said in a matter of fact fashion. You were quite serious in your posts in the Howard/anthem thread.. This is one that is an argument. The word "crazy", will not dismiss what i've stated. I'm sorry for offending you, but that's just what it is.