I wish people would stop acting like we've won already

[td4mvp21]

I do!

That's because you're a jealous, bitter Jazz fan!

[conqueso]

I've lurked for years at SR (recently came to ST and has been completely worth it) and it's this limp talk about don't get y turns into the "I'm worried" spazzy threads that usually end up declaring us in 7 but no ones sure, blah blah blah, pussy talk.

I contend it's okay to have some faith in your team and be confident. TD, TP, and Manu have given you no reason to doubt their ability. If we lose, eat the crow and like it, but don't pussify the Spurs ability. EDIT add: Especially over one LJ performance.

Sigh.

You people (twentyone especially) are re ed. I'm not "worried" about the Spurs' chances of winning it all. I have the utmost confidence that they will claim number 4 this year. the Cavs and the Pistons.

What I am worried about is people acting like it's already been won. There's a difference between having faith and confidence and having audacity and hubris. I'm concerned about the latter w/r/t Spurs fans. That was my original point.

Hence, people making predictions like "I think the Spurs will up whoever they play in the Finals" are fine, but statements like "I'm so happy for Finley winning his fourth le this year" are not.

Were you really too dense to understand that?

[TDMVPDPOY]

wcf>first round exit

cry me a showpony....

[conqueso]

This is not '99 when the Spurs dominated the whole league during the regular season and annihilated multiple awesome teams in the Western Conference playoffs. We have been the beneficiaries of an incredible amount of luck, but that's the thing about good fortune; unlike true skill, it can dry up at any time. Just ask the Mavs.

...

Incredible luck? With what exactly? I fail to see how Nash's nosebleed, the Phoenix ejections or Derons foot qualify as major strokes of luck. It's like saying the Spurs wouldn't have won any of those games without those events happening. That simply isn't true.

This is in the bag, bank on it. The only caveat would be an injury to one of the big three, in which case anything goes.

I'm guessing this statement is sarcasm, since someone so profoundly re ed as to honestly believe that would also be mentally incapable of reading or writing. Having Nash for the last minute of a close game when he was on fire from three would have made a huge difference. Having Amare and Bell in game 5 could have (but not necessarily would have) changed the outcome of that game. And if Deron were at full-strength, it's highly unlikely that he would score just 11 points, 19 below his series average. Now, I don't think Amare and Bell being stupid enough to break a rule that no one else in the NBA breaks in the playoffs is "lucky," but significant injuries at crucial times certainly is.

But it's not like any of this is new. We were lucky in '99 when Ewing tore his Achilles'. We were lucky when Horry's shot rimmed out in game 5 of the 2003 WCSF. We were lucky when Malik landed on Dirk and sprained his knee that same year. We were lucky that Rasheed had a mental lapse at the end of game 5 of the 2005 Finals and forgot to guard the best clutch shooter in the history of the game. And we were lucky this year when several of our opponents suffered debilitating injuries right when they were needed most.

BFD. All teams get lucky from time to time. My only point is that if you rely too much on luck and not enough on skill, you set yourself up for failure. I'm not claiming the Spurs are doing that necessarily, but they might be.

[conqueso]

This is not '99 when the Spurs dominated the whole league during the regular season and annihilated multiple awesome teams in the Western Conference playoffs. We have been the beneficiaries of an incredible amount of luck, but that's the thing about good fortune; unlike true skill, it can dry up at any time. Just ask the Mavs.

So our luck is about to run out and we have no true skill to save us...riiiiiiiiiiight

Notice how I didn't say that. My comment was more cautionary. I'm not saying our luck is about to run out either, since when the Spurs appear "destined" for a le, everything just seems to go their way. But it's important for the Spurs themselves to realize that they can't just show up and expect that God or Fate or whatever will give the le to them. And it's also important for everyone to temper their claims of how great this Spurs team is with recognitions of the lucky breaks they have gotten.

[TwoHandJam]

Hence, people making predictions like "I think the Spurs will up whoever they play in the Finals" are fine, but statements like "I'm so happy for Finley winning his fourth le this year" are not.

Duly noted.

You do realize that you're trying to police the internet with statements like this? You speak of audacity and hubris yet you throw out statements like above trying to tell people what to think? I hope you knew that you were basically inviting people to disagree with you.

Your opinion is fine but the way you delivered it seems a little authoritarian no?

[duncan228]

Fans have the right to go nuts. Fans pay the bills.
It's the team that will win or lose this le.

I am not counting on anything...but I believe.
Duncan has never gone to the Finals and not come out with the ring.
I believe the same will hold true this year.

But I won't tell other fans how to express themselves. If they believe it's a done deal they have the right to say it. No matter how I feel about it.

[twentyone]

Sigh.

You people (twentyone especially) are re ed.

What I am worried about is people acting like it's already been won. There's a difference between having faith and confidence and having audacity and hubris. I'm concerned about the latter w/r/t Spurs fans. That was my original point.

Were you really too dense to understand that?

The audacity and hubris are all yours.

Your saying that if we say something before it occurs the event won't occur because we said it would. I guess I'm too humble to agree with you that what I say about a basketball game will effect the outcome. To be fair I will have to consult the Easter bunny and the Tooth Fairy and get back to you.

But in the meantime, ponder the REAL results of assumption... the person that stated it is wrong, and might even eat crow. That's it! Oh and you get mad but that's good for a chat I guess.

[RJF08]

That's because you're a jealous, bitter Jazz fan!

Hey, man, I ain't bitter, jealous maybe. The ride was great but we met our match. I am ecstatic for next year. I liked the Spurs before they dogged the season to draft TD. The Admiral is one of my all time favorite players. The guy is the definition of class! And Avery's little flip shot from the hip in the lane drove me nuts cause it always went in.

I usually root for the team that beats mine, but wanna see the Cavs, so if they make it they have my cheers.

[conqueso]

Duly noted.

You do realize that you're trying to police the internet with statements like this? You speak of audacity and hubris yet you throw out statements like above trying to tell people what to think? I hope you knew that you were basically inviting people to disagree with you.

Your opinion is fine but the way you delivered it seems a little authoritarian no?

Oh please...police the internet? that. I just wish people wouldn't say like that, and am also warning people that they may be setting themselves up for catastrophic disappointment. Peripherally, I'm also advising people that it's not wise to tempt fate.

I'm not telling people what to think. Don't turn this into some free speech bull . It's not authoritarian at all since I'm not telling people they must think a certain way, I'm just telling them it's stupid and foolhardy to think that way. Big difference.

[conqueso]

The audacity and hubris are all yours.

Your [sic] saying that if we say something before it occurs the event won't occur because we said it would. I guess I'm too humble to agree with you that what I say about a basketball game will effect the outcome. To be fair I will have to consult the Easter bunny and the Tooth Fairy and get back to you.

But in the meantime, ponder the REAL results of assumption... the person that stated it is wrong, and might even eat crow. That's it! Oh and you get mad but that's good for a chat I guess.

Did you actually read what I wrote? Or is this simply a matter of your inability to comprehend plain English?

I don't honestly think that the fans affect the way the Spurs play

I'm not saying it won't happen because we are predicting it will. I'm saying that it's foolish to act like it's a given. And there are many people on this board who are doing just that.

I don't think the Basketball Gods or whoever will punish us for arrogantly assuming our team has already won the le. And honestly, I don't personally believe in karma. But many people here on this board and around the world believe in some version of the adage "what goes around comes around," and right now, what's going around is a bunch of es full of hubris proclaiming the Spurs champs before they even know who the opponents will be. Not simple predictions, but talking as if it's already happened, like the Spurs winning the championship is some kind of universal truth, like what-goes-up-must-come-down. And that is stupid, annoying, and dangerous (either for the people themselves who risk disappointment, or the the Spurs being punished for the arrogance of their fans, if you believe in that sort of thing).

BTW, a LOT of these assholes who impetuously make these pronouncements WON'T eat crow when they are proven wrong. Take for instance TPark, who gave up on the Spurs in '05 and promised not to post for a full year if the Spurs won the le. He lasted about 20 seconds, since he was posting following the game seven victory. And despite what whottt claims, I find it doubtful that he will really own up to being a pussy asshat if the Spurs do win the le with Finley playing major minutes and Barry riding pine.

[TwoHandJam]

Oh please...police the internet? that. I just wish people wouldn't say like that, and am also warning people that they may be setting themselves up for catastrophic disappointment. Peripherally, I'm also advising people that it's not wise to tempt fate.

I'm not telling people what to think. Don't turn this into some free speech bull . It's not authoritarian at all since I'm not telling people they must think a certain way, I'm just telling them it's stupid and foolhardy to think that way. Big difference.

Maybe that's what you intended but it's a far cry from what you actually wrote in the excerpt I quoted in my previous post. Let not try to rewrite history ok? Be humble with your backpedalling at least.

Hence, people making predictions like "I think the Spurs will up whoever they play in the Finals" are fine, but statements like "I'm so happy for Finley winning his fourth le this year" are not.

The above doesn't sound like wishing and advising does it? Didn't think so.

[MadDog73]

What I am worried about is people acting like it's already been won. There's a difference between having faith and confidence and having audacity and hubris. I'm concerned about the latter w/r/t Spurs fans. That was my original point.

My advice to you: Don't worry so much.

People are going to talk , just like you. It's "teh internets."

I will say people don't generally respect being told how they should act, which despite your protestations, is exaclty what you're doing.

Oh, well, it makes for an entertaining thread on a boring day.

[conqueso]

Maybe that's what you intended but it's a far cry from what you actually wrote in the excerpt I quoted in my previous post. Let not try to rewrite history ok? Be humble with your backpedalling at least.



The above doesn't sound like wishing and advising does it? Didn't think so.

Jesus, quit taking out your frustrations at misunderstanding a simple point on me. For one, I don't try to police the internet (your original contention) because I have absolutely no power to. For another, I have no desire to. And finally, when taken in context, my statement sounds exactly like wishing and advising. Let's quote the whole post:

I've lurked for years at SR (recently came to ST and has been completely worth it) and it's this limp talk about don't get y turns into the "I'm worried" spazzy threads that usually end up declaring us in 7 but no ones sure, blah blah blah, pussy talk.

I contend it's okay to have some faith in your team and be confident. TD, TP, and Manu have given you no reason to doubt their ability. If we lose, eat the crow and like it, but don't pussify the Spurs ability. EDIT add: Especially over one LJ performance.

Sigh.

You people (twentyone especially) are re ed. I'm not "worried" about the Spurs' chances of winning it all. I have the utmost confidence that they will claim number 4 this year. the Cavs and the Pistons.

What I am worried about is people acting like it's already been won. There's a difference between having faith and confidence and having audacity and hubris. I'm concerned about the latter w/r/t Spurs fans. That was my original point.

Hence, people making predictions like "I think the Spurs will up whoever they play in the Finals" are fine, but statements like "I'm so happy for Finley winning his fourth le this year" are not.

Were you really too dense to understand that?

I hate having to parse this post out for people unwilling or unable to admit their own error, but it seems as if that is my only recourse. In response to a post indicating that this thread would turn into an "I'm worried" fest, that I had "pussif[ied] the Spurs performance," inferentially by criticizing fans who have faith and confidence, I responded clarifying my worries, explaining that the correct interpretation of my post was that confident predictions were fine under my schema, but impetuous bragging was not. Keep in mind, this entire discussion has been conducted in a thread en led "I wish people would stop acting like we've won already." Putting all the pieces together, the clear meaning that you have somehow failed to grasp is that I wish people wouldn't say stupid , and I advise them that there are several compelling reasons not to. Rephrased in such a way that you may understand:

Go ahead and say those things if you want, I'm powerless to stop you. But I wish you wouldn't, since it's imprudent, unwise, immature, and most importantly, annoying.

Did you follow all of that? Which words in their original context did you not understand?

[conqueso]

My advice to you: Don't worry so much.

People are going to talk , just like you. It's "teh internets."

I will say people don't generally respect being told how they should act, which despite your protestations, is exaclty what you're doing.

Oh, well, it makes for an entertaining thread on a boring day.

Perhaps you're right, my pearls of wisdom are being misinterpreted by the hapless simpletons on this board as "preaching." I wish they'd shut the up about it, but mostly for their own good; I don't want them to become sniveling little es who pollute ST if the Spurs lose and the whole precarious edifice they have built comes crashing down around them. Whatever. You es can say what you like. But trust me, the whining and moaning of fools too hasty to exercise caution is far more annoying that their ineffectual grandstanding.

[TwoHandJam]

I just want you to explain one thing:

What I am worried about is people acting like it's already been won. There's a difference between having faith and confidence and having audacity and hubris. I'm concerned about the latter w/r/t Spurs fans. That was my original point.

If you're not trying to get on your high horse and protect the "great unwashed" internet denizens from themselves, then what exactly are you trying to do? Force people to be humble? Do you think it's your duty to warn them lest them jump off a cliff if the Spurs do actually lose in the finals? Do you even realize how condescending and patronizing this sounds?

You already admitted yourself that such people wouldn't even return to the forum to face the music or wouldn't acknowledge how brazen they had been by "eating crow" so what do you care really other than being overly sanctimonious about this whole affair?

Sure, you might like to educate these heathens about counting their chickens before they hatch, but you might be a little more successful in doing this if you went about in a little less scornful manner.

[conqueso]

I just want you to explain one thing:

What I am worried about is people acting like it's already been won. There's a difference between having faith and confidence and having audacity and hubris. I'm concerned about the latter w/r/t Spurs fans. That was my original point.

If you're not trying to get on your high horse and protect the "great unwashed" internet denizens from themselves, then what exactly are you trying to do?

I am in fact trying to protect idiots from themselves. That's one of the (many) motivations I've articulated over and over (and over) again in this thread. To wit:

I just wish people wouldn't say like that, and am also warning people that they may be setting themselves up for catastrophic disappointment

The passage you quoted has absolutely no bearing on my goals for making these posts. Instead, it speaks to my worry, one of my motivations for posting. In other words, you quoted something that explains why I am deciding to post, not what I am trying to accomplish by posting. Therefore, it has no logical connection to the conclusion you draw from it. However, your use of this passage reflects exactly why you've been unfairly chastising me: you are unable to understand the plain meanings of words and how they fit together to form a coherent thought.

Force people to be humble? Do you think it's your duty to warn them lest them jump off a cliff if the Spurs do actually lose in the finals?

I'm not trying to force them to do anything. I'm advising them that it's in their best interests (and perhaps in all of our best interests) for them to remain humble. Also, I'm suggesting reasons for why I think that to be true. Finally, it might not be my duty to caution them, but it's certainly my right, and frankly, some people might actually be better off if they actually listened to me instead of categorically rejecting what I have to say because of their own prejudices against people who try to impart wisdom.

How many times do I have to repeat that before you understand that that is what I'm trying to do?

Do you even realize how condescending and patronizing this sounds?

Anyone wiser than other people who tries to bestow that wisdom upon them technically sounds "condescending" and "patronizing." Chill out, it's the nature of advice.

You already admitted yourself that such people wouldn't even return to the forum to face the music or wouldn't acknowledge how brazen they had been by "eating crow" so what do you care really other than being overly sanctimonious about this whole affair?

Firstly, even if they don't return to post or don't acknowledge their error, it is important to at least try to save them from so ignoble a fate. Such traits are faults, and these faulty people clearly aren't making good faith attempts to cure themselves of their character defects. And so, if the better among us don't assist in whatever ways we can, how are they ever going to improve? Are we content to endure witnessing them suffer as well as suffering ourselves from their weaknesses in the name of avoiding sanctimony?

But regardless, it's not sanctimonious to wish people didn't display hubris about the Spurs. It's not hypocritical in any way whatsoever. I in fact display the exact perspective I am advising others to consider. Do you even know what "sanctimonious" means? In case you don't, here's what the dictionary has to say about it:

sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous /ˌsæŋktəˈmoʊniəs/ –adjective
1. making a hypocritical show of religious devotion, piety, righteousness, etc.: They resented his sanctimonious comments on immorality in America.
2. Obsolete. holy; sacred.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sanctimonious

Sure, you might like to educate these heathens about counting their chickens before they hatch, but you might be a little more successful in doing this if you went about in a little less scornful manner.

Well, to be honest, they deserve scorn. But seriously, what the is so "scornful" about this:

So please, remain guarded in what you say and don't crown the Spurs champs before they're due.

The only disdain I've exhibited has been for little es like you who get their panties in a twist because they (erroneously) think I'm trying to force them to do something, or tell them they must think a certain way, or police the ing internets. I started off nice and polite, but then you assholes started criticizing me for being pretentious. off. You know I'm right about this. No one can actually impugn the substance of my post. All they can do is attempt to find fault with it using their own bull hyper-sensitive interpretations. This is exactly what you've done.

[TwoHandJam]

Wow. And you think I've got my panties in a twist? Your little rant back there was pretty impressive. Sure, you started off being nice but you sure got heavy-handed when people disagreed with you. Hey, at least you "know you're right" and no one can "impugn the substance of your posts".

You're also not contradictory when you say you "don't believe in Karma" yet think people are "building up a lot of negative Karma" by acting as if the Spurs have already won.

There's a lesson in all of this for you: Don't try and save people from themselves. If you think they may be idiots, there may a be a reason for it.

Experience is generally the best teacher.

Oh, and I have some dictionary definitions for you:

Main Entry: con·ceit·ed
Pronunciation: -'sE-t&d
Function: adjective
Etymology: conceit
1 : conqueso
2 : having or showing an excessively high opinion of oneself
- con·ceit·ed·ly adverb
- con·ceit·ed·ness noun

Main Entry: overbearing
Function: adjective
1 : conqueso
2 : harshly and haughtily arrogant
synonym see PROUD
- over·bear·ing·ly /-i[ng]-lE/ adverb

Main Entry: pa·tron·ize
Pronunciation: 'pA-tr&-"nIz, 'pa-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
1 : conqueso
2 : to adopt an air of condescension toward : treat haughtily or coolly
3 : to be a frequent or regular customer or client of
- pa·tron·i·za·tion /"pA-tr&-n&-'zA-sh&n, pa-/ noun
- pa·tron·iz·ing·ly /'pA-tr&-"nI-zi[ng]-lE, 'pa-/ adverb

[Jimcs50]

Where can I get my 2007 NBA championship teeshirt from, I want to wear it this weekend.

[conqueso]

Wow. And you think I've got my panties in a twist? Your little rant back there was pretty impressive. Sure, you started off being nice but you sure got heavy-handed when people disagreed with you. There's a lesson in all of this for you: Don't try and save people from themselves. If you think they may be idiots, there may a be a reason for it.

Experience is generally the best teacher.

Oh, and I have some dictionary definitions for you:

Main Entry: con·ceit·ed
Pronunciation: -'sE-t&d
Function: adjective
Etymology: conceit
1 : conqueso
2 : having or showing an excessively high opinion of oneself
- con·ceit·ed·ly adverb
- con·ceit·ed·ness noun

Main Entry: overbearing
Function: adjective
1 : conqueso
2 : harshly and haughtily arrogant
synonym see PROUD
- over·bear·ing·ly /-i[ng]-lE/ adverb

Main Entry: pa·tron·ize
Pronunciation: 'pA-tr&-"nIz, 'pa-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
1 : conqueso
2 : to adopt an air of condescension toward : treat haughtily or coolly
3 : to be a frequent or regular customer or client of
- pa·tron·i·za·tion /"pA-tr&-n&-'zA-sh&n, pa-/ noun
- pa·tron·iz·ing·ly /'pA-tr&-"nI-zi[ng]-lE, 'pa-/ adverb

You know, it's a very effective way of refuting someone's substantive argument by ignoring the points they make and instead degrading them by quoting three dictionary definitions and subtly inserting their name as the number one definition for each term...VERY effective. Bowing out with such a feeble response clearly demonstrates that I am the victor.

I'll assume that you concede that I am right on the points I made to which you didn't respond, meaning of course that you are wrong. And so, despite your unpersuasive attempt at rebuttal with the catch-all statement "experience is generally the best teacher," all I have to add to my already awe-inspiring victory in this argument is that perhaps the experience of being ridiculed for their hubris will teach the morons in this forum to respect the sanc y of the game and keep their y little traps shut.

This is a lesson you'd be wise to learn, as well.

[TwoHandJam]

You know, it's a very effective way of refuting someone's substantive argument by ignoring the points they make and instead degrading them by quoting three dictionary definitions and subtly inserting their name as the number one definition for each term...VERY effective. Bowing out with such a feeble response clearly demonstrates that I am the victor.

I'll assume that you concede that I am right on the points I made to which you didn't respond, meaning of course that you are wrong. And so, despite your unpersuasive attempt at rebuttal with the catch-all statement "experience is generally the best teacher," all I have to add to my already awe-inspiring victory in this argument is that perhaps the experience of being ridiculed for their hubris will teach the morons in this forum to respect the sanc y of the game and keep their y little traps shut.

This is a lesson you'd be wise to learn, as well.

Um, no.

Remember when you wondered if I knew what "sanctimonious" meant? You're so obtuse that can't even see the forest for the trees.

You ask that Spurs fans be guarded and humble. You ask that they not display such hubris yet you state these opinions full of hubris and with a total lack of humility. You call them morons and ask them to keep their " y little traps shut". If that's not hypocritical then I don't know what is.

Is it not better to let them experience a possible meltdown for themselves and actually perhaps learn humility? Do you think your landmark post will result in an epiphany for the huddled masses and spare them some terrible grief?

Please. It's time to get over yourself.

[conqueso]

Um, no.

Remember when you wondered if I knew what "sanctimonious" meant? You're so obtuse that can't even see the forest for the trees.

Of course I remember when I asked you that. It was a rhetorical question. Obviously you didn't know what it meant since you mis-used the term. You are using cir locutory language and hackneyed cliches to make yourself appear more intelligent, but ultimately, your ruse is transparent. Quitters never win, and winners never quit...to the victor go the spoils.

You ask that Spurs fans be guarded and humble. You ask that they not display such hubris yet you state these opinions full of hubris and with a total lack of humility. You call them morons and ask them to keep their " y little traps shut". If that's not hypocritical then I don't know what is.

How exactly are my opinions full of hubris? Because they are correct? Because they are better than any opinions you could ever come up with? Because they are so logically impeccable that they remain undisturbed by your arrogant attempts to disparage them?

Of course, even if I am full of hubris, as you say, that fact alone does not render my opinions hypocritical. Clearly, you don't know what "hypocritical" means. I will consult the dictionary with which you just today became familiar and quote the definition you so inanely misunderstood:

hy·poc·ri·sy /hɪˈpɒkrəsi/ [hi-pok-ruh-see] –noun, plural -sies.
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved at ude.

I make no pretenses of having a virtuous character. But even if I did, the only vice which I am denouncing is hubris towards the Spurs being guaranteed the championship. Not hubris about one's own intelligence. Not hubris about one's work product. Hubris about the Spurs. This vice is cleary one that I do not possess, one which many other people do. That is a fact. Therefore, condemning those who do have that vice could not possibly, by definition, be hypocritical. Phrased in a more elementary way, I have the virtuous moral of refusing to be arrogant about the Spurs, one which I honestly do possess. And it is self-evident that my at ude on this matter is neither "desirable" nor "publicly approved." If that's not not hypocritical then I don't know what isn't.

And so, after I called you out on being an side-tracking , you went back and vainly attempted to challenge one of my arguments. Good job. What about the goal/motivation dichotomy? What about the lack of any evidence of me trying to force people to believe a certain way, as you so erroneously claimed? What about the inherent nature of advice as condescending? What about my complete annihilation of all your ridiculous accusations that I am trying to "police" the internet? Have you conceded all of these points, because I sure don't see responses to them in any of your subsequent posts.

Is it not better to let them experience a possible meltdown for themselves and actually perhaps learn humility? Do you think your landmark post will result in an epiphany for the huddled masses and spare them some terrible grief?

Please. It's time to get over yourself.

As I've mentioned before, those who experience the meltdown (e.g. TPark and Whottt) don't ever actually learn from their experiences. They delude themselves into thinking that their error never actually occurred and systematically ignore anyone who reminds them of it. While my post may be just one blow to the rock which seems to make no difference, the thousandth blow will crack the rock and my grace will finally be bestowed upon the board.

You really need to quit now. You won't defeat me at this battle of wits since you are sorely outmatched. Just ask CuckingFunt, who tried to tangle with me and was proven wrong over two dozen times in a 24 hour period. She's twice as smart as you are and infinitely more articulate, and she still ended up eating the I force fed to her. In the interest of protecting your mediocre little mind, I'm warning and advising you to stop responding to me.

[mavs>spurs2]

Conqueso's right, it's stupid and obnoxious to be acting like you've won something before you actually do it. See Mav fans last year. When(if) you guys win it all then there will be plenty of time for celebration.

[L.I.T]

Oooh...overmatched internets smackdowns. Some one actually used 'ad hominem' this is getting good.

[TwoHandJam]

Of course I remember when I asked you that. It was a rhetorical question. Obviously you didn't know what it meant since you mis-used the term. You are using cir locutory language and hackneyed cliches to make yourself appear more intelligent, but ultimately, your ruse is transparent. Quitters never win, and winners never quit...to the victor go the spoils.

To the victor goes the spoils? You know, you really are quite unbalanced. Your posts are so full fallacies, contradictions and double-talk that one almost doesn't know where to start. To make matters worse, you believe that by consulting your dictionary and bolding as many multi-syllable words as possible that you will succeed in this internet jihad you created out of what was, at least to those grounded in reality, a reasonable debate.

I'll list some of your more obvious errors and contradictions here briefly and then be on my way:

I don't honestly think that the fans affect the way the Spurs play, but seriously, we're building up a LOT of negative karma tempting fate like this.

I don't think the Basketball Gods or whoever will punish us for arrogantly assuming our team has already won the le. And honestly, I don't personally believe in karma.

How exactly are my opinions full of hubris? Because they are correct? Because they are better than any opinions you could ever come up with? Because they are so logically impeccable that they remain undisturbed by your arrogant attempts to disparage them?

The above paragraph is virtually the definition of hubris. This is funny because your leading question is searching for the answer yet you fail to see it in the ensuing sentences. I guess you were blinded by the fact that your opinions were so "logically impeccable".

Of course, even if I am full of hubris, as you say, that fact alone does not render my opinions hypocritical. Clearly, you don't know what "hypocritical" means. I will consult the dictionary with which you just today became familiar and quote the definition you so inanely misunderstood:

hypocrite
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

For someone who believes I've only recently become familiar with the dictionary, your glaring lack of understanding that words can have more than one meaning is almost comical. I've bolded the appropriate entry since you seem to enjoy bold type. We can dispense with ridiculous "virtuous character" rebuttal hmmm?

Again, you start by nicely "warning" and "advising" fans to be guarded and humble, then a few posts later you're blasting them for being morons and they should "keep their y little traps shut". Very guarded and humble of you, sir hypocrite. Advice is not "inherently condescending" but you certainly are. You also are most certainly sanctimonious:

sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous /ˌsæŋktəˈmoʊniəs/ –adjective
1. making a hypocritical show of religious devotion, piety, righteousness, etc.: They resented his sanctimonious comments on immorality in America.

So please, remain guarded in what you say and don't crown the Spurs champs before they're due.

I just wish people wouldn't say like that, and am also warning people that they may be setting themselves up for catastrophic disappointment.

even if they don't return to post or don't acknowledge their error, it is important to at least try to save them from so ignoble a fate. Such traits are faults, and these faulty people clearly aren't making good faith attempts to cure themselves of their character defects.

Perhaps you're right, my pearls of wisdom are being misinterpreted by the hapless simpletons on this board as "preaching." I wish they'd shut the up about it, but mostly for their own good

Well, to be honest, they (people who act like we've already won) deserve scorn.

I started off nice and polite, but then you assholes started criticizing me for being pretentious. off.

Yup. For someone who's trying to advise people to be guarded and humble, you sure know how to practice what you preach. I also liked the way you said the question about the definition of sanctimonious was rhetorical yet you answer the question in the very same post.

You really need to quit now. You won't defeat me at this battle of wits since you are sorely outmatched. Just ask CuckingFunt, who tried to tangle with me and was proven wrong over two dozen times in a 24 hour period. She's twice as smart as you are and infinitely more articulate, and she still ended up eating the I force fed to her. In the interest of protecting your mediocre little mind, I'm warning and advising you to stop responding to me.

I won't defeat you? Good lord, you sound like a Dungeons and Dragons fanatic who's talking smack about his 12th level cleric with the gauntlets of ogre power. Don't worry, I'm done with you and your infantile diatribe. You're not only illogical but you're supremely conceited as well. Follow up with bolded posts to your heart's content. You're not worth any more time.