Ed Lor-yer...let's rock!

[Simon S.C. Cushing]

First you schedule the r.s.b.pro equivalent of a news conference announcing
your retirement, then just as suddenly you're back boring all and sundry
again. Not for nothing do you call yourself Air Judden. Let me guess -
this off-season you're going to try to de-certify the Net?

---------------------------------------------------------
| Simon Damon Stoudamire: best rookie under 30
| Cushing We got the wrong Spoon fan back

[Air Judden]

Background (for you who have recently joined our telecast): A while back
the discussion of the greatness of Wilt Chamberlain was tossed out
for discussion. Ed Lor-yer (Loryer for his aimless argumentive nature)
proceeded to rip Wilt. Amoung the points he argued was that Wilt
failed to dominated the Laker's back-up center in game #5 of the
1970 playoffs (and he put "(Barnett?)").

I proceeded to thrash Mr. Loryer on many a point. First of all, he
showed his lack of knowledge of the 1970 playoffs and especially the
Knicks when he asked the question of if Barnett was the Knicks back
up center. I compared this to someone slamming the Bulls and asking
if Rodman was a back-up point guard. For those of you who don't
know, Dick Barnett was the starting GUARD and the 3rd leading scorer
during the regular season. I also pointed out that Wilt wasn't
going up against the back-up center. This showed us that Ed Loryer
had a stat book in front him and was clueless about game #5. Since
then, he's tried his vintage Ed Loryer arguments, claiming to know
more than guys who actually PLAYED in the game (saying they have
foggy memories) and claimed that Wilt should score against double
and triple teams while his teammates miss open shots (yeah, that's
a really good strategy). So, after going home, I brought up my
supply of books and I'm now going to slap Ed Loryer silly. When I
show that his slams on Chamberlain were spoken from the voice of
ignorance, I'll then wipe out his claim that I said Barnett was in
the hall of fame.

Point #1: Wilt failed to dominate the back-up center.

I quote from Red Holzman (source #1, p. 103): "I put Nate Bowman to re-
place Willis Reed {Note: Hey Ed, Bowman was the back-up center, BTW},
but the Lakers went again and again to Wilt, who scored seven of L.A.'s
next 12 points. With their lead 37-24, I replaced Bowman with Bill
Hosket, but that didn't help too much."

Gee Ed, sounds like Wilt was dominating the back-up centers, no?
(BTW, Hoskett was 3rd string center. NOT Barnett)

So what DID the Knicks do to stop Wilt in the 2nd half? Since anything I
say, Ed will respond with "Liar Liar pants of fire", let's go talk to the
others:

Let's ask Wilt Chamberlain, the man in question (pp. 234-5) "Our
coache's strategy didn't do much for us in that second half, either...
In the first half, I'd hit seven of nine field goals and had 18 points
and 12 rebounds. With Reed out in the second half, the logical
thing to do was get the ball into me. The Knicks had a couple of
forwards, 6 foot 6 Dave DeBusschere and 6 foot 7 Dave Stallworth
alternating on me, {Gee Ed, what happened to that back-up center
that Wilt failed to dominate? Don't tell me you screwed up? I
said they ran a 3 forward set at them...I don't suppose I KNEW what
I was talking about, did I?}, and neither one of them could possibly
contain me. DeBusschere is a great forward, but I've got seven
inches and 50 pounds on him; there's no way he's going to stop me--
unless my teammates don't get the ball to me in a good position to
shoot. That's exactly what happened. They either held on to the ball
or shot it themselves or let the Knicks pick off the bad passes. When
they did get it to me, I was in bad position--which was my fault as
well as theirs. I hit on two of the three bad shots I took in the
second half...
"In the Sixth game, I decided I'd had enough of being a passer
and feeder. If we were going to win, I had to score. I hit 20 of 27
from the floor, scored 45 points and pulled down 27 rebounds."

No doubt, Ed Loryer will claim Wilt is blaming everyone else, so let's go
ask Walt Frazier:

Frazier (source #1: pp 223-24): "They should have buried us in the
second half...But they kept being overcautious and we kept coming
back...We pressured the passers and kept them from getting the ball
into Wilt, who was being guarded by comparitive midgets, DeBusschere
and Stallworth. By the end of the third quarter, aided by nine
Laker turnovers, we had cut the margin to seven points.
..."With a swarming, gambling, defense we caught up with them
and won the game going away 107 to 100. Our press helped considerably.
The Lakers didn't know what to do. If they did get through the press
they kept trying to go to Wilt and we kept picking off the passes.
We stole the ball from them eight times in the fourth period. I stole
it three times in the last 12 minutes."

If you've read Ed Loryers recent round of venom, he claims that I say the
Knicks offense caused Chamberlain's problems on when the Lakers had the
ball. In fact, I said the "swarmed" Chamberlain and the other Lakers
refused to take open shots. Ed knows this, because he then said Wilt should
have taken on the double and triple teams (as I said earlier). 17 turnovers
in the 2nd half, 30 for the game. Gee Ed, that sure was Wilt's fault.

Let's talk to Wilt again: (page 234): "We played a little conservatively
and it killed us. New York got psyched up, and went crazy. Jerry,
who'd averaged 34.5 points for the first four games, took only two
shots--and missed both of them--in the second half. As a team, we
took only 26 shots in the second half. New York had a smaller,
gambling team in there, and the more they harassed us, the worse
we played. We had 30 turnovers!"

Ed Loryer has said that I can't trust what I read, because they have
foggy memories. Well, Frazier's book (source #1...I have 2 books by him)
was written in 1970. Yeah Ed, he sure forgot a lot! Wilt's was written
in 1974. Bill Bradley's was written in 1976. Frazier's 2nd book was
written in 1988 and Holzman's in 1987. Funny thing is, these books ALL
agree!

Now, since I can read Ed's mind (and I've demonstrated it), he's no doubt
going to bring up game #6 and Wilt's 45 points. Let's examine it. First
of all, the Knicks went out on the court with Nate Bowman. According to
Ed Loryer, this guy shut down Wilt. But I demonstrated otherwise earlier.
Since Ed doesn't believe me (actually, I think when he's deperate, he falls
back on "Liar Liar pants on fire", so let's look at Phil Berger's "Miracle
on 33rd street":

Next Source: Phil Berger (p. 236): "When the team went onto the floor,
{of game #6}, Bradley and Holzman stayed behind. Bradley tried to
convince the coach to use the linuep that had worked in the 5th game.
He couldn't do it, said a teammate. He told us, "I couldn't talk to
him."

Ed will probably say "what position did he play?" I'll say he knows far
more about this than you Ed. He knows that Wilt DID dominate the back-up
center and he knows that Dick Barnett is a guard.

The Lakers had time to prepare for the Knicks' game plan and this time, they
ate it up. I will now quote Bob Spitz from "Shoot out the Lights:"

Spitz (p. 287): "It was immediately obvious that not Bowman, Hosket,
DeBusschere, or Stallworth could replace Reed. With Willis watching
from the bench, the Lakers came out blasting, as they'd done before
after suffering embarrassing defeats. Chamberlain was a beast, he was
uncontrollable. West was annoyingly accurate. And little Dickie
Garrett, the rookie who couldn't bring the ball up the floor against
Frazier, hit his first eight shots in a row. Well, when Chamberlain
and West were on, it signaled danger, but when Garrett ran the floor
and played like an all-star, it was time to throw your hands up
in surrender."

Ed has questioned Spitz' credability. Once again, he surely knows more
than Ed. Furthermore, he sites over 50 books in the bibliography, including
books by Reed, Frazier (3 of them), Holzman (5 books), Chamberlain,
Bradley, DeBusschere, even Marv Albert (Knicks ball boy). Willis Reed
said (about the book) "It brought back all those great memories in
breathtaking detail."
One last slap on Ed about Wilt not dominating back-up centers...

Next source: Walt Frazier (source #1 p. 224): "While the most valu-
able player in the NBA sat on our bench in street clothes {in game #6},
Chamberlain went wild: 45 points and 27 rebounds...Bowman, Hosket,
and DeBusschere couldn't stop him."

Also, Frazier says (Source #2, p. 241): "We'd lost the element of
suprise. The Lakers had had time to regroup and figure out how to
run their plays against us. Wilt got 45 points and 27 rebounds and
passed off to when he should for easy buckets by West and Dickie
Garrett. We were never in it at all."

And because I like to kick a guy while he's down, let's see what Frazier
has to say about Wilt in game #5. Remember, Ed says Wilt failed to
dominate the back-up centers (and implied that he choked):

Frazier (source #2: p. 236) "Everybody said it was Wilt's fault.
Chamberlain shoule have scored 100 against us. He should have wiped
up the court with Bowman and Hosket and DeBusschere and Stallworth.
He should've gone to the hoop more or should've passed more. He
should've won the game for the Lakers and he didn't. He had lost
another one, another big one. The press always blamed Wilt because
a lot of writers didn't like him."

Gee Ed, seems like I'm not the only one who thinks you are a farce. Now
that we see the facts, it's obvious what REALLY happened and why Ed Loryer
doesn't know what he's talking about. He gets a stat-book out and doesn't
understand the deeper meaning of the numbers he's looking at.

point #2: Ed says first of all that Wilt failed to dominate a "Reed-less"
Knick team in game #7. Well, I bashed him pretty hard for his
ignorance on this point. Willis indeed played. His hobbling out on
the court is in the annals of NBA folklore. It's certainly the most
famous game in Knicks' history and probably the most memorable game
#7 in finals' history. Ed has tried to justify what Reedless means
and I leave him to fight his own way out of that quicksand (My favorite
is he was using "Mudden logic"...gee Ed, I thought my opinion meant
NOTHING to you, and now you "copy" me?). I pointed out that Reed
played 27 minutes in that game. Ed slammed Wilt for not taking on
an injured man. I pointed out that Wilt was barely a month in his
comback from knee surgery and wasn't particularly mobile. I pointed
out that Reed was there to muscle Wilt and keep him off the blocks.
While not as strong as Wilt, Willis was a buff man himself and had
far more to offer than the others. Ed says this was my opinion (vin-
tage Ed) and I was covering my rear:

Alright Ed, go to the game. I have part of the game on tape. If you
watch ESPN enough, they play this game frequently on the "greatest
games" show. Wilt missed a fingerroll and the announcer said some-
thing very close to "And Wilt took that fingerroll farther out than
he's accustomed to. Willis is stronger than the centers he's been
going up against." Gee Ed, what could that mean? Guess those
announcers have foggy memories too, while they are viewing it live? Or
is that just their opinion and is no match for you?

One other thing, Ed said the emotional lift that Willis supposedly
gave the team and the crowd was overrated (not his exact words, but
the gist is still the same) and even mocked Red Holzman for using a
"win one for the gipper" (Gee Ed, Holzman did tell them to win it
for Willis in Game 5 and they did).

These quotes will analyze the non-existant emotional boost, Willis'
contribution and Wilt's "poor" game:

Let's ask Wilt about Game #7: "Reed wasn't supposed to play, and when
he came limping out on the court and started warming up with the Knicks,
the fans went berserk. When he hit the first two baskets of the game,
I thought they were going to tear the building down, right then and
there. That gave New York and incredible emotional lift. But neither
that nor Reed beat us. Willis didn't score again the rest of the
game, and he only got three rebounds; I had 21 points and 24 rebounds.
But I missed 10 of 11 free throws, and the other Lakers only got the
ball in to me often enough for me to take 16 shots (I made 10) from
the floor...I have to give credit to the Knicks though. They didn't
just stand around waiting for destiny to hand them that championship.
They hustled all the way, and they played brilliant defense, and they
used their great poise and balance and precision passing to find the
open man every time on offense. Their coach, Red Holzman, is the best
in basketball, and their leader, Walt Frazier, is a superb clutch
player. He whipped Jerry's *** that night--as he often does. Walt
got 36 points and 19 assists (an all-time playoff record!), and he
must have stolen the ball right out of Jerry's hands five or six times
in the first half alone. But the papers somehow forgot to mention
who won that particular duel; all they talked about was how poor,
crippled Willis Reed "beat" Wilt Chamberlain." (p.236)

I pointed out to Ed Loryer that West had more to do with the game 7 loss
than Wilt, but I also pointed out that I don't think any team in history
(except Dream Team) could have beaten them that night.
What did Frazier say about Willis' contribution that night?

Frazier (source #2, p. 242, 245) "Before we walked out on the floor,
Bradley spoke quietly to Willis and asked him to 'just give us a half.
That's all we need.' He was right. Half of Willis Reed was more than
100 percent of anybody else we cold put out there on the court."
{After hitting his 2nd shot, and the crowd went crazy} Willis
didn't score another point point the rest of the night. He didn't even
get many rebounds for us. For most of the time he stayed in there, we
used him to set picks and screens and to get between Wilt and the
boards. We didn't need him for anything else. He'd turned us on."

Spits says (pp 297-8) "...Wilt ought to be able to wheel around him
without so much as lifting a finger being raised to obstruct his
drive. Reed couldn't run, or jump an inch, but somehow, during his
twenty-seven minutes of play, he blocked Chamberlain's route to the
hoop; he just stopped the big guy cold--and that was all the Knicks
really needed from him."

Holzman says (p. 107) Willis Reed was the big story, not for what
he did but for how he lifted the and inspired an entire team. He
played 27 minutes and scored only four points, but his being able to
play enabled us to have a guy push Chamberlain out of position a little
bit, and, more important, to take another four fouls at the center
position...The psychological effect of what Willis did
overshadowed others' achievements. Willis was tremendous, but what
Walt Frazier did paid the rent..."

What else did Clyde say about the Lakers in game #7? (source #1,
pp. 228-9) "We knew we had to help out Willis by sagging more than
usual on Chamberlain. L.A. helped us sometimes by standing around.
When they passed into Wilt they didn't cut around him or break
straight to the hoop. They just stood there, giving us golden
opportunities to double-team the big man. Willis was operating with
only one sound leg and had little mobility, but Wilt couldn't take
much advantage, apparently because he was afraid to put the ball
down on the dribble. One or two Knicks were usually waiting down
there by his ankles."

Yeah Ed, all Wilt's fault. Like I said, you didn't know what you were
talking about. Like so many of Wilt's detractors you have selective
vision and don't look at the big picture. Don't argue with Judden. Judden
is good. Judden is wise.

Now that I've made Ed look like Rocky Balboa in the first movie, if he has
any sense, he'll just fess up and confess that his accusations about
the Big Dipper were unfounded and he was ignorant to dispute me. I don't
get my ideas from a stat book. I go by who was there.
Now if Ed goes true to form, he'll totally ignore this and go to
something else. For example.

Point #3) Ed claims that I said Dick Barnett is in the hall of fame. I
believe my quote was something like "Let's look at the runner-ups
that year (1972): Reed, DeBusschere, Bradley, Frazier, Monroe, Lucas,
and Barnett...six, count em SIX hall of famers."
Ed, being Ed, tries to use this to say that I claim Barnett is in
the hall of fame. He discounts Reed because he didn't play on the
Knicks playoff team. He tries to add to my words and claim that the
player has to be "on the court", even though I didn't say that when
mentioning this team. He tried his best cut and paste to make it
appear like that, but he failed miserably. He says that if you don't
play on the playoff team, then you aren't on the team (gee, who did
Willis play for then? The Royals--a non-playoff team?) Well, Ed
Loryer is once again wrong. Since he loves to quote from the Sporting
News NBA guide. I decided to take a look. Children, if you have
your guides, turn to the 1969-70 year and look at the picture entitled
"1969-70 NBA Champion New York Knickerbockers". If you dont' have
TSN guide, don't feel bad. The same picture is in Holzman's book
(except it says "World Champions 1969-70 New York Knickerbockers"
See that guy in the upper left hand corner? That tall guy with
broad shoulders and a mustache? That is Phil Jackson (yes, youngins,
same guy who coaches the Bulls--ironic, no?) He was a memember of
the "1969-70 NBA Champion New York Knickerbockers"...and do you know
how many playoff games he played in? Zero. Do you know how many
regular season games he played in? Zero! Ooops, looks like you're
wrong AGAIN, Ed. There are 13 players in that picture. Playoff
roster only allows 12, right? Did you see the 1971-72 Lakers Champion
picture? There are 17 players in it. So Ed, Willis WAS a memember
of the 1971-72 runner up Knicks and he is in the hall of fame. No
matter how much you twist my words, the truth will always come back
and slap you in the face.

Face facts. I knew the status and position of Dick Barnett, you did
not.

Onto this illegal defense, here's the quote...chew on it:

Spitz (p. 285-6): "The one-three-one was a college type of offense
designed to draw out a big, imposing center so that the rest of the
team could get off their shots...It was risky, inasmuch as it was
illegal to play a zone--in this case, a zone offense--but the Knicks
had practiced it on several occasions and felt they pull it off
without getting caught.
As luck would have it, the Knicks came out in the third
quarter and played a picture-perfect one-three-one offense that
went right over the refs' heads. For some reason, Mendy Rudolph
and Ed Rush refused to call the zone, despite wild protests from
West and Mullaney."

Like I said, Ed, the guy cites over 50 books in reference. He did his
homework...far more than you did: Mr. Barnett a back-up center?

One last slap in your face. You said that my claim that Willis was
"playing himself back into shape" in 1972-73 was an attempt to
cover my rear. Well, let's see what Bill Bradley said, you know,
Willis TEAMMATE.

Bradley (p. 73-74) "It took him {Reed} most of the year to get back
a modicum of timing. His quickness was gone forever. With his
knowledge of the game and his sheer physical bulk, Willis helped
us sporadically during the 1972-73 regular season. Slowly, he
began to try the old moves and rebound without fear of injury. A
touch of the old Willis returned in the final play-off series
against Los Angeles, when he out-hustled and out-shot Wilt
Chamberlain and we won our second championship. The comeback year
had a glorious ending."

So Ed, when I referred to the old Willis
not being there, seems Bill agrees. He played himself back into
shape and kicked butt in the finals. The playoff stats are for the
entire playoffs. He was at peak form at seasons' end. OUCH!

These last few points were loose ends. When the dust settles, Ed's
claims about Wilt Chamberlain were false and he did not know what he was
talking about. He can spin it anyway he wants, but the facts defeat him.

Sources:

Red on Red, by Red Holzman and Harvey Frommer
The Walt Frazier Story: Clyde, by Walt Frazier and Joe Jares (source #1).
Walt Frazier: One magic season and a Basketball life, by Walt Frazier with
Neil Offen (source #2)
Life on the Run, Bill Bradley
Miracle on 33rd Street--the N.Y. Knickerbockers' championship season, by
Phil Berger
Shoot out the lights--the Amazing, improbable, exhilirating saga of the
1969-70 Knicks. By Bob Spitz
Wilt--Just like any other 7-foot black millionaire who lives next door, by
Wilt Chamberlain and David Shaw.

[Air Judden]

judd...@ksu.ksu.edu (Air Judden) writes:

> Spitz (p. 287): "It was immediately obvious that not Bowman, Hosket,
> DeBusschere, or Stallworth could replace Reed. With Willis watching

typo on my behalf....it read "could NOT replace.."

>
> So Ed, when I referred to the old Willis
> not being there, seems Bill agrees. He played himself back into
> shape and kicked butt in the finals. The playoff stats are for the
> entire playoffs. He was at peak form at seasons' end. OUCH!

and "not being there" is a figure of speech. I'm sure Ed will try
to focus on this, but this whole thing sprouted from his desperated attempt
to cover up his ignorance about his Chamberlain comments, which I'm sure
he won't defend. Define an argument anyway you want Eddie-baby, but I achieved
the goal I set out to do: Defend the Dipper from slimy little ignorant
mud-slingers such as yourself. I did it to Josh in the "Kareem is better
than Wilt" thread and you're just the latest in a long line of notches in my
bazooka. Argue the English language and argue what 2 of 12 really is and
if "fanthom" is a word or not, or what "Reedless" means, but dis the Dipper
and I will lay my vengeance upon thee again. Wilt Chamberlain is off limits
to you young man -- now go to your room.

Judden
using Ed Loryer like a rental car.

[Eric Bin]

judd...@ksu.ksu.edu (Air Judden) writes:

> I'm following my namesake :)

> Actually, If I didn't tell ya (I've mentioned it a few times), after
>I went home, I accepted a research project for the summer. I had no plans
>of logging on, but it's went kind of slow and I was bored, and well, once
>I'm on, I gotta crow. Sorry for the mis-direction, but come early August,
>I'll be out of your hair again.

>Peace
>Judden

I was wondering why I saw posts with your name on them. I thought they
were just posts that were lagging or temporarily lost in the space-time
continuum.

Anyways, Judd, Longley is abusing Perkins and treating him like he was Spoon.

Eric
President of the Unofficial Luc Longley Internet Fan Club

[Air Judden]

cus...@mizar.usc.edu (Simon S.C. Cushing) writes:

>First you schedule the r.s.b.pro equivalent of a news conference announcing
>your retirement, then just as suddenly you're back boring all and sundry
>again. Not for nothing do you call yourself Air Judden. Let me guess -
>this off-season you're going to try to de-certify the Net?

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4pl7p6$s...@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu>,

Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>Amoung the points he argued was that Wilt
> failed to dominated the Laker's back-up center in game #5 of the
> 1970 playoffs (and he put "(Barnett?)").

Dumbo, you lied again. I wasn't sure who the backup center was, that's why
I asked "was it Dick Barnett".

> I proceeded to thrash Mr. Loryer on many a point. First of all, he
> showed his lack of knowledge of the 1970 playoffs and especially the
> Knicks when he asked the question of if Barnett was the Knicks back
> up center.

But Mudden, the Knick backup center's identity was irrelevant. The truth
is that Wilt couldn't dominate games 5 & 7 once Willis got hurt. Are you
going to deny this?

>I compared this to someone slamming the Bulls and asking
> if Rodman was a back-up point guard.

Or if Jordan is hurt, Payton couldn't dominate his back-up from the bench.
Are you saying that it wasn't Payton's fault then?

>For those of you who don't
> know, Dick Barnett was the starting GUARD and the 3rd leading scorer
> during the regular season. I also pointed out that Wilt wasn't
> going up against the back-up center. This showed us that Ed Loryer
> had a stat book in front him and was clueless about game #5.

or you are clueless in the defense of Wilt. Ask Holzman, he used
DeBusshere as the back-up center in the 2nd half. Then why don't
you tell us how effective Wilt was? What's that? 4 points in the 2nd
half?

>claimed that Wilt should score against double
> and triple teams while his teammates miss open shots (yeah, that's
> a really good strategy).

yeah, and according to Bob Spitz, that's due to the Knicks' illegal offense.
Really good strategy for the Knicks: use an offense to stop Wilt and West
from scoring...

>So, after going home, I brought up my
> supply of books and I'm now going to slap Ed Loryer silly.

Yeah? and are you ready to be slapped silly again?

> [ testimonies on game 5 ]

>
> If you've read Ed Loryers recent round of venom, he claims that I say the
> Knicks offense caused Chamberlain's problems on when the Lakers had the
> ball. In fact, I said the "swarmed" Chamberlain and the other Lakers
> refused to take open shots. Ed knows this, because he then said Wilt should
> have taken on the double and triple teams (as I said earlier). 17 turnovers
> in the 2nd half, 30 for the game. Gee Ed, that sure was Wilt's fault.

Sure is, when a 7'1" giant whom you rant and rave couldn't even beat a
6'6" Dave Debushere, what did you say about Wilt? Are you saying that it's
the first time in Wilt's career that he saw double teams or guarded by
a faster guy?

> [ Wilt's own testimony ]

>
> Ed Loryer has said that I can't trust what I read, because they have
> foggy memories. Well, Frazier's book (source #1...I have 2 books by him)
> was written in 1970. Yeah Ed, he sure forgot a lot! Wilt's was written
> in 1974. Bill Bradley's was written in 1976. Frazier's 2nd book was
> written in 1988 and Holzman's in 1987. Funny thing is, these books ALL
> agree!

Funny thing. Do you think Wilt wasn't responsible for any of the turnovers?
According to Holzman, in "My Unforgetable Season" (pg 266):

"We neutralized the Wilt mismatch by stealing those passes that weren't
too tough for him to handle"

Oh, no, such testimony must not have existed in your feeble mind since you
didn't list this book as reference. Mudden boy, you didn't read enough books
about the Knicks...

So, you mean Wilt was faultless in the 2nd half that the Knicks rallied? Geez,
it must have been all his teammates' fault. Afterall, if you like a
player, you can always paint a picture that it's his teammates' fault
(like you did with Oscar), especially if his game stats look good, you
can always blame a pass that didn't connect on the passer...

> [ more testimonies ]

> Ed has questioned Spitz' credability. Once again, he surely knows more
> than Ed. Furthermore, he sites over 50 books in the bibliography, including
> books by Reed, Frazier (3 of them), Holzman (5 books), Chamberlain,
> Bradley, DeBusschere, even Marv Albert (Knicks ball boy).

Yet you still can't identify the one that has players testimonies that they
ran an illegal offense. I wonder why...

>Willis Reed
> said (about the book) "It brought back all those great memories in
> breathtaking detail."
> One last slap on Ed about Wilt not dominating back-up centers...

Well, let's see in game 7. Wilt played 48 minutes, Willis played 27 minutes.
Bowman played 21 minutes. And what did Wilt do? took only 16
shots, went 1-11 on the line. Holzman even said in "Red on Red" (pg. 109)

"Chamberlain did many things, but we knew foul shooting was not his
strength and we capitalized on it. Wilt grabbed 24 rebounds in the
game and scored 21 points but was 1-11 from the foul line. That
was a very, very important factor in our win."

So, by stinking at the line, Wilt became a liability in the low post ...

> Next source: Walt Frazier (source #1 p. 224): "While the most valu-
> able player in the NBA sat on our bench in street clothes {in game #6},
> Chamberlain went wild: 45 points and 27 rebounds...Bowman, Hosket,
> and DeBusschere couldn't stop him."

Or did Walt Frazier say anything about Wilt's domination in game 7 when
he played 21 minutes against the backups, and 27 minutes against a hobbled
Reed? or is there any testimonies that Wilt was flawless in the losses
in games 5 and 7? you care to show us?

> [ Frazier on Wilt in game 7 ]

> Gee Ed, seems like I'm not the only one who thinks you are a farce. Now

Geez, Mudd, seems like Frazier wasn't even defending Wilt, was he? Did
he say anything that the criticism was unjustified?

> that we see the facts, it's obvious what REALLY happened and why Ed Loryer
> doesn't know what he's talking about.

Or Mudd was trying to paint a picture that Wilt was blameless when Frazier
wasn't even saying that.

>He gets a stat-book out and doesn't
> understand the deeper meaning of the numbers he's looking at.

Mudd, the worse thing is that you don't even have a stat book, thus you
know nothing about the truth except what you read on the non-stat books...

>point #2: Ed says first of all that Wilt failed to dominate a "Reed-less"
> Knick team in game #7. Well, I bashed him pretty hard for his
> ignorance on this point. Willis indeed played. His hobbling out on
> the court is in the annals of NBA folklore.

And why can't I consider it Reed-less? He was hobbling bad. You consider
the Knicks were "without his service for most of the season" even
though he played in 69 games in 1973, and by your own account: "playing
back to shape". Geez, if playing healthy is "without him", then what
do you say about the time when he was still injured and immobile?

>It's certainly the most
> famous game in Knicks' history and probably the most memorable game
> #7 in finals' history. Ed has tried to justify what Reedless means
> and I leave him to fight his own way out of that quicksand (My favorite
> is he was using "Mudden logic"...

Exactly. I consider the Knicks were without Reed when he was hobbling bad.
It's still better than your "without his service" in 1973 when his was
playing healthy.

>gee Ed, I thought my opinion meant NOTHING to you, and now you "copy" me?).

It meant nothing, but it still can be used to shoot your own argument,
i.e. prove your inconsistency.

>I pointed out that Reed
> played 27 minutes in that game. Ed slammed Wilt for not taking on
> an injured man. I pointed out that Wilt was barely a month in his
> comback from knee surgery and wasn't particularly mobile.

Was Wilt in full strength in that game? he played 48 mintues. He
played 21 minutes against Bowman. Oh, maybe that's why he went 1-11 on
the foul line...

>I pointed
> out that Reed was there to muscle Wilt and keep him off the blocks.
> While not as strong as Wilt, Willis was a buff man himself and had
> far more to offer than the others. Ed says this was my opinion (vin-
> tage Ed) and I was covering my rear:
>
> Alright Ed, go to the game. I have part of the game on tape. If you
> watch ESPN enough, they play this game frequently on the "greatest
> games" show. Wilt missed a fingerroll and the announcer said some-
> thing very close to "And Wilt took that fingerroll farther out than
> he's accustomed to. Willis is stronger than the centers he's been
> going up against." Gee Ed, what could that mean? Guess those
> announcers have foggy memories too, while they are viewing it live? Or
> is that just their opinion and is no match for you?

Yes, I guess so, so Wilt was playing an immobile object and he had to
take his fingerrool farther out that he's accustomed to? Geez, a
great player is one who can take advantage of mismatches. Was Wilt?

> One other thing, Ed said the emotional lift that Willis supposedly
> gave the team and the crowd was overrated (not his exact words, but
> the gist is still the same) and even mocked Red Holzman for using a
> "win one for the gipper" (Gee Ed, Holzman did tell them to win it
> for Willis in Game 5 and they did).

Yes, and if the Lakers were suspectible to such emotion lift, what did
it say about Wilt as an emotional leader? Didn't see that Isiah's emotional
lift worked in the 1988 game 7, or Magic's emotional lift worked in 1989
game 3 ...

> Let's ask Wilt about Game #7: "Reed wasn't supposed to play, and when
> he came limping out on the court and started warming up with the Knicks,
> the fans went berserk. When he hit the first two baskets of the game,
> I thought they were going to tear the building down, right then and
> there. That gave New York and incredible emotional lift.

More nonsense. An injured player is a double edge sword. When it works,
it's an emotional lift. When it doesn't work, he's hurting the team. I tend
to think that teams at the championship level is less suspectible in emtion,
i.e. injuries would hurt more than help. Geez, do you think the Knicks
would have lied down like dogs had Willis didn't give them that "emotional lift"?

>But neither
> that nor Reed beat us. Willis didn't score again the rest of the
> game, and he only got three rebounds; I had 21 points and 24 rebounds.
> But I missed 10 of 11 free throws, and the other Lakers only got the
> ball in to me often enough for me to take 16 shots (I made 10) from
> the floor...

Yes, same old Wilt self-promotion... 10/16 is a good number for someone
who played against a hobbled starter and his back-up ....

> They hustled all the way, and they played brilliant defense, and they
> used their great poise and balance and precision passing to find the
> open man every time on offense.

And so the Knicks hustled? Did Wilt hustle too?

>Their coach, Red Holzman, is the best
> in basketball, and their leader, Walt Frazier, is a superb clutch
> player. He whipped Jerry's *** that night--as he often does. Walt
> got 36 points and 19 assists (an all-time playoff record!), and he
> must have stolen the ball right out of Jerry's hands five or six times
> in the first half alone. But the papers somehow forgot to mention
> who won that particular duel; all they talked about was how poor,
> crippled Willis Reed "beat" Wilt Chamberlain." (p.236)

Yep, because if Wilt played against a hobbled Willis, it's his job to
explore this mismatch and dominate the game. For one, he missed
10 FTs. For two, he couldn't handle easy passes. Maybe that's why his
teammates were scared to go to him because he would be a low-post liability.

> I pointed out to Ed Loryer that West had more to do with the game 7 loss
> than Wilt, but I also pointed out that I don't think any team in history
> (except Dream Team) could have beaten them that night.

But Dumbo, you only look at stats one way. You don't look at it another way:
failure to rise to the occasions, especially when you see a 10-16 in FG,
you think it's a fault-less game. Geez, if Jordan plays against a hobbled
opponent and his team needs him, would he just attempt 16 FGs? Of course, if
he's on the line 11 times, he wouldn't have missed 10...

> What did Frazier say about Willis' contribution that night?
>
> Frazier (source #2, p. 242, 245) "Before we walked out on the floor,
> Bradley spoke quietly to Willis and asked him to 'just give us a half.
> That's all we need.' He was right. Half of Willis Reed was more than
> 100 percent of anybody else we cold put out there on the court."

Yet Wilt couldn't even take advantage of this 50% Willis, which I doubt
Willis was even that in that game.

> Holzman says (p. 107) Willis Reed was the big story, not for what
> he did but for how he lifted the and inspired an entire team. He
> played 27 minutes and scored only four points, but his being able to
> play enabled us to have a guy push Chamberlain out of position a little
> bit, and, more important, to take another four fouls at the center
> position...The psychological effect of what Willis did
> overshadowed others' achievements. Willis was tremendous, but what
> Walt Frazier did paid the rent..."

Geez, you didn't mention Holzman's comments on Wilt in "Red on Red", I
wonder why...

>Willis was operating with
> only one sound leg and had little mobility, but Wilt couldn't take

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> much advantage, apparently because he was afraid to put the ball

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> down on the dribble. One or two Knicks were usually waiting down
> there by his ankles."
>
> Yeah Ed, all Wilt's fault. Like I said, you didn't know what you were
> talking about.

Or Mudd, you didn't know what you are talking about. You gave accounts of
the game, yet you try to paint a picture that Wilt was not at fault. Geez,
I smell such bias a long time ago...

>Like so many of Wilt's detractors you have selective
> vision and don't look at the big picture. Don't argue with Judden. Judden
> is good. Judden is wise.

Or like Wilt himself, you are trying to shift the fault of two embarrassing
loss to others. Geez, don't stay in school. You should have work as his
publicist....

> Now that I've made Ed look like Rocky Balboa in the first movie, if he has
> any sense, he'll just fess up and confess that his accusations about
> the Big Dipper were unfounded and he was ignorant to dispute me.

Geez, Mudd, you should have known that the picture you paint is no more
different from Wilt's, that you try to paint a misleading picture, by
shifting the fault of the losses to his teammates. What's new?

> Ed, being Ed, tries to use this to say that I claim Barnett is in
> the hall of fame. He discounts Reed because he didn't play on the
> Knicks playoff team.

Well, Mudd, Reed didn't play much in the 1972 regular season team either.
How you have nerve to include him in the runner-up is beyond me...

>He tries to add to my words and claim that the
> player has to be "on the court", even though I didn't say that when
> mentioning this team. He tried his best cut and paste to make it
> appear like that, but he failed miserably. He says that if you don't
> play on the playoff team, then you aren't on the team (gee, who did
> Willis play for then?

No team. He was on IR and not allowed to play... Who did Brad Daugherty
play for in the past 2 years? Can't name any other team? are you so stupid
that then he must be playing for the Cavs?

>Well, Ed
> Loryer is once again wrong. Since he loves to quote from the Sporting
> News NBA guide. I decided to take a look. Children, if you have
> your guides, turn to the 1969-70 year and look at the picture entitled
> "1969-70 NBA Champion New York Knickerbockers". If you dont' have
> TSN guide, don't feel bad. The same picture is in Holzman's book
> (except it says "World Champions 1969-70 New York Knickerbockers"
> See that guy in the upper left hand corner? That tall guy with
> broad shoulders and a mustache? That is Phil Jackson (yes, youngins,
> same guy who coaches the Bulls--ironic, no?) He was a memember of
> the "1969-70 NBA Champion New York Knickerbockers"...and do you know
> how many playoff games he played in? Zero. Do you know how many
> regular season games he played in? Zero! Ooops, looks like you're
> wrong AGAIN, Ed.

Wow, Mudden you dare to use official NBA books to argue. I think that's
out of your league, and it really shows. You care to take a look at the
NBA Register? Look under "Coaches". Look at Phil Jackson.

Miscellaneous: Member of NBA championship team (1973).

So, Phil wasn't officially a member of the 1970 championship team. You
lied again. See, using facts is not your forte, better resort to bold claims
and bias opinions ...

>So Ed, Willis WAS a memember
> of the 1971-72 runner up Knicks and he is in the hall of fame. No
> matter how much you twist my words, the truth will always come back
> and slap you in the face.

Mudd, no matter how many pictures you try to show (taken during the
regular season), you still have no proof that Willis was part of the
1972 runner-up team. He was injured early in the regular season, he was
on IR during the playoffs. In other words, you only had 6 Knick players
from the 1972 runner-up to compare talents vs the 1996 Bulls: Monroe,
Lucas, Frazier, DeBusshere, Bradley, and Barnett.

> Face facts. I knew the status and position of Dick Barnett, you did
> not.

Face facts, you didn't know that Willis wasn't there in 1972, and was
there in 1973, no matter how you twist it....

> Onto this illegal defense, here's the quote...chew on it:
>
> Spitz (p. 285-6): "The one-three-one was a college type of offense
> designed to draw out a big, imposing center so that the rest of the
> team could get off their shots...It was risky, inasmuch as it was
> illegal to play a zone--in this case, a zone offense--but the Knicks
> had practiced it on several occasions and felt they pull it off
> without getting caught.
> As luck would have it, the Knicks came out in the third
> quarter and played a picture-perfect one-three-one offense that
> went right over the refs' heads. For some reason, Mendy Rudolph
> and Ed Rush refused to call the zone, despite wild protests from
> West and Mullaney."

Well, Mudden, you deliberately leave out the three statements, when Spitz
mentioned the effect of the zone offense on the Lakers' game. Why is that?

> Like I said, Ed, the guy cites over 50 books in reference.

Yes, and since you know about the 1970 Knicks, you care to cite the
other references that support that "illegal offense" claim? Nope? you
still haven't done it yet? Then I'll file it as hot air. Since you
have NO testimony from any players whatsoever supporting that claim (which
you concurred and put up as a fact on the net).

>He did his
> homework...far more than you did:

Yes, I am sure that you can trace back where he did his homework, since
you have so many BOOKS. For starter, show us the players' testimonies that
they ran an illegal offense. You claimed to have it, yet you aren't able to
show it....

Does it mean you lied about it?

> One last slap in your face.

Do you slap yourself good? Hey, don't be too harsh to yourself....

>You said that my claim that Willis was
> "playing himself back into shape" in 1972-73 was an attempt to
> cover my rear.

Mudd, you claimed that the Knicks was "without his service". The last
I checked, who disqualifies "playing himself back into shape" as "service"?
The last I checked in baseball and football, "playing" qualifies as "service".
Now tell me why basketball needs another qualification: "playing
effectively"...

> [ Bradley's testimony ]

> So Ed, when I referred to the old Willis not being there, seems Bill agrees.

Well, doesn't seem like it to me. How did Bill agree with you that Willis
wasn't there? He claimed that Willis played. And in fact, he played in
69 games.

Now since you claim that a player who playing back to shape as "wasn't
there", what do you say about a player who's still injured and immobile?

Besides, Willis himself certainly disagreed with you. He said, in his
book "A Will to Win, the Comeback Year" (pg 80), on the regular season.

"I was feeling better all the time. I may not have been the Willis Reed
the fans at the Garden remembered...before the 1969-70 season. But there
were many good moments. The doctors were enthusiastic about my progress
and I felt I was contributing more to the success of the team".

on page 85:

"I only played in sixty-nine games, and sometimes Red just used me in
spots, but I think I helped the club".

OH, I forget, you didn't list this reference. So in other words, so Willis'
opinion on himself about the 1973 regular season must not have existed...

> These last few points were loose ends. When the dust settles, Ed's
>claims about Wilt Chamberlain were false and he did not know what he was
>talking about. He can spin it anyway he wants, but the facts defeat him.

These last few points are the lies you put up that you can't defend,
where Wilt's contribution in games 5 and 7 are disputable. You tried
to paint a fault-less picture for Wilt, which couldn't stand up a challegne.

What nerve you have to use some testimonies of game 7 as Wilt's defense,
while having no support whatsoever that he was fault-less. How convenient
that you didn't mention what Holzman said about the big factor in "Red on
Red"....

--
Edward Lor
l...@mtdcc.ATT.COM
Lucent Technologies

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4plrr3$q...@fox.ksu.ksu.edu>,

;ir Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
> and "not being there" is a figure of speech. I'm sure Ed will try
>to focus on this,

Good, so you finally wimp out on the meaning of "without service", and have to
use "a figure of speech". Yet answer these questions:

1) if a player who's healthy enough to play and help the team is "not being
there", so a hobbled player who's immobile is more qualified as "Reedless", am
I right?

2) Even if you wimp out on your figure of speech, you still have NO proof that
he's "not being there". Willis himself doesn't agree with you...

>but this whole thing sprouted from his desperated attempt
>to cover up his ignorance about his Chamberlain comments, which I'm sure
>he won't defend.

Yes, I defend the Chamberlain comments alright, which just shows your bias
on Wilt. Hey, you can find quotes to make excuses for him, I can also
find quotes to highlight his inepitute...

BTW, our arguments stemmed from many different threads. Why do you think
the whole thing is only about Chamberlain in the 1970 finals? Is it because
you can't get out of your lie on the illegal offense stuff?

>Define an argument anyway you want Eddie-baby,

For starter, name the Knick player whose testimony you claim to have that
they ran an illegal offense in the 1970 finals...

I am sure that you lied about the existence of such testimony from the
Knick player. So you better evade this argument...

>but I achieved
>the goal I set out to do: Defend the Dipper from slimy little ignorant
>mud-slingers such as yourself.

Hey, your defense is even worse than the 1990 Nuggets...

>I did it to Josh in the "Kareem is better
>than Wilt" thread and you're just the latest in a long line of notches in my
>bazooka.

Better stick with someone who doesn't have the facts. When you try to use
facts to argue, it shows. You have to

1) wimp out with "figure of speech" in your "without service/not being there"
claim
2) fabricate the testimony of Knicks player that they ran an illegal offense
in the 1970 finals.
3) fabricate that Willis was on the 1972 runner-up, and worse yet, as a proof,
fabricated that Phil Jackson was on the 1970 championship team.

>Argue the English language and argue what 2 of 12 really is and
>if "fanthom" is a word or not, or what "Reedless" means, but dis the Dipper
>and I will lay my vengeance upon thee again. Wilt Chamberlain is off limits
>to you young man -- now go to your room.

Yes, only if you leave out the comments that didn't favor Wilt, or disregard
the books that you don't have. Hey, your bias on Wilt can't do anything here...

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4pmrl0$b...@fox.ksu.ksu.edu>,

Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
> Actually, If I didn't tell ya (I've mentioned it a few times), after
>I went home, I accepted a research project for the summer. I had no plans
>of logging on, but it's went kind of slow and I was bored, and well, once
>I'm on, I gotta crow. Sorry for the mis-direction, but come early August,
>I'll be out of your hair again.

Geez, Mudd, I really hope not. You know, you hanged out your cohorts dry,
by misleading them to believe a lie, that the Knicks player actually admitted
that they ran an illegal offense in the 1970 finals. Now they put up
lies for you, but you are going to hide in your hole?

What a wimp! Why can't you be a man and F this research project? Hey,
F your research anyway, you can work for Wilt as his publicists. He may
even have some leftovers for you to score...

[Air Judden]

eb...@sfu.ca (Eric Bin) writes:

>Anyways, Judd, Longley is abusing Perkins and treating him like he was Spoon.

Bowing at Sam's feet and kissing them?

who EXACTLY was Longley guarding yesterday: Perkins (while Sam
kept raining in the 3's), or Kemp (I don't need to comment)?

(If Muresan were on the Bulls and going up against those chumps, he'd
be finals MVP, instead Luc drops in 19 pts -- the equivalent of
about one half for Michael Jordan, and you faint).)

Judden
Perkins vs. Longley -- mismatch!!
Muresan vs. Longley -- mismatch!!
E. Johnson vs. Longley -- even.
Ostertag vs. Longley -- even.

[Air Judden]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>In article <4pl7p6$s...@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu>,
>Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>Amoung the points he argued was that Wilt
>> failed to dominated the Laker's back-up center in game #5 of the
>> 1970 playoffs (and he put "(Barnett?)").
>Dumbo, you lied again. I wasn't sure who the backup center was, that's why
>I asked "was it Dick Barnett".

How did I lie? I wrote exactly what you wrote "(Barnett?)". You
said that you weren't sure who it was...(thus displaying your ignorance and
then really squashing credabilty by asking if it was the starting guard),
and question marks generally infer asking. Where is the lie?
Read 4 lines below in my original post "he asked the question
if Barnett was the Knicks back-up center". Once again Ed, you try to
steer away from the topic at hand with diversions, but it doesn't cut-it.
You are doomed!

>> I proceeded to thrash Mr. Loryer on many a point. First of all, he
>> showed his lack of knowledge of the 1970 playoffs and especially the
>> Knicks when he asked the question of if Barnett was the Knicks back
>> up center.
>But Mudden, the Knick backup center's identity was irrelevant. The truth
>is that Wilt couldn't dominate games 5 & 7 once Willis got hurt. Are you
>going to deny this?

Well, let's analyze your cluelessness...lay on the couch and make
yourself comfortable....

Game #7: Let's ask Wilt once more...Wilt, how did you do?
"I had 21 points and 24 rebounds." Since basketball is played on
both ends and domination requires both ends, Wilt, how did your
counterpart, Willis Reed do? {After scoring 4 points}

"Willis didn't score again the rest of the game, and he only

got three rebounds". Gee Ed, if Luc Longley has 21 points and 24
rebounds and held Patrick Ewing to 4 points and 3 rebounds, can you
imagine how obnoxious Eric would be? Sure you'll cry injury, but
isn't the question about Wilt's domainance? I'd call that a
pretty dominating performance.

Oh wait a minute...I'm reading Ed's mind. He's going to say that
1 of 11 free throw shooting nullifies everything. Well Ed, the
Knicks lost by 14 points, and Holzman put the scrubs in early. You
do the math. The game was a blowout from the get-go.

Let's revisit Frazier's comments on Wilt and game #7....

"We knew we had to help out Willis by sagging more than
usual on Chamberlain. L.A. helped us sometimes by standing around.
When they passed into Wilt they didn't cut around him or break
straight to the hoop. They just stood there, giving us golden

opportunities to double-team the big man. Willis was operating with

only one sound leg and had little mobility, but Wilt couldn't take

much advantage, apparently because he was afraid to put the ball

down on the dribble. One or two Knicks were usually waiting down
there by his ankles."

21 points (10 of 16 from the field) despite this? Pretty incredible
game. What was Wilt supposed to do, go to the nearest phone booth,
change into his super-man costume and fly over the Knicks' defense
for the jam?

Now game #5....just read below Edward. We've seen how the Lakers
comitted 17 2nd half turnovers and how they unwisely tried to force
the ball into Wilt, rather than take the open shot, and how the
Knicks picked off these passes. Now if a bad pass from Dickie Garrett
equals non-dominance from Chamberlain, well, Ed, you are one odd
duck. With that kind of defense, Garrett and West should have destroyed
them and that would have opened up the passing lanes for Wilt to
eat up DeBusschere and Stallworth, who by the way were not centers,
they were forwards, so when you call me a liar for saying what you
said (does that make you a liar?) about Barnett, then you are
a bigger liar for saying that these 2 guys are centers, so in the
fine tradition of you.....Liar Liar pants even More on fire!

>>I compared this to someone slamming the Bulls and asking
>> if Rodman was a back-up point guard.
>Or if Jordan is hurt, Payton couldn't dominate his back-up from the bench.
>Are you saying that it wasn't Payton's fault then?

Ed the point I made is your ignorance of the 1970 series. You didn't
know who the Knick players were, what positions they played, what
strategy they used, or how they chose to counter Chamberlain. You
displayed total ignorance and the only thing you mentioned was
Wilt took 3 shots. My "comparison" was to demonstrate the depth of
your ignorance about the 1970 finals. And I suceeded, because you
still don't get the point.

>>For those of you who don't
>> know, Dick Barnett was the starting GUARD and the 3rd leading scorer
>> during the regular season. I also pointed out that Wilt wasn't
>> going up against the back-up center. This showed us that Ed Loryer
>> had a stat book in front him and was clueless about game #5.
>or you are clueless in the defense of Wilt. Ask Holzman, he used
>DeBusshere as the back-up center in the 2nd half. Then why don't
>you tell us how effective Wilt was? What's that? 4 points in the 2nd
>half?

DeBusschere did not play center. He defended Wilt, but he was still
a forward. A man's defender does not define the position. If a
player gets caught in a switch, does that mean he changes positions?
No, only defensive assignments. DeBusschere still was a forward.
I'm sure you'll try to argue this in your own clueless little way.
Food for thought, when Rodman guarded Ewing back in his Detroit days,
did that make him a center and Laimbeer a forward? I don't think so.
As for the effectiveness, I need not reiterate a slap on you.
Actually I do, but go back and read the defensive strategy. Try to
comprehend it. Respond when you understand it. That oughta keep
you busy for rest of this decade.

>>claimed that Wilt should score against double
>> and triple teams while his teammates miss open shots (yeah, that's
>> a really good strategy).
>yeah, and according to Bob Spitz, that's due to the Knicks' illegal offense.
>Really good strategy for the Knicks: use an offense to stop Wilt and West
>from scoring...

Vinatage Lor: When all else fails, make something up. He never said
this. I bring up the illegal offense because dominance is a 2 court
thing...I explained the defensive end. Good job Ed. It's nice
to know you'll always be the same.

>> [ testimonies on game 5 ]
>>
>> If you've read Ed Loryers recent round of venom, he claims that I say the
>> Knicks offense caused Chamberlain's problems on when the Lakers had the
>> ball. In fact, I said the "swarmed" Chamberlain and the other Lakers
>> refused to take open shots. Ed knows this, because he then said Wilt should
>> have taken on the double and triple teams (as I said earlier). 17 turnovers
>> in the 2nd half, 30 for the game. Gee Ed, that sure was Wilt's fault.
>Sure is, when a 7'1" giant whom you rant and rave couldn't even beat a
>6'6" Dave Debushere, what did you say about Wilt? Are you saying that it's
>the first time in Wilt's career that he saw double teams or guarded by
>a faster guy?

I've already explained the denial of the entry pass, if you don't
get it, you are clueless...when he doesn't touch the ball, it's
hard to dominate a double team.

>> [ Wilt's own testimony ]
>>
>> Ed Loryer has said that I can't trust what I read, because they have
>> foggy memories. Well, Frazier's book (source #1...I have 2 books by him)
>> was written in 1970. Yeah Ed, he sure forgot a lot! Wilt's was written
>> in 1974. Bill Bradley's was written in 1976. Frazier's 2nd book was
>> written in 1988 and Holzman's in 1987. Funny thing is, these books ALL
>> agree!
>Funny thing. Do you think Wilt wasn't responsible for any of the turnovers?
>According to Holzman, in "My Unforgetable Season" (pg 266):

> "We neutralized the Wilt mismatch by stealing those passes that weren't
> too tough for him to handle"

>Oh, no, such testimony must not have existed in your feeble mind since you
>didn't list this book as reference. Mudden boy, you didn't read enough books
>about the Knicks...

Ed, I never claimed to have all the books. If I find them, I buy
them...simple as that, but I only have one Holzman book, but that still had
enough quotes to slap you around with.
What does this quote mean? Frazier confirms they stole the passes

"..."With a swarming, gambling, defense we caught up with them
and won the game going away 107 to 100. Our press helped considerably.
The Lakers didn't know what to do. If they did get through the press
they kept trying to go to Wilt and we kept picking off the passes.
We stole the ball from them eight times in the fourth period. I stole
it three times in the last 12 minutes."

Seems like they stole the passes before they got there. And like
Wilt said, they didn't get them to him at the right spots, which
is what a guard is supposed to do.
Ed, you are just plain looney. the Guards play like crap (try to
deny it!) and you blame Chamberlain...you are desparate to make a
point! I suppose you blame Shaq for last years' failure vs.
Houston?

One more thing...I'd like to see more of the context of that Holzman
quote..I've seen you cut and paste.

>So, you mean Wilt was faultless in the 2nd half that the Knicks rallied? Geez,
>it must have been all his teammates' fault. Afterall, if you like a
>player, you can always paint a picture that it's his teammates' fault
>(like you did with Oscar), especially if his game stats look good, you
>can always blame a pass that didn't connect on the passer...

And Jerry West was faultless? Elgin? Garrett? They played like
crap like a team. You try to use this as a hinge point for tearing
down Wilt in an argument on the all-time great centers? One bad
game in which an entire team played like crap? Like I said Ed,
you are desperate...you want to know what Wilt did to a back-up
center when the team threw good passes, took their shots, just
look at game #6 (45 points...20 of 27 shooting)....bring up game
#7 and you'll flaunt your ignorance again.

>> [ more testimonies ]
>> Ed has questioned Spitz' credability. Once again, he surely knows more
>> than Ed. Furthermore, he sites over 50 books in the bibliography, including
>> books by Reed, Frazier (3 of them), Holzman (5 books), Chamberlain,
>> Bradley, DeBusschere, even Marv Albert (Knicks ball boy).
>Yet you still can't identify the one that has players testimonies that they
>ran an illegal offense. I wonder why...

I told you they didn't outline other rules violations...I'm sure
they got called for a few fouls. When I read Magic's book, he didn't talk
about the illegal defense calls during the 1982 finals.
And like I said, I don't have all the Knicks books...he had a lot
more than I did and he referenced them and he sure knows more than you do
about that final...heck, I do, and he knows more than me.
He sure didn't question who the Knicks back-up center was or claim
that 21 points and 24 rebounds wasn't dominating.

>>Willis Reed
>> said (about the book) "It brought back all those great memories in
>> breathtaking detail."
>> One last slap on Ed about Wilt not dominating back-up centers...
>Well, let's see in game 7. Wilt played 48 minutes, Willis played 27 minutes.
>Bowman played 21 minutes. And what did Wilt do? took only 16
>shots, went 1-11 on the line. Holzman even said in "Red on Red" (pg. 109)

> "Chamberlain did many things, but we knew foul shooting was not his
> strength and we capitalized on it. Wilt grabbed 24 rebounds in the
> game and scored 21 points but was 1-11 from the foul line. That
> was a very, very important factor in our win."

>So, by stinking at the line, Wilt became a liability in the low post ...

So now your quoting Holzman? A guy you claim has a foggy memory?
You said that the psychological boost Willis gave was overrated and
Red said

Holzman says (p. 107) Willis Reed was the big story, not for what
he did but for how he lifted the and inspired an entire team. He
played 27 minutes and scored only four points, but his being able to
play enabled us to have a guy push Chamberlain out of position a little
bit, and, more important, to take another four fouls at the center
position...The psychological effect of what Willis did
overshadowed others' achievements. Willis was tremendous, but what
Walt Frazier did paid the rent..."

Classic Ed. Slam a guy one minute and claim his words as gospel law the
next. No doubt Wilt's free throw shooting sucked. You point to it as
the deciding factor, when the same guy gives the credit to Frazier.

Shall I bring up Walt's assessment ONCE MORE?

"We knew we had to help out Willis by sagging more than
usual on Chamberlain. L.A. helped us sometimes by standing around.
When they passed into Wilt they didn't cut around him or break
straight to the hoop. They just stood there, giving us golden

opportunities to double-team the big man. Willis was operating with

only one sound leg and had little mobility, but Wilt couldn't take

much advantage, apparently because he was afraid to put the ball

down on the dribble. One or two Knicks were usually waiting down
there by his ankles."

TEll me about liablities.

>> Next source: Walt Frazier (source #1 p. 224): "While the most valu-
>> able player in the NBA sat on our bench in street clothes {in game #6},
>> Chamberlain went wild: 45 points and 27 rebounds...Bowman, Hosket,
>> and DeBusschere couldn't stop him."
>Or did Walt Frazier say anything about Wilt's domination in game 7 when
>he played 21 minutes against the backups, and 27 minutes against a hobbled
>Reed? or is there any testimonies that Wilt was flawless in the losses
>in games 5 and 7? you care to show us?

Whoever said Wilt was flawless? Even the night he scored 100 he
wasn't flawless, he missed 4 free throws. You slammed the guy for his
failure to dominate and claim 21 pts and 24 rebounds isn't domination.
Your slams on Wilt were futile. You had a stat book and didn't know
what was going on. When the teammates play in synch (game 6) Wilt is
even more ferocious, but when they stand around and play like crap and
let Clyde rip them apart and not hit open shots, Wilt isn't going to go
out everyday and have 45 point games. Your statements about him are
unfounded when scrutinized.

>> [ Frazier on Wilt in game 7 ]
>> Gee Ed, seems like I'm not the only one who thinks you are a farce. Now
>Geez, Mudd, seems like Frazier wasn't even defending Wilt, was he? Did
>he say anything that the criticism was unjustified?

Yes. "The press always blamed Wilt because

a lot of writers didn't like him."

It's a shame that I have to type something out and then explain it
when I respond to you. I make the mistake of giving you the benefit that
your reading comprehension level is above a first grader. My fault.

>> that we see the facts, it's obvious what REALLY happened and why Ed Loryer
>> doesn't know what he's talking about.
>Or Mudd was trying to paint a picture that Wilt was blameless when Frazier
>wasn't even saying that.

Vintage Ed...Ed get stuck, Ed make up things and put words in
peoples mouth...Ed good! Ed always win!

>>He gets a stat-book out and doesn't
>> understand the deeper meaning of the numbers he's looking at.
>Mudd, the worse thing is that you don't even have a stat book, thus you
>know nothing about the truth except what you read on the non-stat books...

Funny, I coulda swore those books I quoted were full of stats,
Wilts numbers in games 5, 6, and, 7, rebounds, Laker turnovers...many of
the sources I was quoting were using the SAME stats, just to confer.
What those books do is give depth to the stats, they paint the entire
picture, unlike you, who uses your Bill Walton-like imagination to
pretend that you knew what happened.

But I'll give you credit, Ed. I recommended you read those books and
it looks like you've tried. Write me if those poly-syllabic words are too
difficult to understand and I'll try to explain them to you, ok? Keep up
the good work...someday, you'll be ready for Curious George without asking
for help.

>>point #2: Ed says first of all that Wilt failed to dominate a "Reed-less"
>> Knick team in game #7. Well, I bashed him pretty hard for his
>> ignorance on this point. Willis indeed played. His hobbling out on
>> the court is in the annals of NBA folklore.
>And why can't I consider it Reed-less? He was hobbling bad. You consider
>the Knicks were "without his service for most of the season" even
>though he played in 69 games in 1973, and by your own account: "playing
>back to shape". Geez, if playing healthy is "without him", then what
>do you say about the time when he was still injured and immobile?

Perhaps because I quickly defined what I meant. You said you are
thinking like me...do I really have THAT much influence on your life, Ed?
Ok, Ed. That's cool...since you want to be like me so badly, I like to
lick frozen flag poles in the winter. It's really fun and it doesn't do
anything. Your tongue won't get stuck. I dare you to do it. I triple
dog dare ya.

Besides, as Clyde said it best, "Before we walked out on the floor,

Bradley spoke quietly to Willis and asked him to 'just give us a half.
That's all we need.' He was right. Half of Willis Reed was more than
100 percent of anybody else we cold put out there on the court."

Without him they don't win. The lift he gave them sparked them to
victory. Oh sure, I'm a liar, so let's go talk to fellow liar Clyde,
"We didn't need him for anything else. He'd turned us on." and
Red (that guy you quoted) said, "The psychological effect of what
Willis did overshadowed others' achievements." Reed-less? Hardly!
Reed was there enough to get playoff MVP, even though he only
had 4 pts and 3 rebounds and missed 21 minutes of that game (as
you like to point out), all of game 6, and most of game 5.

>>gee Ed, I thought my opinion meant NOTHING to you, and now you "copy" me?).
>It meant nothing, but it still can be used to shoot your own argument,
>i.e. prove your inconsistency.

So you are equally inconsistent? After all you copy me. Now you
are a liar and an inconsistent liar and a dumbo. Gee Ed,
you need to get some self esteem, bud. You aren't all that bad.
Sure you are clueless, but Dave, Martin, and me like to think of you
as our kid brother. Sure we bash ya around, make you look like a
fool and make you drink out of the toilet and take your allowence,
but your OUR little brother to pick on. When Fester jumped in and
tried to take you on (since your about the only person he could beat),
we all came to your rescue and while you were taking off your shoes
in order to count to 12, we were beating him up on the Iavaroni thing,
and proving that he's even a bigger farce than you! Like I said,
we may pick on you, but doggone it, nobody else, especially some little
new punk on the block, had better pick on our little kid brother.
You had better remember to send us a Christmas card, or we'll
be forced to give you a usenet WEDGIE.

>>I pointed out that Reed
>> played 27 minutes in that game. Ed slammed Wilt for not taking on
>> an injured man. I pointed out that Wilt was barely a month in his
>> comback from knee surgery and wasn't particularly mobile.
>Was Wilt in full strength in that game? he played 48 mintues. He
>played 21 minutes against Bowman. Oh, maybe that's why he went 1-11 on
>the foul line...

No Ed, Wilt's mobility and quickness were WAY down. I've said this
before, but I guess you fail to understand when I said that Wilt missed
most of that season after he tore a tendon in his knee. The doctors weren't
sure he'd ever play again and 1970 was out of the question, but Wilt proved
them wrong and came back in time for the playoffs. An incredible recovery,
but not a complete one. And you think Bowman stopped him? Ed, Ed, Ed...

Game #5: (Red): "I put in Nate Bowman to replace Willis Reed,

but the Lakers went again and again to Wilt, who scored seven of L.A.'s
next 12 points. With their lead 37-24, I replaced Bowman with Bill
Hosket, but that didn't help too much."

Game #6: (Berger): "When the team went onto the floor,Bradley and Holzman
stayed behind. Bradley tried toconvince the coach to use the linuep
that had worked in the 5th game. {instead of starting Bowman}

He couldn't do it, said a teammate. He told us, "I couldn't talk to
him."

(Spitz): "It was immediately obvious that not Bowman, Hosket,
DeBusschere, or Stallworth couldn't replace Reed. With Willis watching

from the bench, the Lakers came out blasting, as they'd done before
after suffering embarrassing defeats. Chamberlain was a beast, he was
uncontrollable."

(Frazier): "While the most valuable player

in the NBA sat on our bench in street clothes {in game #6},
Chamberlain went wild: 45 points and 27 rebounds...Bowman, Hosket,
and DeBusschere couldn't stop him."

Bowman couldn't stop Dipper when Wilt was in the operating room!
Bowman vs. Dipper is like you vs. me. Complete and total suicide.

>>I pointed
>> out that Reed was there to muscle Wilt and keep him off the blocks.
>> While not as strong as Wilt, Willis was a buff man himself and had
>> far more to offer than the others. Ed says this was my opinion (vin-
>> tage Ed) and I was covering my rear:
>>
>> Alright Ed, go to the game. I have part of the game on tape. If you
>> watch ESPN enough, they play this game frequently on the "greatest
>> games" show. Wilt missed a fingerroll and the announcer said some-
>> thing very close to "And Wilt took that fingerroll farther out than
>> he's accustomed to. Willis is stronger than the centers he's been
>> going up against." Gee Ed, what could that mean? Guess those
>> announcers have foggy memories too, while they are viewing it live? Or
>> is that just their opinion and is no match for you?
>Yes, I guess so, so Wilt was playing an immobile object and he had to
>take his fingerrool farther out that he's accustomed to? Geez, a
>great player is one who can take advantage of mismatches. Was Wilt?

Ed, don't MAKE me bring up the same Frazier quote about game 7
for the 3rd time. Your inability to think sure cost this group
a lot of bandwidth.

>> One other thing, Ed said the emotional lift that Willis supposedly
>> gave the team and the crowd was overrated (not his exact words, but
>> the gist is still the same) and even mocked Red Holzman for using a
>> "win one for the gipper" (Gee Ed, Holzman did tell them to win it
>> for Willis in Game 5 and they did).
>Yes, and if the Lakers were suspectible to such emotion lift, what did
>it say about Wilt as an emotional leader? Didn't see that Isiah's emotional
>lift worked in the 1988 game 7, or Magic's emotional lift worked in 1989
>game 3 ...

Sometimes the Magic is there...guess you missed Kirk Gibson in 1988?
Larry Bird vs. Indiana? You expect Wilt to be able to rally the
Lakers the way Willis did the Knicks? Ed, you really are BEYOND
ignorant of Willis condition and the background going into that
game 7, aren't you? And no doubt, he's going to pump up his team
the way the garden crowd did the Knicks.

>> Let's ask Wilt about Game #7: "Reed wasn't supposed to play, and when
>> he came limping out on the court and started warming up with the Knicks,
>> the fans went berserk. When he hit the first two baskets of the game,
>> I thought they were going to tear the building down, right then and
>> there. That gave New York and incredible emotional lift.
>More nonsense. An injured player is a double edge sword. When it works,
>it's an emotional lift. When it doesn't work, he's hurting the team. I tend
>to think that teams at the championship level is less suspectible in emtion,
>i.e. injuries would hurt more than help. Geez, do you think the Knicks
>would have lied down like dogs had Willis didn't give them that "emotional lift"?

They sure did in game 6. No garden crowd, no Willis, and a 23
point blowout. As Clyde said, they were never in it.

That's your problem Ed, you think. Your thoughts are so screwed up
you were doomed from the beginning of that paragraph. Who cares what you
"think"...I've read your throughts, and I've translated them. They are
scary, Ed. So Ed, how many championship games have you played in? I already
reeled off the quotes about the emotional boost. Call it bull all you want,
but Bradley and Frazier were sure jazzed up. Red agrees. Of course, what
do they know? They are no match for Ed's stat book and his "think"-ing.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Besides, once again, (more wasted bandwidth) half of Willis was
better than anything else they could throw at Wilt...remember what
Clyde said?

>>But neither
>> that nor Reed beat us. Willis didn't score again the rest of the
>> game, and he only got three rebounds; I had 21 points and 24 rebounds.
>> But I missed 10 of 11 free throws, and the other Lakers only got the
>> ball in to me often enough for me to take 16 shots (I made 10) from
>> the floor...
>Yes, same old Wilt self-promotion... 10/16 is a good number for someone
>who played against a hobbled starter and his back-up ....

And an entire team sagging on him. Pretty good indeed. His point
was that they weren't feeding him enough. But once again, your
abilty to comprehend thoughts shine through.

>> They hustled all the way, and they played brilliant defense, and they
>> used their great poise and balance and precision passing to find the
>> open man every time on offense.
>And so the Knicks hustled? Did Wilt hustle too?

We know who DIDN'T hustle....

Oh Clyde...what were your observations about the Lakers hustling?

"We knew we had to help out Willis by sagging more than
usual on Chamberlain. L.A. helped us sometimes by standing around.
When they passed into Wilt they didn't cut around him or break
straight to the hoop. They just stood there, giving us golden

opportunities to double-team the big man. Willis was operating with

only one sound leg and had little mobility, but Wilt couldn't take

much advantage, apparently because he was afraid to put the ball

down on the dribble. One or two Knicks were usually waiting down
there by his ankles."

4th time I've used this quote Ed. Will you do us all a favor and
read it this time? And before you respond, ask somebody around you
to explain it to you. See Ed, "standing around" means not hustling.
as in "Spot not run" "see Jane stand"....get the picture? This
is not good basketball strategy. ooops..sorry, didn't mean to
use a big word like "strategy"... "see Jerry stand?" "See Elgin
stand?" See Dickie stand? Stand not good game plan. See Wilt
stand? Wilt should stand. Wilt stand close to color box. Wilt
raise hand. Dickie pass ball to Wilt. Wilt not able to bounce ball
and go around Willis cuz many Knicks stand around Wilt and knock
ball loose. Dickie should run to hoop. Or Jerry should run to
hoop, or Elgin should run to hoop, or which guy not run to hoop should
run to place and get away from Knicks. Jerry, Elgin, Dickie not run.
Lakers not win. Ed blame Wilt. Ed not have clue.

There, make sense?

>> I pointed out to Ed Loryer that West had more to do with the game 7 loss
>> than Wilt, but I also pointed out that I don't think any team in history
>> (except Dream Team) could have beaten them that night.
>But Dumbo, you only look at stats one way. You don't look at it another way:
>failure to rise to the occasions, especially when you see a 10-16 in FG,
>you think it's a fault-less game. Geez, if Jordan plays against a hobbled
>opponent and his team needs him, would he just attempt 16 FGs? Of course, if
>he's on the line 11 times, he wouldn't have missed 10...

Perhaps he'd have 6 points at halftime? And miss 6 shots in a row
and get abused by Gary Payton? Wait a minute...Jordan's inability to defend
is why Shawn Kemp shined so bright!!! Yeah, that's good Ed hoops
strategy. I guess this means that Michael isn't the best shooting guard of
all time. He couldn't even stop a sore-backed Nate McMillan.
Perhaps Jordan's turnovers, screaming at officials, and 6 straight
missed shots is why Kukoc stopped passing him the ball in the 3rd quarter
and started taking the shots.

Yeah Ed, I get it...I see both sides of the stats! So does
Sufwatt! Those powerpoints expose jordon for what he really is!!!!

And let's not talk about Nick taking his rock last year. jordon is
definately foolish and overrated!

thanks for teaching me, Sincee Ed.

>> Holzman says (p. 107) Willis Reed was the big story, not for what
>> he did but for how he lifted the and inspired an entire team. He
>> played 27 minutes and scored only four points, but his being able to
>> play enabled us to have a guy push Chamberlain out of position a little
>> bit, and, more important, to take another four fouls at the center
>> position...The psychological effect of what Willis did
>> overshadowed others' achievements. Willis was tremendous, but what
>> Walt Frazier did paid the rent..."
>Geez, you didn't mention Holzman's comments on Wilt in "Red on Red", I
>wonder why...

This IS from Red on Red, Ed...hello? Didn't you read the bottom?
Sources:

Red on Red, by Red Holzman and Harvey Frommer

This quote was to shoot down you disbelief that Willis was there
to push on Wilt and lift the team and crowd. I suceeding in proving your
poor arguement...unless you claim to know more than Red about that game...
wouldn't suprise me.

>>Like so many of Wilt's detractors you have selective
>> vision and don't look at the big picture. Don't argue with Judden. Judden
>> is good. Judden is wise.
>Or like Wilt himself, you are trying to shift the fault of two embarrassing
>loss to others. Geez, don't stay in school. You should have work as his
>publicist....

You should be a history revisionist. You could have Wilt scoring
0 points and grabbind 0 rebounds while being shut down by Dick Barnett while
Willis Reed stayed at home. You could declare 21 points and 24 rebounds as
a failure to dominate. Ooops, you've already done that.

>> Now that I've made Ed look like Rocky Balboa in the first movie, if he has
>> any sense, he'll just fess up and confess that his accusations about
>> the Big Dipper were unfounded and he was ignorant to dispute me.
>Geez, Mudd, you should have known that the picture you paint is no more
>different from Wilt's, that you try to paint a misleading picture, by
>shifting the fault of the losses to his teammates. What's new?

But you paint a picture only Bill Walton could enjoy while you share
a bong.

Ed (inhaling deep): "Bill, remember when Wilt got shut down by
Dick Barnett in 1970? Oh man, he really sucked! 1-11 from the
line. It's a wonder they got to game 7 at all. It's a good thing
that Larry Bird was able to put the team on his back and carry
them through game 6...you know, he was all-NBA that year?"

Bill: "Yeah, Ed... good thing about Larry. Pass me the bong, will
you?"

Ed (inhaling again): Go Jones for your own, man! Speaking of Jones,
Caldewell had 19 assists for the Knicks in that game 7. He dunked
on Wilt all 19 times!"

Bill "Yeah, Ed. 19 dunks for 19 assits....you got a sharp mind...now
pass me the bong."

Ed (inhaling again): Wait a second man.

Bill: Co'mon Ed, 0.3 seconds is a ton of time! How can you expect
me to wait over 3 tons for that bong? Pass it over!

>> Ed, being Ed, tries to use this to say that I claim Barnett is in
>> the hall of fame. He discounts Reed because he didn't play on the
>> Knicks playoff team.
>Well, Mudd, Reed didn't play much in the 1972 regular season team either.
>How you have nerve to include him in the runner-up is beyond me...

Perhaps because he was? Just like Phil Jackson was a Knick in 1970,
despite missing the season with a back injury.

>>He tries to add to my words and claim that the
>> player has to be "on the court", even though I didn't say that when
>> mentioning this team. He tried his best cut and paste to make it
>> appear like that, but he failed miserably. He says that if you don't
>> play on the playoff team, then you aren't on the team (gee, who did
>> Willis play for then?
>No team. He was on IR and not allowed to play... Who did Brad Daugherty
>play for in the past 2 years? Can't name any other team? are you so stupid
>that then he must be playing for the Cavs?

a member of the Cavs? Yep. They still pay the paychecks. If they
would have won this year, he'd be in the team picture. Just like
Phil Jackson was.

>>Well, Ed
>> Loryer is once again wrong. Since he loves to quote from the Sporting
>> News NBA guide. I decided to take a look. Children, if you have
>> your guides, turn to the 1969-70 year and look at the picture entitled
>> "1969-70 NBA Champion New York Knickerbockers". If you dont' have
>> TSN guide, don't feel bad. The same picture is in Holzman's book
>> (except it says "World Champions 1969-70 New York Knickerbockers"
>> See that guy in the upper left hand corner? That tall guy with
>> broad shoulders and a mustache? That is Phil Jackson (yes, youngins,
>> same guy who coaches the Bulls--ironic, no?) He was a memember of
>> the "1969-70 NBA Champion New York Knickerbockers"...and do you know
>> how many playoff games he played in? Zero. Do you know how many
>> regular season games he played in? Zero! Ooops, looks like you're
>> wrong AGAIN, Ed.
>Wow, Mudden you dare to use official NBA books to argue. I think that's
>out of your league, and it really shows. You care to take a look at the
>NBA Register? Look under "Coaches". Look at Phil Jackson.

> Miscellaneous: Member of NBA championship team (1973).

So, the NBA register and NBA guide disagree? You call the guide
an official NBA book. So it is legit, no? Red's own book has the
picture and you quoted him as a credible source. Phil has a ring from
1970, just like Elgin does in 1973. Funny thing is, Willis is even more
credible, since he PLAYED in 1972. Why does the official picture of
the Champion TEAM feature Jackson? Guess the Knicks aren't a credible
source for Knicks info.
You pointed out that the picture was taken at mid-season. Phil
hadn't played a game all year. They knew he was going to mis the entire
season, yet they put him in the TEAM photo. Guess he was a member of the
team.

>> Onto this illegal defense, here's the quote...chew on it:
>>
>> Spitz (p. 285-6): "The one-three-one was a college type of offense
>> designed to draw out a big, imposing center so that the rest of the
>> team could get off their shots...It was risky, inasmuch as it was
>> illegal to play a zone--in this case, a zone offense--but the Knicks
>> had practiced it on several occasions and felt they pull it off
>> without getting caught.
>> As luck would have it, the Knicks came out in the third
>> quarter and played a picture-perfect one-three-one offense that
>> went right over the refs' heads. For some reason, Mendy Rudolph
>> and Ed Rush refused to call the zone, despite wild protests from
>> West and Mullaney."
>Well, Mudden, you deliberately leave out the three statements, when Spitz
>mentioned the effect of the zone offense on the Lakers' game. Why is that?

The 3 statements explain how it works and who played which
positions in it. Do you REALLY need that? The reason
I used this quote was to show the LEGALLITY of it, now how it worked.
Ed, I've seen you at work, I don't think it's POSSIBLE to explain
to you any more about it. You're not sure what position Dick
Barnett played, so how could ever hope to explain to you his role
in the 1-3-1?
And I DID mention the effect. Do you not know what the
word "picture-perfect" means? Ooops..forgot who I'm dealing with.
And when you consider how far the Knicks were down by halftime
and then came back and won by 7, and this without their leading
scorer and league MVP, it implies that it worked very well. I
thought you would get this, but I realize with each posts, I cannot
assume you can grasp simple concepts, so I must take the reading
level of my posts and knock them down more-and-more, just to
accomidate you...help Ed, I can't get much lower! Tell me you
can understand Kindergarten level? That's why I do the mind readings:
they are the only things you understand.

Ed, I don't think you could spell "DOG" if I spotted you the "D" and
the "O."

>> These last few points were loose ends. When the dust settles, Ed's
>>claims about Wilt Chamberlain were false and he did not know what he was
>>talking about. He can spin it anyway he wants, but the facts defeat him.
>These last few points are the lies you put up that you can't defend,
>where Wilt's contribution in games 5 and 7 are disputable. You tried
>to paint a fault-less picture for Wilt, which couldn't stand up a challegne.

Nothing saying he was faltless, but I consider 21 pts and 24 rebounds
pretty awesome. I don't blame all the failures of a team on
one man when he has 21 pts and 24 rebounds.

And as to an earlier claim that I was biased...if I'm so biased to
Wilt why do I have more books about the 1970 Knicks than any other
team? So I could see Wilt lose? Maybe because that team is one
of my favorites of all time. What I am doing is giving the credit
where credit is due. You assigned all the blame on Wilt and I'm
not going to stand for that. His performance didn't rival Bill
Walton (your bong buddy) in 1977, but it was a very good performance
and the Magic would have been ecstatic to have got Shaq to put up
21 pts and 24 rebounds and shut down Luc, even if it meant 1-11 from
the stripe.

>> Like I said, Ed, the guy cites over 50 books in reference.
>Yes, and since you know about the 1970 Knicks, you care to cite the
>other references that support that "illegal offense" claim? Nope? you
>still haven't done it yet? Then I'll file it as hot air. Since you
>have NO testimony from any players whatsoever supporting that claim (which
>you concurred and put up as a fact on the net).

Good idea. I filed you as hot air a long time ago. When you
asked if Dick Barnett was a center and then held Wilt responsible for the
game 5 and 7 losses, and questioned the validity of Red Holzman, and then
turned around and quoted him, and said Willis didn't play in game 7....

I chalked you up as a farce a long time ago.

How does the phrase go?

If a man doesn't know and doesn't know this, he is asleep. Shun him
If a man doesn't know and realizes this, he is aware. Educate him.
If a man knows, and knows that he knows, he is Judden. follow him.
If a man kneaux, and kneax that he kneaux, he is Pinhead. Watch him fish.
If a man doesn't know, proves he doesn't know, knows he doesn't know, but
still acts like he knows, he is Ed Lor-yer. Give up.

Judden Confusious--schooling Ed Confusion, once again.

[Judd Vance]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>What a wimp! Why can't you be a man and F this research project? Hey,
>F your research anyway, you can work for Wilt as his publicists. He may
>even have some leftovers for you to score...

If I neglect my work, I may end up as a gunie pig for tests at
Lucent Technologies, like you. Ed, the LAST think I want in life is to
be locked in a cage with you arguing Dick Barnett's position, while scientist
put cosmetics in our eyeballs.

Judden

[Judd Vance]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>Good, so you finally wimp out on the meaning of "without service", and have to
>use "a figure of speech". Yet answer these questions:

Ed, if defining something to you is "wimping out", then I am a big
time wimp. Everytime I post anything to you, I have to go back and
reiterate it many times, because you can't get it. For instance, I had to
reposts Clyde's quote FOUR TIMES in the same thread to answer your silly
questions and idiotic conclusions.

You educate someone and he calls ya a wimp...the gratefullness of some
people....

>>but this whole thing sprouted from his desperated attempt
>>to cover up his ignorance about his Chamberlain comments, which I'm sure
>>he won't defend.

>Yes, I defend the Chamberlain comments alright, which just shows your bias
>on Wilt. Hey, you can find quotes to make excuses for him, I can also
>find quotes to highlight his inepitute...

I'm waiting on them....you haven't shown a quotes (plural). The closest
you got was that missing some free throws was important in a 14 point win,
and that some passes were picked off that Wilt could have handled.

I Know explaining anything to you is futile, and I'll probably have
to repeat this 20 times in the next post, but here goes nothing:

Anyone who plays low posts has surely had guards throw passes that
could be handled, yet were picked off. When I play skinny leapers,
I back them into the block, raise my hand and call for the ball --
planning to just overpower the guy (Shaq-style). A good guard zips
the ball in there, or throws a bounce pass. Down at the rec center,
too many clueless guards (who no doubt went to the Ed Lor-yer basketball
camp) LOBS them. Gee, I'm playing against a guy who can outleap me
and the guard throws a slow lob. Sure I could handle the lob,
problem is, that leaper behind me (Thin Lizzie?) jumps up in the
air and swipes it away. Another instance, is when I call for the
ball, then the guard gets this clueless "Ed" look ("Duh, why is he
raising his hand? does he have a question? Wait a second, he was
not being guarded as closely when his hand was in the air, maybe I
should pass it to him now, even if that guy is in front of him, just
so he won't be mad at me") Then they throw the pass and the defender
picks it off. My fault, no doubt. Just like Wilt's.

Now Clyde said the Lakers kept going to Wilt and the Knicks kept picking
off the passes. No doubt Wilt could have handled the passes -- Wilt
was not known for stone hands (except maybe by you, who would say
ANYTHING), but the passes weren't getting there. Holzman's quote
(about picking off passes), doesn't say anything negative about Wilt.
Cross section it with Clyde's assessment and I prove my point, and
Wilt's: The Lakers were throwing ill advised passes that the KNicks
were swiping, and had there not been Knicks there, no doubt Wilt
would have caught them.

OTOH, I have provided numerous quotes about Wilt overpowering Bowman
(the back-up center you say he didn't dominate) and his performance.
Maybe these guys should also be Wilt's PR men? I think I'd have
a hard time getting the job over Red and Clyde.

>BTW, our arguments stemmed from many different threads. Why do you think
>the whole thing is only about Chamberlain in the 1970 finals? Is it because
>you can't get out of your lie on the illegal offense stuff?

I have kept the focus on bashing your stupid accessment of Wilt.
It is YOU who has tried to branch off -- classic Loryer -- when your
getting bashed try to go to other topics and distract them.

And you're still mad because Spitz knows more about the Knicks than
you. Ed, your argument revolves around: "You haven't read every book,
so you lose." I never claimed to have every book on the Knicks and
I'd love to have Reed's book. But the books I have come up ALL AGREE
on Wilt's accessment. Now where Spitz got the illegal offense, I
don't know, I don't have the 50+ books he referenced, maybe you should
ask him. As far as player books, I have 2 Frazier books and one Holzman. Brad-
ley's book focuses more on the 1974 season and he barely makes any references to
1970, which is why he isn't referenced much in the Wilt section.
So when you ask me about Knicks collaborating on the illegal offense,
I don't have all the books written by Knicks, I'm still short 2
Reed books, 1 Clyde, 1 DeBusschere, and 4 Red books...but Spitz does
have them, and it was obvious he researched more about it than you,
who was cluleless about a guard was wasn't a center.

>>Define an argument anyway you want Eddie-baby,
>For starter, name the Knick player whose testimony you claim to have that
>they ran an illegal offense in the 1970 finals...

Ask Spitz. When you made your initial statement about Wilt, which
book did you get the idea from that Dick Barnett was a center from?

>>but I achieved
>>the goal I set out to do: Defend the Dipper from slimy little ignorant
>>mud-slingers such as yourself.
>Hey, your defense is even worse than the 1990 Nuggets...

It was enough to bash you with. Your defense of your statements
are worse than the Washington Generals.

>>I did it to Josh in the "Kareem is better
>>than Wilt" thread and you're just the latest in a long line of notches in my
>>bazooka.
>Better stick with someone who doesn't have the facts. When you try to use
>facts to argue, it shows. You have to

>1) wimp out with "figure of speech" in your "without service/not being there"
> claim

And you would Wimp out on a "Reed-less" team by claiming to copy a
Wimp? Must make you more of a wimp. Ed, let me put this in terms
that you can understand: I am rubber, you are glue, what you say
bounces off of me and sticks to you.
"figures of speech" are part of language, "copying Judd" is not.
And why haven't you copied more of my "logic"...don't tell me this
was a "wimp out" and a weak attempt to cover your rear?

>2) fabricate the testimony of Knicks player that they ran an illegal offense
> in the 1970 finals.

By a guy who has researched more on this topic than anyone you've
ever met and has read and interviewed the players.

>3) fabricate that Willis was on the 1972 runner-up, and worse yet, as a proof,
> fabricated that Phil Jackson was on the 1970 championship team.

I fabricated that team photo, no doubt. I airbrushed ol Phil in and
distributed it. I am good, ain't I? I was so despearate to prove that
Phil was a Knick, that I generated a team photo with him in it. Yes,
Ed, that doesn't prove ANYTHING. Heh.

Ed, I shouldn't make fun of you. For a gunie pig pumped full of
experimental drugs, you have more cohesion in your thoughts than I
would expect. Hang in there. PETA will free you soon!

Judden

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <juddstud.834776570@gandalf>,

Judd Vance <judd...@engg.ksu.edu> wrote:
> If I neglect my work, I may end up as a gunie pig for tests at
>Lucent Technologies, like you. Ed, the LAST think I want in life is to
>be locked in a cage with you arguing Dick Barnett's position, while scientist
>put cosmetics in our eyeballs.

But what work do you have now? anything besides reading Knicks books
to argue here? The way I see it, the job that best suits you is to be
Wilt's ass-kisser. He sure needs someone like you to build his
credentials...

Any other line of jobs? it's out of your league...

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <juddstud.834777149@gandalf>,

Judd Vance <judd...@engg.ksu.edu> wrote:
> Ed, if defining something to you is "wimping out", then I am a big
>time wimp.

You sure are, because the word "service", no matter how you slice it
literally, you don't get an effectiveness contingency. Even in sports,
the word 'service' means just playing, not 'playing effectively' or 'regain
previous form', or 'playing hot'. In other words, your usage of 'service'
was incorrect.

>For instance, I had to
>reposts Clyde's quote FOUR TIMES in the same thread to answer your silly
>questions and idiotic conclusions.

Clyde's quote? did Clyde say that the Knicks were "without Reed's service in
1973"? Cite it.

>>Yes, I defend the Chamberlain comments alright, which just shows your bias
>>on Wilt. Hey, you can find quotes to make excuses for him, I can also
>>find quotes to highlight his inepitute...
>
> I'm waiting on them....you haven't shown a quotes (plural). The closest
>you got was that missing some free throws was important in a 14 point win,
> and that some passes were picked off that Wilt could have handled.

Sure, why don't these quotes show his inepitute. You still haven't shown one
quote showing why Wilt shouldn't share of the blame. You showed quotes from
from Clyde:

"Everybody said it was Wilt's fault. Chamberlain shoule have scored
100 against us. He should have wiped up the court with Bowman and
Hosket and DeBusschere and Stallworth. He should've gone to the hoop
more or should've passed more. He should've won the game for the
Lakers and he didn't. He had lost another one, another big one.
The press always blamed Wilt because a lot of writers didn't like him."

Clyde said what Wilt "SHOULD" achieve (the expectation of Wilt) and what
the press did according to this expectation. But there is one thing you
forget to show: the criticism was wrong.

Geez, you have NO one quote from Clyde saying that Wilt was faultless in
that game. I had quote from Clyde that Wilt couldn't handle passes not tough
to handle. Yet you have nerve to use Clyde's quotes to support you...

> Now Clyde said the Lakers kept going to Wilt and the Knicks kept picking
> off the passes. No doubt Wilt could have handled the passes -- Wilt
> was not known for stone hands (except maybe by you, who would say
> ANYTHING), but the passes weren't getting there.

Nope, that's not what Clyde said:

"We neutralized the Wilt mismatch by stealing those passes that weren't
too tough for him to handle"

It's not stealing those passes that weren't getting there...

>Holzman's quote
> (about picking off passes), doesn't say anything negative about Wilt.
> Cross section it with Clyde's assessment and I prove my point, and
> Wilt's: The Lakers were throwing ill advised passes that the KNicks
> were swiping, and had there not been Knicks there, no doubt Wilt
> would have caught them.

So in other words, you are proving nothing from you point. YOu are trying
to deflect all the blames to the other players. The Lakers threw some ill-
advised passes, but it didn't erase the fact that there were also passes
that weren't too tough for Wilt to handle...

> Maybe these guys should also be Wilt's PR men? I think I'd have
> a hard time getting the job over Red and Clyde.

Nope, only you can be Wilt's PR man, by putting all the blames to others...

> I have kept the focus on bashing your stupid accessment of Wilt.

Then you are stupid, because one of the reasons you cite was that the
Knicks were doing something illegal: implying an unfair advantage. You
have nothing to prove that the 1-3-1 was illegal.

> It is YOU who has tried to branch off -- classic Loryer -- when your
> getting bashed try to go to other topics and distract them.

Of course, because this branch off is one that killed you. You still haven't
been able to handle this branch off.

> And you're still mad because Spitz knows more about the Knicks than
> you. Ed, your argument revolves around: "You haven't read every book,
> so you lose."

Dumbo, my argument doesn't have to be that. My argument only asks you to back
up what you said, and you have to cry mamma because you can't back it up...

>I never claimed to have every book on the Knicks and
> I'd love to have Reed's book. But the books I have come up ALL AGREE
> on Wilt's accessment.

Lie. You showed nothing that Wilt was not at fault in games 5 and 7. All you
have was Frazier's comments on the expectation on Wilt, and even those quotes
didn't support you, that the expectations and what the press did according to
the expectations, were wrong.

>Now where Spitz got the illegal offense, I don't know,

You don't know? then why are you so stupid to claim that the Knicks ran
an illegal offense IN YOUR OWN STATEMENT?

>I don't have the 50+ books he referenced, maybe you should ask him.

I don't have to ask him. You put up "the Knicks ran an illegal offense" lie on
the net. Now you have to defend this statement on your own. This is the problem
of believing some nonsense you read from a journalist without exercising your
own judgement. Now you got hung out dry. In turn, you hang out Meek and Shobe
dry...

>As far as player books, I have 2 Frazier books and one Holzman. Brad-
>ley's book focuses more on the 1974 season and he barely makes any references to
> 1970, which is why he isn't referenced much in the Wilt section.
> So when you ask me about Knicks collaborating on the illegal offense,
> I don't have all the books written by Knicks, I'm still short 2
> Reed books, 1 Clyde, 1 DeBusschere, and 4 Red books...but Spitz does
> have them, and it was obvious he researched more about it than you,
> who was cluleless about a guard was wasn't a center.

But Mudd, is it any surprise to you that Spitz could have made a mistake?
I mean, did you have any evidence that he had confessions from Knicks
players that they cheated? So no, it's not obvious at all that such
admissions ever existed.

Now about clueless, have you ever seen any account of "illegal zone offense"
in the NBA? Why not? Can it be because there was never such an animal?
Besides, what exactly is a "zone offense"? and why is it bad that the
league has to outlaw it?

But you were using admissions from the Knicks players to argue, Spitz didn't.
So it's obvious that you didn't do the research on your own before you
made this false claim. In other words, you keep yapping and yapping but
yet to be able to furnish this testimony. I mean, dumbo, if the Knicks
players considered that offense perfectly legal,

1) why would they say it as illegal? or
2) why would they deliberately make a point that their offense was not
illegal? how would they knew that a dope like you would accuse them of
cheating 26 years after the game was played?

>>For starter, name the Knick player whose testimony you claim to have that
>>they ran an illegal offense in the 1970 finals...
>
> Ask Spitz.

But you made that statement too, and you were using their admissions (of
cheating in offense), Spitz didn't claim the existence of such admission.
So in other words,

1) you didn't have such admissions, TRUE or FALSE?
2) you have no evidence that the illegal offense rule existed in 1970, TRUE
or FALSE?

>When you made your initial statement about Wilt, which
> book did you get the idea from that Dick Barnett was a center from?

Dumbo, what idea was that? that was a question.

> It was enough to bash you with.

Bash me with what? the testimonies from the Knicks players that they
ran an illegal offense?

>>1) wimp out with "figure of speech" in your "without service/not being there"
>> claim
>
> And you would Wimp out on a "Reed-less" team by claiming to copy a
> Wimp?

I don't have to. Since Reed was injured and immobile, I can considered someone
injured and immobile as "Reedless", and still considered a player who played
69 games not "without his service".

So, if I accept playing 69 games as "without his serivce", I certainly can
consider injured and immobile "Reedless".

But if I don't accept playing 69 games as "without his service". I still can
considered injured and immobile as "Reedless".

So Mudd, that's not copying a Wimp, that's using a Wimp's logic to shoot
the Wimp's attack on my argument....

>>2) fabricate the testimony of Knicks player that they ran an illegal offense
>> in the 1970 finals.
>
> By a guy who has researched more on this topic than anyone you've
> ever met and has read and interviewed the players.

Dumbo, you made the claim that you have such testimonies, Spitz didn't. So
since you made that claim, you have to back it up.

>>3) fabricate that Willis was on the 1972 runner-up, and worse yet, as a proof,
>> fabricated that Phil Jackson was on the 1970 championship team.
>
> I fabricated that team photo, no doubt.

Who said that being on a team photo would automatically give him a ring?
There are three other references saying otherwise. Try the NBA Register,
the Basketabll Handbook, and Jackson's bio on ESPN net sportszone.

Mudden, your problem is that you are to inept to use any judgement on the
stuff you read from books...

[Air Judden]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>>For instance, I had to
>>reposts Clyde's quote FOUR TIMES in the same thread to answer your silly
>>questions and idiotic conclusions.
>Clyde's quote? did Clyde say that the Knicks were "without Reed's service in
>1973"? Cite it.

Clueless Ed at it again. I didn't say Clyde's quote said this.
Clyde's quote spoke of picking off passes that Chamberlain never got. I
see 4 times is not enough.

I'm waiting on a Clyde quote that says the Knicks were Reedless.

>>>Yes, I defend the Chamberlain comments alright, which just shows your bias
>>>on Wilt. Hey, you can find quotes to make excuses for him, I can also
>>>find quotes to highlight his inepitute...
>>
>> I'm waiting on them....you haven't shown a quotes (plural). The closest
>>you got was that missing some free throws was important in a 14 point win,
>> and that some passes were picked off that Wilt could have handled.
>Sure, why don't these quotes show his inepitute. You still haven't shown one
>quote showing why Wilt shouldn't share of the blame. You showed quotes from
>from Clyde:

> "Everybody said it was Wilt's fault. Chamberlain shoule have scored
> 100 against us. He should have wiped up the court with Bowman and
> Hosket and DeBusschere and Stallworth. He should've gone to the hoop
> more or should've passed more. He should've won the game for the
> Lakers and he didn't. He had lost another one, another big one.
> The press always blamed Wilt because a lot of writers didn't like him."

>Clyde said what Wilt "SHOULD" achieve (the expectation of Wilt) and what
>the press did according to this expectation. But there is one thing you
>forget to show: the criticism was wrong.

Clyde was pointing out that 'everybody' (note that 1st word?) was
saying that wilt SHOULD have scored 100. I'm sure you'll argue this and
you think Clyde is stupid enough to think that Wilt could have another 100
point game (since Wilt did it all the time). Sorry Ed, Clyde isn't that
dumb -- only you are.
The whole quote is pointing out others (namely mediots) expectations
of Wilt. He concludes this by pointing out their bias, since they didn't
like him. That's why it's in the same paragraph.
Ed, before you open your mouth, and futher your proven cluelessness,
go back and study those English books. The first sentence establishes
the thought of the paragraph. The last one concludes it. This whole
paragraph is about others' expectations of Wilt, not his own.

>Geez, you have NO one quote from Clyde saying that Wilt was faultless in
>that game. I had quote from Clyde that Wilt couldn't handle passes not tough
>to handle. Yet you have nerve to use Clyde's quotes to support you...

Mistake #2. (actually 2 million, if we're keeping a running total
of you). I never said Wilt was faultless. I was defending Wilt against your
venom of his 1970 playoff performance. Wilt was never a faultless player.
He missed free throws like you miss points in an argument. No wait, Wilt
wasn't that bad. Mike Smrek wasn't that bad when he shot below 20%. Compared
to you in a debate, Wilt looks like Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf at the stripe.

>> Now Clyde said the Lakers kept going to Wilt and the Knicks kept picking
>> off the passes. No doubt Wilt could have handled the passes -- Wilt
>> was not known for stone hands (except maybe by you, who would say
>> ANYTHING), but the passes weren't getting there.
>Nope, that's not what Clyde said:

> "We neutralized the Wilt mismatch by stealing those passes that weren't
> too tough for him to handle"

If they intercepted the passes, then how was Wilt to handle what he
never received? Hello? Earth to Ed, come in Ed.

>It's not stealing those passes that weren't getting there...

Was Wilt passing to himself?

>>Holzman's quote
>> (about picking off passes), doesn't say anything negative about Wilt.
>> Cross section it with Clyde's assessment and I prove my point, and
>> Wilt's: The Lakers were throwing ill advised passes that the KNicks
>> were swiping, and had there not been Knicks there, no doubt Wilt
>> would have caught them.
>So in other words, you are proving nothing from you point. YOu are trying
>to deflect all the blames to the other players. The Lakers threw some ill-
>advised passes, but it didn't erase the fact that there were also passes
>that weren't too tough for Wilt to handle...

Ed, you are serioulsy demented.

>> It is YOU who has tried to branch off -- classic Loryer -- when your
>> getting bashed try to go to other topics and distract them.
>Of course, because this branch off is one that killed you. You still haven't
>been able to handle this branch off.

I told you Ed. I quoted a guy who did more research on this than
myself. He's read all the Knick books, checked the newspapers, etc. Because
he has more books and sources than me hardly proves anything to me. I've
pointed out my source. If you have a beef with it, take it up with him.
Ed, it sure beats a 1979 rulebook. That's for sure.

>> And you're still mad because Spitz knows more about the Knicks than
>> you. Ed, your argument revolves around: "You haven't read every book,
>> so you lose."
>Dumbo, my argument doesn't have to be that. My argument only asks you to back
>up what you said, and you have to cry mamma because you can't back it up...

But it HAS been that. And I've backed it up. He said yes, you said
no. Now, he's not omniscient, but he sure knows more about the Knicks than
you. He also knows that the Knicks back-up center WASN'T Dick Barnett and
doesn't even ask if it is. Chosing between you 2, I'd have to go with him.
BTW, I'm suprised you haven't tried to make me come up with a source that
says Barnett WASN'T a back-up center.

>>I never claimed to have every book on the Knicks and
>> I'd love to have Reed's book. But the books I have come up ALL AGREE
>> on Wilt's accessment.
>Lie. You showed nothing that Wilt was not at fault in games 5 and 7. All you
>have was Frazier's comments on the expectation on Wilt, and even those quotes
>didn't support you, that the expectations and what the press did according to
>the expectations, were wrong.

Liar Liar pants on fire. Ed, I produced a quote 4 times about the
Knicks pressuring the guards and forced passes to Wilt that were picked off.
Because you can't understand that a pass is when a ball is sent from a
different player to Wilt, and if that pass is intercepted, then it didn't
get to Wilt, I can't help you there.

By the way Ed, if Steve Young throws an interception that never gets
to the receiver, is it Jerry Rice's fault? No doubt he could have caught it!

>>Now where Spitz got the illegal offense, I don't know,
>You don't know? then why are you so stupid to claim that the Knicks ran
>an illegal offense IN YOUR OWN STATEMENT?

No, his statement. I pointed it out.

>>I don't have the 50+ books he referenced, maybe you should ask him.
>I don't have to ask him. You put up "the Knicks ran an illegal offense" lie on
>the net. Now you have to defend this statement on your own. This is the problem
>of believing some nonsense you read from a journalist without exercising your
>own judgement. Now you got hung out dry. In turn, you hang out Meek and Shobe
>dry...

Ed, you couldn't hang yourself, if I build the gallow and helped you
in the noose.

>>As far as player books, I have 2 Frazier books and one Holzman. Brad-
>>ley's book focuses more on the 1974 season and he barely makes any references to
>> 1970, which is why he isn't referenced much in the Wilt section.
>> So when you ask me about Knicks collaborating on the illegal offense,
>> I don't have all the books written by Knicks, I'm still short 2
>> Reed books, 1 Clyde, 1 DeBusschere, and 4 Red books...but Spitz does
>> have them, and it was obvious he researched more about it than you,
>> who was cluleless about a guard was wasn't a center.
>But Mudd, is it any surprise to you that Spitz could have made a mistake?
>I mean, did you have any evidence that he had confessions from Knicks
>players that they cheated? So no, it's not obvious at all that such
>admissions ever existed.

And an editor didn't catch it? The players he talked to didn't
correct him? The quote I provided said West and Mullaney were screaming to
the officials about it. Why were they pointed out specifically? Sounds
like an eyewitness account there, Ed. Give up. Resistance is futile.

>>When you made your initial statement about Wilt, which
>> book did you get the idea from that Dick Barnett was a center from?
>Dumbo, what idea was that? that was a question.

Which proves your questions are as ignorant as your statements.
I heard a saying: There is no such thing as a dumb question, except a
question unasked. Confuscious may have said it. If so, Confuscious never
met Ed Lor-yer.

>So, if I accept playing 69 games as "without his serivce", I certainly can
>consider injured and immobile "Reedless".

Have you accepted it? If not, then you're back to the drawing
boards.

>But if I don't accept playing 69 games as "without his service". I still can
>considered injured and immobile as "Reedless".

Interesting concept. The Bulls were "Pippenless" then?

>>>3) fabricate that Willis was on the 1972 runner-up, and worse yet, as a proof,
>>> fabricated that Phil Jackson was on the 1970 championship team.
>>
>> I fabricated that team photo, no doubt.
>Who said that being on a team photo would automatically give him a ring?
>There are three other references saying otherwise. Try the NBA Register,
>the Basketabll Handbook, and Jackson's bio on ESPN net sportszone.

How's about Dave Meeks book? Oops.
Besides, I'm proving Phil was a Knick in 1970 (funny an injured guy
is not on the team, yet is in the team picture, and they knew before the
season started that he was out for the year), just like Willis was in 1972.

>Mudden, your problem is that you are to inept to use any judgement on the
>stuff you read from books...

Ed, you write a book, and I'll be skeptical about every statement.
I use judgement when I read. If you write it, I doubt it, which is why I have
belittled you on the Chamberlain topic. If it was a player or coach who
played in that game, I'll give credence to his testimony. If it's a guy
who's read more books than I have, read newspaper accounts, etc, then I'll
give him more benefit of the doubt than you, when you can't even make a
positive statement about what position a guy plays, and can't even understand
what an intercepted pass is.

Judden

[Air Judden]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>In article <juddstud.834776570@gandalf>,

>Judd Vance <judd...@engg.ksu.edu> wrote:
>> If I neglect my work, I may end up as a gunie pig for tests at
>>Lucent Technologies, like you. Ed, the LAST think I want in life is to
>>be locked in a cage with you arguing Dick Barnett's position, while scientist
>>put cosmetics in our eyeballs.

>But what work do you have now? anything besides reading Knicks books
>to argue here? The way I see it, the job that best suits you is to be
>Wilt's ass-kisser. He sure needs someone like you to build his
>credentials...

That is a "hobby" Ed. You may not understand the difference, but
there is. Currently, I'm conducting tests on the effect of velocity on
the combustability of ammonia for the International Institute of Ammonia
Refridgeration.
Besides, if reading Knick books and arguing with you were a job,
I'd be a filthy rich man for all the arguments I've won against you. Bill
Gates, you think you're living large? Ha! You're living in a shack!

>Any other line of jobs? it's out of your league...

Naw, I could always be a gunei pig for Lucent Technologies, like
you. Or I could be a PETA fanatic and free you, but then you'd have no
meaning in your life.

Judden

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4pr9d8$i...@abc.ksu.ksu.edu>,

Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>Dumbo, you lied again. I wasn't sure who the backup center was, that's why
>>I asked "was it Dick Barnett".
>
> How did I lie? I wrote exactly what you wrote "(Barnett?)".

Nope, "(Barnett?)" was not exactly what I wrote. I wrote

"(was it Dick Barnett)"

> Read 4 lines below in my original post "he asked the question
>if Barnett was the Knicks back-up center". Once again Ed, you try to
>steer away from the topic at hand with diversions, but it doesn't cut-it.
>You are doomed!

Doomed by what? your "exactly what you wrote?

> Game #7: Let's ask Wilt once more...Wilt, how did you do?
> "I had 21 points and 24 rebounds." Since basketball is played on
> both ends and domination requires both ends, Wilt, how did your
> counterpart, Willis Reed do?

Wow, analysis, I like it. The first thing to analyze how Wilt did was
ask Wilt himself, one who's not known for modesty. So much for objectivity...

Then how did Willis do? Hell, Willis was injured and immobile. Yet
Wilt only had 21 points? Was he capable of more?

> "Willis didn't score again the rest of the game, and he only
> got three rebounds". Gee Ed, if Luc Longley has 21 points and 24
> rebounds and held Patrick Ewing to 4 points and 3 rebounds, can you
> imagine how obnoxious Eric would be?

Geez, Mudd, if Pat Ewing had 21 points and 24 rebounds, while Hakeem
had 4 points and 3 rebounds, yet when Hakeem was badly injured and didn't
know that he could play until the last minute, yet the Rockets still
blew out the Knicks, you imagine how quiet SuperKnicks fan will be?

>Sure you'll cry injury, but
> isn't the question about Wilt's domainance?

Yes, and we are talking about dominance against an injured opponent.

>I'd call that a pretty dominating performance.

That's exactly your problem. You would consider good stats in a rout
a dominating performance, even though he could have done much much
better against an badly injured opponent, like establish better positions
against an immobile opponent and shoot more, or shooting better
from the line...

> Oh wait a minute...I'm reading Ed's mind. He's going to say that
> 1 of 11 free throw shooting nullifies everything. Well Ed, the
> Knicks lost by 14 points, and Holzman put the scrubs in early. You
> do the math. The game was a blowout from the get-go.

But Mudd, how did Wilt allow the game to be a blowout from the get-go? Was
he perfect from the get-go?

> Let's revisit Frazier's comments on Wilt and game #7....
> "We knew we had to help out Willis by sagging more than
> usual on Chamberlain. L.A. helped us sometimes by standing around.
> When they passed into Wilt they didn't cut around him or break
> straight to the hoop. They just stood there, giving us golden
> opportunities to double-team the big man.

Yes, standing around and cutting straight to the hoop would give West
28 points and Baylor 19 points. So much for standing around. Does it
mean Wilt did a lot of stand around too?

> 21 points (10 of 16 from the field) despite this? Pretty incredible
> game.

16 FGA against an immobile opponent and his backup? Pretty lame game.

> Now game #5....just read below Edward. We've seen how the Lakers
> comitted 17 2nd half turnovers and how they unwisely tried to force
> the ball into Wilt, rather than take the open shot, and how the
> Knicks picked off these passes.

or how the passes weren't too tough for Wilt to handle...

>Now if a bad pass from Dickie Garrett
> equals non-dominance from Chamberlain, well, Ed, you are one odd
> duck.

Well, that's only an "if", Mudd. If a good pass not too tough to handle
is considered not Wilt's fault, you gave strong indications as his
ass-kisser...

>With that kind of defense, Garrett and West should have destroyed
> them and that would have opened up the passing lanes for Wilt to
> eat up DeBusschere and Stallworth, who by the way were not centers,
> they were forwards, so when you call me a liar for saying what you
> said (does that make you a liar?) about Barnett,

What did I say about Barnett? "Was it Dick Barnett".

>then you are a bigger liar for saying that these 2 guys are centers,

But dumbo, Wilt's non-dominance of the back-up centers were not limited
to the time he played against DeBusschere and Stallworth. How about the
21 minutes he played against Bowman in game 7?

> Ed the point I made is your ignorance of the 1970 series. You didn't
> know who the Knick players were, what positions they played, what
> strategy they used, or how they chose to counter Chamberlain.

Geez, you are so dumb that you think these excuses actually make sense. You
mean if there is a 1-3-1 strategy or double-teaming that Wilt couldn't cope
with, then I can't put a finger on him...

>You displayed total ignorance and the only thing you mentioned was
> Wilt took 3 shots.

Dumbo, you are really ignorant. Cite my quote that "Wilt took 3 shots".
But yes, if he really only took 3 shots, that shows his ineptitute, for
such a "dominant" player you painted...

> My "comparison" was to demonstrate the depth of
> your ignorance about the 1970 finals. And I suceeded, because you
> still don't get the point.

Your ignorance is that you painted excuses for Wilt. The fact that in the
2nd half of game 5:

1) he scored 4 points
2) he couldn't handle passes not too tough for him to handle
3) he couldn't cope with the Knicks' small line up offense that intended to
draw him out of the hole.
4) use the double team excuse for him

Tell me that was the first time in his career that he faced a double-team
or a game plan that tried to draw him out of the hole...

> DeBusschere did not play center.

He did. He defended Wilt and Wilt defended him in that particular half.
What else do you think what constitute "play center"?

>He defended Wilt, but he was still a forward.

Really? so when the Texas Rangers put Jose Canseco on the mound, he
wasn't playing pitcher, he was just playing outfield. When the Cowboys
put Deion on offense, he wasn't playing WR, he was playing DB...

More Judd nonsense...

>A man's defender does not define the position. If a
> player gets caught in a switch, does that mean he changes positions?

Dumbo, that's not a player gets caught in a defensive switch. That's
a game plan.

> No, only defensive assignments. DeBusschere still was a forward.

He was not a forward in that game plan.

> I'm sure you'll try to argue this in your own clueless little way.

Of course, because claim that "DeBusshere didn't play center" was just your
clueless yapping...

> Food for thought, when Rodman guarded Ewing back in his Detroit days,
> did that make him a center and Laimbeer a forward?

Food for thought. When Magic guarded Darryl Dawkins in the 1980 finals game 6,
did that make him a center FOR THAT GAME?

I think so.

> As for the effectiveness, I need not reiterate a slap on you.
> Actually I do, but go back and read the defensive strategy. Try to
> comprehend it. Respond when you understand it. That oughta keep
> you busy for rest of this decade.

Mudd, don't try your stupid excuses for Wilt. They don't parse, and your
attempt to deflect the blame is going nowhere...

> Vinatage Lor: When all else fails, make something up.

make something up? Well, I wasn't the only one sayng that West took 2
shots and Wilt scored 4 points in the 2nd half.

>He never said this.
He brought that up as the effect of the "illegal zone offense". How
confusing...

> I've already explained the denial of the entry pass,

Entry passes not to tough for him to handle. So your explanation is shot.

>if you don't get it, you are clueless...

I don't get it, since you claimed that the passes never got there. That's
not the account from Holzman...

>when he doesn't touch the ball, it's hard to dominate a double team.

It's not if he didn't touch the ball. Those are passes NOT TO TOUGH FOR
HIM TO HANDLE...

> Ed, I never claimed to have all the books.

Then there are lots of accounts on those games that you didn't know.

>If I find them, I buy them...simple as that,

Geez, the accounts on the 1970 finals are not contingent upon "if Judd can find
them (the books)".

>but I only have one Holzman book, but that still had
>enough quotes to slap you around with.
> What does this quote mean? Frazier confirms they stole the passes
> "..."With a swarming, gambling, defense we caught up with them
> and won the game going away 107 to 100. Our press helped considerably.
> The Lakers didn't know what to do.

Oh, so if the Lakers didn't know what to do, then Wilt was excused as part of
the Lakers. Is that what you try to convey?

>If they did get through the press
> they kept trying to go to Wilt and we kept picking off the passes.

like those passes not too tough for him to handle?

> We stole the ball from them eight times in the fourth period. I stole
> it three times in the last 12 minutes."
>
> Seems like they stole the passes before they got there.

How do you know? if Holzman considered them not too tough for him to handle, it
means he had a chance to get them. And you also showed your stupidity. Even
a pass picked off is not the fault of only the passer. The receiver also has
the responsibility of aggressively going to the ball.

>And like
> Wilt said, they didn't get them to him at the right spots, which
> is what a guard is supposed to do.
> Ed, you are just plain looney. the Guards play like crap (try to
> deny it!) and you blame Chamberlain...

Mudd, you are all trash. Wilt played a big part in those mishaps, and you
try to deny them...

> And Jerry West was faultless? Elgin? Garrett? They played like
> crap like a team.

Well, glad you acknowledge it. If they played like crap like a team,
then how much blame should Wilt take? HE WAS PART OF THE TEAM!!! He
was arguably the biggest part. Did he succeed in bailing out his teammates?

>You try to use this as a hinge point for tearing
> down Wilt in an argument on the all-time great centers? One bad
> game in which an entire team played like crap? Like I said Ed,
> you are desperate...

Oh, you admitted in "ONE BAD GAME". Geez, what happened to game 7? another
bad game? what happened to game 1 and game 3? two more bad games? So it's
a total of 4 bad games, that's how you lose a series....

>you want to know what Wilt did to a back-up
> center when the team threw good passes, took their shots, just
> look at game #6 (45 points...20 of 27 shooting)....bring up game
> #7 and you'll flaunt your ignorance again.

Yep, so what happened to those 21 minutes in game 7 that he played against
the back-up centers? or the 6'6" forwards who played centers in 2nd half
of game 5?

> I told you they didn't outline other rules violations...

Who cares about other rules violations? Do you have ANY account on
this particular rule violations? As of now, you have ZERO. There shot
your claim of THREE Knicks admitting they cheated.

> And like I said, I don't have all the Knicks books...he had a lot
>more than I did and he referenced them and he sure knows more than you do
>about that final...

That's another conjecture. Even if (big IF) he knows more than I do
about that final, it still doesn't mean that he had any refernece on
the illegal offense rule. And what lame evidence you provide for your
claim?

He had a lot of books, he reference them, and he sure knows more
than you do...

It's a FACT that you ABSOLUTELY HAVE NO testimony from the Knicks players
on the illegal offense violation. Otherwise the way you argue (putting
up lots of quotes), you would have used it at the get-go...

Yet you have the nerve to lie about the existence of admissions from 3
Knicks...

>heck, I do, and he knows more than me.
> He sure didn't question who the Knicks back-up center was or claim
>that 21 points and 24 rebounds wasn't dominating.

Heck, he didn't claim in the book that he had admissions from 3 Knicks
that they ran an illegal zone offense. That's something you said.

> So now your quoting Holzman? A guy you claim has a foggy memory?

Well, it doesn't look foggy to me on this issue, since Wilt did indeed
missed 10 out of 11 FTs.

> Classic Ed. Slam a guy one minute and claim his words as gospel law the
>next. No doubt Wilt's free throw shooting sucked.

Classic Mudd, credit the testimonies that favored your point and side-step
those that counter...

As far as the psychological boost, it sure is overrated. Truly great players
would have overcome an opponent with such psychological boost: e.g. Pistons
in game 3 of the 1989 finals, Lakers in game 7 of the 1988 finals, Bulls
in the 1996 ECF, Bulls in the 1991 finals, etc. I mean, truly great
players would exploit your physical disadvantages. Was Wilt able to?

>You point to it as
>the deciding factor, when the same guy gives the credit to Frazier.

Wow, dumbo, A VERY VERY IMPORTANT FACTOR doesn't mean the lone factor,
does it?

> [ Lakers standing around during double-teaming Wilt in game 5 ]
> TEll me about liablities.
Yes, what about them? Shall I bring up Holzman's assessment once more?

"We neutralized the Wilt mismatch by stealing those passes that weren't
too tough for him to handle"

See, Wilt got neutralized even though he had a mismatch in front of him.
Talking about taking advantage of mismatches. But, Mudd, mismatches
weren't shown in stats, so you have no abillity to comprehend any failure
to capitalize on it a mismatch...

> Whoever said Wilt was flawless?

He wasn't? so how much blame he should shoulder in that series loss?

>Even the night he scored 100 he
>wasn't flawless, he missed 4 free throws. You slammed the guy for his
>failure to dominate and claim 21 pts and 24 rebounds isn't domination.

Whoever said 21 points and 24 rebounds in a rout was domination? Of
course I slammed the guy, his team got blown out. Any stats he got
are garbage stats that weren't helping the team. What if he only
got 8 rebounds, his team might have lost by 20 points (because once it's
a blowout, I don't think Holzman cared about the final margin, he would just
put in the scrubs earlier). So you are really proud of the job of
helping his team to lose by only 14 points..

>You had a stat book and didn't know what was going on.

You had some Knicks boooks and didn't know either. In fact, you even
spilled lies on the net: Phil Jackson being on the 1970 champions
and the illegal offense rule...

>When the teammates play in synch (game 6) Wilt is
>even more ferocious, but when they stand around and play like crap and
>let Clyde rip them apart and not hit open shots, Wilt isn't going to go
>out everyday and have 45 point games.

He isn't? Hey, when his teammates scored 69 points and stood around, he
scored 100.

>Your statements about him are unfounded when scrutinized.

At least my statements about him exposed your excuses...

> Yes. "The press always blamed Wilt because
> a lot of writers didn't like him."

Mudd, a "lot of writers didn't like him" doesn't have to be the
only reason of the blame, at least not according to Frazier.

"The press always ***blamed Wilt*** because a lot of writers didn't
like him" !=
"The press always ***blamed Wilt ONLY because a lot of writers didn't
like him***"

So in other words, the press blamed Wilt because a lot of writers didn't
like him, but can also be in conjunction to because he didn't play well
in that game, or he failed to rise to the occasion...

> It's a shame that I have to type something out and then explain it
>when I respond to you.

It's no shame, it just exposed your screwed-up mindset that you read
any tiny thing the way you want...

>I make the mistake of giving you the benefit that
>your reading comprehension level is above a first grader. My fault.

Your fault is that you like to paint pictures, except when you
get caught, just blamed that on the reader ...

>What those books do is give depth to the stats, they paint the entire
>picture, unlike you,

Yes, they paint their entire picture, for you to paint another picture
that make excuses for Wilt. Like 24 rebounds and 21 points in a route are
domination. Tell me which book painted such a "domination" picture...

> Bradley spoke quietly to Willis and asked him to 'just give us a half.
> That's all we need.' He was right. Half of Willis Reed was more than
> 100 percent of anybody else we cold put out there on the court."
>
> Without him they don't win. The lift he gave them sparked them to
> victory. Oh sure, I'm a liar, so let's go talk to fellow liar Clyde,
> "We didn't need him for anything else. He'd turned us on." and
> Red (that guy you quoted) said, "The psychological effect of what
> Willis did overshadowed others' achievements." Reed-less? Hardly!

Wow, Reed's purpose was only psychological effect? Geez, I don't know
that it's sufficient to offer only psychological effect in a game. And
in the climatic game of the season, you tell me that the Knicks wouldn't
have played this well had Willis not suit up? Mudd, who are you kidding here?

> Reed was there enough to get playoff MVP, even though he only
> had 4 pts and 3 rebounds and missed 21 minutes of that game (as
> you like to point out), all of game 6, and most of game 5.

Of course, because he played very well in games 1-4. You don't assume
that the MVP was only for game 7, do you?

> So you are equally inconsistent? After all you copy me. Now you
> are a liar and an inconsistent liar and a dumbo.

Dumbo, that's not COPY you, that's using your logic to shoot you.

> You had better remember to send us a Christmas card, or we'll
> be forced to give you a usenet WEDGIE.

Geez, Mudd, when you fail on an argument, just think that you are picking
on your kid brother. Sure, it's really cool to comfort yourself that
when get totally caught red faced in an argument, you are actually winning...

> No Ed, Wilt's mobility and quickness were WAY down.

No, Mudd, he was able to score 45 points just 2 days ago. He was even
the playoff MVP two years later.

>I've said this before, but I guess you fail to understand when I said that
>Wilt missed most of that season after he tore a tendon in his knee.

Of course I fail to understand, because that's just an excuse you make
for him. After he came back for the final 12 games of the season,
he averaged 27.3 ppg and 18.9 FGA/game. You mean he coudn't top that
in one of two of the most important games of the season for the Lakers
(game 5 or game 7)?

>Game #5: (Red): "I put in Nate Bowman to replace Willis Reed,
> but the Lakers went again and again to Wilt, who scored seven of L.A.'s
> next 12 points. With their lead 37-24, I replaced Bowman with Bill
> Hosket, but that didn't help too much."

That's the first half of game 5. How did he do in game 7 against Bowman?
or in the 2nd half of game 5 against the emergency centers?

> Ed, don't MAKE me bring up the same Frazier quote about game 7
> for the 3rd time. Your inability to think sure cost this group
> a lot of bandwidth.

Or your ability to paint your picture sure cost this group lots of
bandwidth, like keep putting up Frazier's quote on Wilt. Do you see
anything from that quote from Walt that Wilt shouldn't share the
blame (probably lots of)? You better take out those words and analysize
them one by one...

> Sometimes the Magic is there...guess you missed Kirk Gibson in 1988?
> Larry Bird vs. Indiana?

or sometimes not, guess you missed Isiah in 1988 game 7, Magic in 1989
game 3, Worthy in the 1991 finals, Nixon/McAdoo in the 1983 finals, Parish/
McHale in the 1987 finals ...

Guess you don't realize the advantage of playing opponents not on full
strength ...

>You expect Wilt to be able to rally the
> Lakers the way Willis did the Knicks?

Sure, why not? or is it because Wilt was not as good in the leadership
department?

>Ed, you really are BEYOND
> ignorant of Willis condition and the background going into that
> game 7, aren't you?

Mudd, you are really blinded by this Wilt worship, that anything the Knicks
did can't point a finger to Wilt...

> They sure did in game 6. No garden crowd, no Willis, and a 23
>point blowout. As Clyde said, they were never in it.

Because they didn't need that game. When you are leading 3-2 and have game 7
at home, game 6 can be a giveaway.

> That's your problem Ed, you think. Your thoughts are so screwed up
>you were doomed from the beginning of that paragraph. Who cares what you
>"think"...I've read your throughts, and I've translated them.

But who cares what you think either? You were defending Wilt. No one gave
Wilt credit in the 1970 finals. Even Walt's quotes weren't giving him
credit or even defending him. But I guess that's all you can hang on ...

>They are
>scary, Ed. So Ed, how many championship games have you played in? I already
>reeled off the quotes about the emotional boost. Call it bull all you want,
>but Bradley and Frazier were sure jazzed up. Red agrees. Of course, what
>do they know?

Let's see. They were professionals and HOFers, and they needed something like
that to jazz them up. In other words, they wouldn't have played like that
without Reed's appearance. Mudd, you are really muddy beyond recognition...

> Besides, once again, (more wasted bandwidth) half of Willis was
> better than anything else they could throw at Wilt...remember what
> Clyde said?

I don't believe it's even half of Willis, wouldn't you say? Yet Wilt
got nowhere against this < 50% Willis, and more importantly, his team got
blown out...

> And an entire team sagging on him. Pretty good indeed.

in a rout? pretty bad indeed. And there is no reason to believe yous BS
of "an entire team sagging on him". You have any film clips that the
Knicks quintuple-teamed Wilt?

>His point was that they weren't feeding him enough. But once again, your
> abilty to comprehend thoughts shine through.

Knowing that the Knicks will gamble on him missing the FTs, who wouldn't
hesitate to feed him?

>>And so the Knicks hustled? Did Wilt hustle too?
> We know who DIDN'T hustle....

That didn't answer whether Wilt hustle...

> 4th time I've used this quote Ed. Will you do us all a favor and
> read it this time?

Well, your quote didn't answer the question, the other Lakers might not
have hustled, but did Wilt hustle? Better used it the fifth time, maybe
use it a couple more times, it may mean that Wilt did hustle...

>Jerry, Elgin, Dickie not run.
> Lakers not win. Ed blame Wilt. Ed not have clue.

Geez, Mudd, more muddlogic from you. You really should published your logic
book about basketball. When I question: did Wilt hustle? you can give me
the answer that Baylor/West didn't hustle. Well, it's as if the team members
form a binary correlation:

if other guys didn't hustle, then Wilt hustle, and vice-versa.

See, you may actually believe in your logic...

> There, make sense?
That makes the sense of Muddlogic ...

> Perhaps he'd have 6 points at halftime? And miss 6 shots in a row
>and get abused by Gary Payton?

Well, that's MJ's team's first loss in the series. How did Wilt do in
his team's first loss in the series? Wait, how come MJ wasn't blamed for
his team's fourth loss?

>I guess this means that Michael isn't the best shooting guard of
>all time. He couldn't even stop a sore-backed Nate McMillan.

Nope, you guessed wrong. What you can do is to compare Wilt's
first loss (game 1) in the finals vs Jordan's first loss (game 4)
in the finals. Let's see,

1970 1996
LA-NY game 1 vs Chi-Seattle game 4
LA-NY game 3 vs Chi-Seattle game 5
LA-NY game 5 vs ???

Maybe you can help me. When is Chicago's 3rd loss in the 1996 finals?
Don't they schedule a game on Wednesday (6/19)? I better buy some
beer and chips for the game Wednesday nite ...

>>> Holzman says (p. 107) Willis Reed was the big story, not for what
>>> he did but for how he lifted the and inspired an entire team. He
>>> played 27 minutes and scored only four points, but his being able to
>>> play enabled us to have a guy push Chamberlain out of position a little
>>> bit, and, more important, to take another four fouls at the center
>>> position...The psychological effect of what Willis did
>>> overshadowed others' achievements. Willis was tremendous, but what
>>> Walt Frazier did paid the rent..."
>>Geez, you didn't mention Holzman's comments on Wilt in "Red on Red", I
>>wonder why...
>
> This IS from Red on Red, Ed...hello? Didn't you read the bottom?

Holzman's comments on Wilt in "Red on Red", about game 1 (p 100):

"Willis wound up with 37 points, 16 rebounds and five assists. Wilt
only had 17 points and he missed nine of ten free throws. The key
to the game was Chamberlain. He wouldn't come out and play tough
defense, but I knew that wouldn't last".

about game 5 (p 104):

"Wilt was the strongest man in the world, and he outweighed
Stallworth by almost 80 pounds, but with his quickness Dave did
a hell of a job of keeping daylight between him and Wilt. Dave
was even able to steal the ball coming around on the pass into
Chamberlain. And that threw Wilt off.

... I told the guys to shoot from outside to pull Chamberlain
out -- they were doing it and they were hitting"

about game 7 (p. 109)

"... He played 27 minutes and scored only 4 points, but his

being able to play enabled us to have a guy push Chamberlain

out of position a little bit, an dmore important, to take
another four fouls at the center position. With Bowman also
playing Chamberlain, we had six more fouls from the center
position and were able to capitalize on Wilt's ineffective
foul shooting

Chamberlain did many things, but we knew foul shooting was
not his strength and we capitalized on it. Wilt grabbed 24
rebounds in the game and scored 21 points but was 1-11 from
the foul line. That was a very, very important factor in our
win."

So let's see, Red blamed the loss of game 1 on Wilt, "credit" his
stupidity for game 5 (getting pulled out), and his poor foul shooting
was a very very important factor in their win....

Did you mention these comments? Why not? See the effects of selectively using
comments to paint a picture?

> This quote was to shoot down you disbelief that Willis was there
>to push on Wilt and lift the team and crowd. I suceeding in proving your
>poor arguement...

What disbelief? I bashed Wilt for his failure to dominate Willis when
Willis was on one leg and couldn't move. Lift the team? it's as if
a team of HOFers need such a lift in game 7 of the finals?

>unless you claim to know more than Red about that game...
>wouldn't suprise me.

It doesn't have to know more than Red to know that NBA players thrive to play
in game 7 of the finals. This Willis Reed show is good for theatrics, but
the biggest reason would be:

1) Willis pushed Wilt out of position
2) Willis and Bowman gambled on Wilt's poor foul shooting, and paid off,
not only on the foul line, but his chances of getting the ball at the
low post.

> You should be a history revisionist. You could have Wilt scoring
>0 points and grabbind 0 rebounds while being shut down by Dick Barnett while
>Willis Reed stayed at home.

Nope, I could have Wilt failing to dominate the backup centers and an
immobile Willis in game 7, or 6'6" forwards playing center in game 5.

>You could declare 21 points and 24 rebounds as
>a failure to dominate. Ooops, you've already done that.

Of course, 21 points vs a hobbled Reed on one leg? Geez, look at Reed,
he scored 37 and 38 points in the first 2 victories against a healthy
Wilt...

> Ed (inhaling deep): "Bill, remember when Wilt got shut down by
> Dick Barnett in 1970?

Mudd, you try to mislead again. Cite the quote that I claimed Wilt got
shut down by Dick Barnett. I can't wait...

>>Well, Mudd, Reed didn't play much in the 1972 regular season team either.
>>How you have nerve to include him in the runner-up is beyond me...
>
> Perhaps because he was? Just like Phil Jackson was a Knick in 1970,
>despite missing the season with a back injury.

Was Phil Jackson part of the 1970 championship team? There were 3 sources
saying that he wasn't. So how do you know that he was? Holzman made him
a part-time scout that season, if that's what you meant by "including him
on the champions".

>>No team. He was on IR and not allowed to play... Who did Brad Daugherty
>>play for in the past 2 years? Can't name any other team? are you so stupid
>>that then he must be playing for the Cavs?
>
> a member of the Cavs? Yep. They still pay the paychecks.

Well, dumbo, pay the paychecks doesn't mean a member of the playing team.
When a player has a guaranteed contract, you have to pay him even after he
died or retired (like Reggie Lewis or Magic), let alone injured. The key here
is your comparison of two teams' talents. Was Daugherty's playing talent
available for the 1996 Cavs? No.

>If they
> would have won this year, he'd be in the team picture. Just like
> Phil Jackson was.

Well, team picture is cheap. It doesn't mean that he is a member of the team,
unless by team, you mean team payroll.

As far as the team that actually plays the game, as that's the operational
talent you tried to compare, you aren't even close.

>> Miscellaneous: Member of NBA championship team (1973).
>
> So, the NBA register and NBA guide disagree? You call the guide
>an official NBA book.

It's not only the Guide. Check out the Basketball Handbook and the ESPNnet
sportszone on Jackson's bio. Three different sources. More creditable
than merely a picture, isn't it?

>So it is legit, no? Red's own book has the
>picture and you quoted him as a credible source.

Credible source doesn't mean it's perfect. There is something called
cross-checking, don't you know?

>Phil has a ring from 1970, just like Elgin does in 1973.

I don't know about it, but I don't think so. The bios didn't say so.
The NBA Register didnt' say so. Check out the bio on Jackson in the
1994 Basketball Handbook:

"A 13-year NBA career was plagued by back problems, an injury
that kept him from participating with the 1969-70 champion
Knicks and thus increasing his jewelry take"

So you get any proof of "Phil has a ring from 1970"?

>Funny thing is, Willis is even more credible, since he PLAYED in 1972.
>Why does the official picture of the Champion TEAM feature Jackson?

Why do the NBA Register, the Phil Jackson bio and the Basketball
handbook state that Phil was NOT a member of the 1970 champions?

>Guess the Knicks aren't a credible source for Knicks info.

You guess right, because taking pictures are really cheap. The 1972
Lakers put 17 players on the photo...

> You pointed out that the picture was taken at mid-season. Phil
>hadn't played a game all year. They knew he was going to mis the entire
>season, yet they put him in the TEAM photo. Guess he was a member of the
>team.

Guess wrong, especially when three different sources stated that he
wasn't...

> The 3 statements explain how it works and who played which
> positions in it.

Nope, the 3 statements explained the effect of the illegal offense, which
was clamping down Wilt's and West's offense.

>Do you REALLY need that?

Of course, those three statements demonstrated that what he said about
the "illegal offense" didn't make sense...

>The reason
> I used this quote was to show the LEGALLITY of it, now how it worked.

The reason you cut the next three statements was that the effect of the
Knicks' illegal offense made no sense: they stop Wilt's and West's offense
Yet you still couldn't get the clue...

> Ed, I've seen you at work, I don't think it's POSSIBLE to explain
> to you any more about it.

It's not possible, because you can't. You have been beating this dead
horse (illegal offense) to death, yet even in Spitz's own writing, he's
not making senses...

>You're not sure what position Dick
> Barnett played, so how could ever hope to explain to you his role
> in the 1-3-1?

Well, the worst I did was not sure about who the backup center was. The
worst you did you spill lies on the net....

> And I DID mention the effect.

No, you didn't mention the effect from that paragraph in Bob Spitz's
writing, because it would be embarrassing...

> Ed, I don't think you could spell "DOG" if I spotted you the "D" and
> the "O."

Mudd, I don't think you even realize that there is no such thing as
illegal zone offense in 1970...

> Nothing saying he was faltless, but I consider 21 pts and 24 rebounds
> pretty awesome.

That's your problem. I didn't see anyone crediting Wilt played a great
game 7 in 1970. So what you and probably your cohorts Meek and Shobe
considered isn't my concern ...

>I don't blame all the failures of a team on
> one man when he has 21 pts and 24 rebounds.

I would blame lots of failures on a man when he's supposed to be the leader,
and played against a badly injured opponent...

> And as to an earlier claim that I was biased...if I'm so biased to
> Wilt why do I have more books about the 1970 Knicks than any other
> team?

What kind of question is that? Did the Lakers or LA journalists write a
lot of books on the 1970 season? Are they proud of what they achieved?
Geez, they reached the 7 games of the finals...

>So I could see Wilt lose? Maybe because that team is one
> of my favorites of all time. What I am doing is giving the credit
> where credit is due.

Yep, the credit went to New York. Anyone gave credit to Wilt for his
21 points and 24 rebounds? or to his failure to rise to the occasion
despite his stats?

>You assigned all the blame on Wilt and I'm not going to stand for that.

"All the blame"? that's pretty heavy words. You care to cite it? I would
say Wilt should take lots of the blame, but not necessarily ALL.

>His performance didn't rival Bill
> Walton (your bong buddy) in 1977, but it was a very good performance
> and the Magic would have been ecstatic to have got Shaq to put up
> 21 pts and 24 rebounds and shut down Luc, even if it meant 1-11 from
> the stripe.

Well, if the Magic would have been happy that Shaq couldn't score 35 points
in a game against an immobile Hakeem, while the team got blown out,
then we'll talk...

> Good idea. I filed you as hot air a long time ago.
>When you asked if Dick Barnett was a center

Oh, I only asked? Isn't it better than someone who STATED that the Knicks
ran an illegal offense in 1970?

Actually, when you were on the Oscar/Magic war, you fully exposed yourself
as hot air...

>If a man doesn't know, proves he doesn't know, knows he doesn't know, but
> still acts like he knows, he is Ed Lor-yer. Give up.

Nope, he is not Ed Lor-yer, but he's a subset of Air Mudden, who has this
additional virtues: when he knows that he doesn't know, and knows that
he has NO way to get out of the corner, just use some irrelevance to
wimp out:

Bob Spitz must have read more reference than you do, why don't you
ask him about the testimonies from the Knicks players? (because I
obviously don't have them and have no way to present them).

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4q78di$4...@abc.ksu.ksu.edu>,

Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>The way I see it, the job that best suits you is to be
>>Wilt's ass-kisser. He sure needs someone like you to build his
>>credentials...
> That is a "hobby" Ed.

Mudd, you really need a life. Kissing ass is your hobby? Is that the
way to survive in KSU?

> Besides, if reading Knick books and arguing with you were a job,
>I'd be a filthy rich man for all the arguments I've won against you.

Well, you sure are filthy, I am not sure about rich. If you can get rich
by losing arguments, like lying about

1) the Knicks ran an illegal offense
2) you have admission from ***THREE*** Knicks players that they cheated
3) Phil Jackson was on the 1970 championship team

let me know...

>>Any other line of jobs? it's out of your league...
>
> Naw, I could always be a gunei pig for Lucent Technologies, like
>you.

Mudd, Lucent don't hire ass-kissers like you. Besides, if that's all you
can do in your PR job for Wilt, I don't see your future in this field...

[Judd Vance]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>In article <4pr9d8$i...@abc.ksu.ksu.edu>,
>Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>>Dumbo, you lied again. I wasn't sure who the backup center was, that's why
>>>I asked "was it Dick Barnett".
>>
>> How did I lie? I wrote exactly what you wrote "(Barnett?)".
>Nope, "(Barnett?)" was not exactly what I wrote. I wrote

> "(was it Dick Barnett)"

Ed, you say this is a question. Where is the question mark?
Surely a master of English, such as yourself, would know this. Don't tell
me all of your defenses of "it was a question" were lies !?!?

>> Game #7: Let's ask Wilt once more...Wilt, how did you do?
>> "I had 21 points and 24 rebounds." Since basketball is played on
>> both ends and domination requires both ends, Wilt, how did your
>> counterpart, Willis Reed do?
>Wow, analysis, I like it. The first thing to analyze how Wilt did was
>ask Wilt himself, one who's not known for modesty. So much for objectivity...

>Then how did Willis do? Hell, Willis was injured and immobile. Yet
>Wilt only had 21 points? Was he capable of more?

Ed, DON'T make me bring back in Clyde's game #7 analysis of
Wilt's teammates standing around, making it easier for the Knicks to double
on Wilt and Wilt couldn't drive on injured Reed because the Knicks were
swiping at the ball.... how many times do I have to write it?

Tell you what, Ed. Post your address and I'll mail you the quote.
Then, when you get ready to dig yourself in a whole, you can tape the
written quote to the screen, and you question will be answered, and you
can save bandwidth for everyone.

Wilt had 21 points in these conditions and 24 rebounds. He held his
couterpart to 4 pts and 3 rebounds and you claim he didn't dominate. You've
tried to justify it every which way but loose, but when it comes down to
it, Wilt dominated. Not flawless, but dominant, which was the issue at
hand. You are wrong, Ed ... once again.

>> "Willis didn't score again the rest of the game, and he only
>> got three rebounds". Gee Ed, if Luc Longley has 21 points and 24
>> rebounds and held Patrick Ewing to 4 points and 3 rebounds, can you
>> imagine how obnoxious Eric would be?
>Geez, Mudd, if Pat Ewing had 21 points and 24 rebounds, while Hakeem
>had 4 points and 3 rebounds, yet when Hakeem was badly injured and didn't
>know that he could play until the last minute, yet the Rockets still
>blew out the Knicks, you imagine how quiet SuperKnicks fan will be?

And you'd say Ewing didn't dominate? Heh.

>>Sure you'll cry injury, but
>> isn't the question about Wilt's domainance?
>Yes, and we are talking about dominance against an injured opponent.

Ed, he DID dominate. You said he didn't. You are wrong, I am
right.

>>I'd call that a pretty dominating performance.
>That's exactly your problem. You would consider good stats in a rout
>a dominating performance, even though he could have done much much
>better against an badly injured opponent, like establish better positions
>against an immobile opponent and shoot more, or shooting better
>from the line...

You said he failed to dominante against a Reedless team (strike 1) and
then you said Reedless means an injured Reed. How did an injured Reed cause
Wilt to miss free throws? Was he pulling his socks down while Wilt was
shooting? Sorry Ed, Wilt was the former Globetrotter.
Once again, my whole existence on this thread is to disprove your
accusation of Wilt failing to dominate the backup center in game 5 and the
Reedless Knicks in game 7.

>> Let's revisit Frazier's comments on Wilt and game #7....
>> "We knew we had to help out Willis by sagging more than
>> usual on Chamberlain. L.A. helped us sometimes by standing around.
>> When they passed into Wilt they didn't cut around him or break
>> straight to the hoop. They just stood there, giving us golden
>> opportunities to double-team the big man.
>Yes, standing around and cutting straight to the hoop would give West
>28 points and Baylor 19 points. So much for standing around. Does it
>mean Wilt did a lot of stand around too?

It's called passing out of a double team. Knicks swarm Wilt. Wilt
cannot dribble because Knicks will steal ball. Ed thinks Wilt should try
to dribble. Wilt does not. Wilt passes to teammates. Ed says Wilt was
wrong. Ed is dum-dum.
There, I used Ed-speak. Did that make sense?

>> 21 points (10 of 16 from the field) despite this? Pretty incredible
>> game.
>16 FGA against an immobile opponent and his backup? Pretty lame game.

READ QUOTE ABOVE ED!!!!!!! I'm not going to print it again.

>> Now game #5....just read below Edward. We've seen how the Lakers
>> comitted 17 2nd half turnovers and how they unwisely tried to force
>> the ball into Wilt, rather than take the open shot, and how the
>> Knicks picked off these passes.
>or how the passes weren't too tough for Wilt to handle...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Ed, you're killing me!

>>With that kind of defense, Garrett and West should have destroyed
>> them and that would have opened up the passing lanes for Wilt to
>> eat up DeBusschere and Stallworth, who by the way were not centers,
>> they were forwards, so when you call me a liar for saying what you
>> said (does that make you a liar?) about Barnett,
>What did I say about Barnett? "Was it Dick Barnett".

You're still a liar. You didn't put a question mark. Thus, it was
not a question, like you claimed. It was a statement of your ignorance.

>>then you are a bigger liar for saying that these 2 guys are centers,
>But dumbo, Wilt's non-dominance of the back-up centers were not limited
>to the time he played against DeBusschere and Stallworth. How about the
>21 minutes he played against Bowman in game 7?

Now don't cover your rear. You said Wilt failed to dominate the
back-up center in game 5 as well. He DID dominate Bowman. DeBusschere and
Dave the Rave were not centers. You lied.

>> My "comparison" was to demonstrate the depth of
>> your ignorance about the 1970 finals. And I suceeded, because you
>> still don't get the point.
>Your ignorance is that you painted excuses for Wilt. The fact that in the
>2nd half of game 5:

>1) he scored 4 points
>2) he couldn't handle passes not too tough for him to handle

Ed, let's get this straight...although you still won't understand.

Garrett passes to Wilt. Pass gets intercepted. Wilt never touched
it. Garrett is at fault. Garrett gets credited with a turnover.

Wilt handles the pass, because the pass was not too difficult to
handle. The pass is complete it was not intercepted. Then, Knicks
steal ball from Wilt. This is not an intercepted pass, but rather
a steal or "picking his rock".

Frazier said they stole passes sent to Wilt. Holzman said these
passes were not to difficult for Wilt to handle. This matches
condition #1, not 2. See Ed? (That's a retorical question: I know
you don't).

>Tell me that was the first time in his career that he faced a double-team
>or a game plan that tried to draw him out of the hole...

That was the first time a team concentrated on stopping Wilt and
the Lakers committed 17 turnovers in one half and Jerry West only took 2
shots and missed them both. There, happy?

>> DeBusschere did not play center.
>He did. He defended Wilt and Wilt defended him in that particular half.
>What else do you think what constitute "play center"?

Wilt didn't defend him. He wouldn't follow DeBusschere out. Next.

>>He defended Wilt, but he was still a forward.
>Really? so when the Texas Rangers put Jose Canseco on the mound, he
>wasn't playing pitcher, he was just playing outfield. When the Cowboys
>put Deion on offense, he wasn't playing WR, he was playing DB...

This is basketball, Ed. (My Young example was pure sarcasm).

>> No, only defensive assignments. DeBusschere still was a forward.
>He was not a forward in that game plan.

Shall I reproduce the quote that the Knicks played a "3 forward
offense?" Don't tell me you think that Barnett is now a forward?

>> Vinatage Lor: When all else fails, make something up.
>make something up? Well, I wasn't the only one sayng that West took 2
>shots and Wilt scored 4 points in the 2nd half.

This isn't made up. It's fact.

>>if you don't get it, you are clueless...
>I don't get it, since you claimed that the passes never got there. That's
>not the account from Holzman...

Bzzzzt. I've showed you how Holzman and Frazier's statements do
not contradict each other. Holzman's comment did not assign blame to Wilt,
no matter how HARD you try to make it.

>>but I only have one Holzman book, but that still had
>>enough quotes to slap you around with.
>> What does this quote mean? Frazier confirms they stole the passes
>> "..."With a swarming, gambling, defense we caught up with them
>> and won the game going away 107 to 100. Our press helped considerably.
>> The Lakers didn't know what to do.
>Oh, so if the Lakers didn't know what to do, then Wilt was excused as part of
>the Lakers. Is that what you try to convey?

The part imbetween those 2 lines (which you so convieniently snipped)
said that they kept trying to force the passes to Wilt, and the Knicks
kept picking them off. The last statement says that the Lakers had a bad
gameplan, the paragraph specifially assigns blame to the guards.

>> We stole the ball from them eight times in the fourth period. I stole
>> it three times in the last 12 minutes."
>>
>> Seems like they stole the passes before they got there.
>How do you know? if Holzman considered them not too tough for him to handle, it
>means he had a chance to get them. And you also showed your stupidity. Even
>a pass picked off is not the fault of only the passer. The receiver also has
>the responsibility of aggressively going to the ball.

Ed, this is not a pass to the wing, it's a pass to the post. When
you post, you do not go out to meet the ball. You fight for position and
hold it. The pass is supposed to get to you. Gee Ed, have you ever
PLAYED in the low post? Or are you even more cluelss than I give you
credit for?

>>And like
>> Wilt said, they didn't get them to him at the right spots, which
>> is what a guard is supposed to do.
>> Ed, you are just plain looney. the Guards play like crap (try to
>> deny it!) and you blame Chamberlain...
>Mudd, you are all trash. Wilt played a big part in those mishaps, and you
>try to deny them...

Yeah, he made West and Garrett throw those bad passes, and he
stopped the guards from taking open shots. Wilt did his job, he was a threat
in the middle and the Knicks responded by designing a game plan to stop
Wilt at the expense of the rest of the team and the didn't keep up their
end of the bargain. Basketball is a TEAM game and Wilt very much did his
part, yet you blame him ... Ed, Ed, Ed.
You would make a fine replacement for Bill Walton.

>> And Jerry West was faultless? Elgin? Garrett? They played like
>> crap like a team.
>Well, glad you acknowledge it. If they played like crap like a team,
>then how much blame should Wilt take? HE WAS PART OF THE TEAM!!! He
>was arguably the biggest part. Did he succeed in bailing out his teammates?

read above, Bill.

>>You try to use this as a hinge point for tearing
>> down Wilt in an argument on the all-time great centers? One bad
>> game in which an entire team played like crap? Like I said Ed,
>> you are desperate...
>Oh, you admitted in "ONE BAD GAME". Geez, what happened to game 7? another
>bad game? what happened to game 1 and game 3? two more bad games? So it's
>a total of 4 bad games, that's how you lose a series....

Ed, only you would consider 21 pts, 24 rebounds a bad game. A man
who does his job (in game 5) doesn't have a bad game. The bad game referes
to the "team" which played like crap. I can see where you are going to
go: Wilt is part of the team, Wilt played like crap, therefore, he had a
bad game. Save the courtroom theatrics and get a clue about teammwork and
especially low post offense.

>> So now your quoting Holzman? A guy you claim has a foggy memory?
>Well, it doesn't look foggy to me on this issue, since Wilt did indeed
>missed 10 out of 11 FTs.

You were the one who said I can't trust what I read, because their
memories can't be trusted...and then YOU quote one.

>As far as the psychological boost, it sure is overrated. Truly great players
>would have overcome an opponent with such psychological boost: e.g. Pistons
>in game 3 of the 1989 finals, Lakers in game 7 of the 1988 finals, Bulls
>in the 1996 ECF, Bulls in the 1991 finals, etc. I mean, truly great
>players would exploit your physical disadvantages. Was Wilt able to?

Do I notice a tread in your examples?

#1) All took place after expansion (and the watering down process
coming in).

#2) None of the teams listed lost a center. The teams mentioned
had guard injuries and a SF.

And to doubt the psychological boost that Holzman mentions AND Frazier shows
your stupidity (claiming to know more than the members involved) and your
double-standard, since you quoted from the SAME Holzman book that mentions
the psychological effect.

>> [ Lakers standing around during double-teaming Wilt in game 5 ]

Game 7...get it right...I've only posted this...HOW MANY TIMES????
No wonder, you don't understand it...you don't even know what game
it's referring to!

>> Whoever said Wilt was flawless?
>He wasn't? so how much blame he should shoulder in that series loss?

Not what you're trying to assign him, and certainly not enough to
rip him in a comparison of the all-time great centers.

>>Even the night he scored 100 he
>>wasn't flawless, he missed 4 free throws. You slammed the guy for his
>>failure to dominate and claim 21 pts and 24 rebounds isn't domination.
>Whoever said 21 points and 24 rebounds in a rout was domination? Of
>course I slammed the guy, his team got blown out. Any stats he got
>are garbage stats that weren't helping the team. What if he only
>got 8 rebounds, his team might have lost by 20 points (because once it's
>a blowout, I don't think Holzman cared about the final margin, he would just
>put in the scrubs earlier).

In other words, that back-up center you claim he DIDN'T dominate? You
are trapped Ed.

>>You had a stat book and didn't know what was going on.
>You had some Knicks boooks and didn't know either. In fact, you even
>spilled lies on the net: Phil Jackson being on the 1970 champions

Proved ya wrong on this one already, so has Dave.

>>When the teammates play in synch (game 6) Wilt is
>>even more ferocious, but when they stand around and play like crap and
>>let Clyde rip them apart and not hit open shots, Wilt isn't going to go
>>out everyday and have 45 point games.
>He isn't? Hey, when his teammates scored 69 points and stood around, he
>scored 100.

Desperation shot by Ed at the Buzzer....air ball!

#1) Wilt was 8 years younger and far more athletic.

#2) Wilt had the game of his life (28 of 32 from the stripe).

#3) The Knicks decided in the 4th quarter to get 100 pts. The team's
offense was designed to get Wilt every shot and fortunately ...

#4) The defense wasn't the world champion Knicks defense.

#5) Wilt wasn't coming off a major knee injury and surgery.

Sorry Ed, play again.

>>Your statements about him are unfounded when scrutinized.
>At least my statements about him exposed your excuses...

Sure it did. Next.

>> Yes. "The press always blamed Wilt because
>> a lot of writers didn't like him."
>Mudd, a "lot of writers didn't like him" doesn't have to be the
>only reason of the blame, at least not according to Frazier.

> "The press always ***blamed Wilt*** because a lot of writers didn't
> like him" !=
> "The press always ***blamed Wilt ONLY because a lot of writers didn't
> like him***"

>So in other words, the press blamed Wilt because a lot of writers didn't
>like him, but can also be in conjunction to because he didn't play well
>in that game, or he failed to rise to the occasion...

Ed's guessing game on why the press blame Wilt is a nifty attempt to
cover up the dis: He tried to say that Frazier was blaming Wilt. I pointed
out that Frazier was saying the press blamed Wilt, and now Ed exits down
a dirt road. Problem is, the road is a dead end road, and Ed's feelbe
attempt to cover his accusation is dead. Next.

>> Reed was there enough to get playoff MVP, even though he only
>> had 4 pts and 3 rebounds and missed 21 minutes of that game (as
>> you like to point out), all of game 6, and most of game 5.
>Of course, because he played very well in games 1-4. You don't assume
>that the MVP was only for game 7, do you?

Nope, but it was the deciding factor. Frazier would have otherwise
received it. But Clyde knows that no Willis, no win. So game 7 had a very
major part in deciding series MVP, and Ed, when 1970 mention what is
ALWAYS mentioned? Willis awesome game 1 or game 7? What film is shown,
Willis draining the jumper in game 1 or hobbling out on the court? Next.

>when get totally caught red faced in an argument, you are actually winning...

I've already won. I have torn up your assessment on Wilt. I've
dropped the atomic bombs on you. The rest of this is the equivalent of
signing the treaty on the Missouri.

Ed, you are like Sadaam Hussein. No matter how bad you lose an
argument, you claim victory.

>> No Ed, Wilt's mobility and quickness were WAY down.
>No, Mudd, he was able to score 45 points just 2 days ago. He was even
>the playoff MVP two years later.

which disproves many of your wacky theories.

#1) Red went with Reed (remember, half of Reed was better than anything
else they could put up against Wilt...Walt's saying). Game
6, he went with a back-up center that you claimed Wilt couldn't
dominate.

#2) The psychological factor of having the hometown crowd going crazy
and pumping up the team and inspiring the players....as pointed out
by Frazier and Holzman, a guy who's words you believe. It is
not overrated.

Ed is so bad at arguing, he defeats himself.

>>I've said this before, but I guess you fail to understand when I said that
>>Wilt missed most of that season after he tore a tendon in his knee.
>Of course I fail to understand, because that's just an excuse you make
>for him. After he came back for the final 12 games of the season,
>he averaged 27.3 ppg and 18.9 FGA/game.

That wasn't the final 12 games of the season. Next.

>>Game #5: (Red): "I put in Nate Bowman to replace Willis Reed,
>> but the Lakers went again and again to Wilt, who scored seven of L.A.'s
>> next 12 points. With their lead 37-24, I replaced Bowman with Bill
>> Hosket, but that didn't help too much."
>That's the first half of game 5. How did he do in game 7 against Bowman?
>or in the 2nd half of game 5 against the emergency centers?

Bowman didn't play in the 2nd half. See Ed, your ignorance of the
1970 series is apparent.

>> Ed, don't MAKE me bring up the same Frazier quote about game 7
>> for the 3rd time. Your inability to think sure cost this group
>> a lot of bandwidth.
>Or your ability to paint your picture sure cost this group lots of
>bandwidth, like keep putting up Frazier's quote on Wilt. Do you see

Good point. You can't understand the quotes so if I keep posting
them, I thought you might get it through eventual osmosis, but that's
wishful thinking, so I won't post them after this. It's pointless to argue
with you, since I've said the same thing over and over.

>> They sure did in game 6. No garden crowd, no Willis, and a 23
>>point blowout. As Clyde said, they were never in it.
>Because they didn't need that game. When you are leading 3-2 and have game 7
>at home, game 6 can be a giveaway.

Thinking like this is why you are a farce. No game is a giveaway.

>>They are
>>scary, Ed. So Ed, how many championship games have you played in? I already
>>reeled off the quotes about the emotional boost. Call it bull all you want,
>>but Bradley and Frazier were sure jazzed up. Red agrees. Of course, what
>>do they know?
>Let's see. They were professionals and HOFers, and they needed something like
>that to jazz them up. In other words, they wouldn't have played like that
>without Reed's appearance. Mudd, you are really muddy beyond recognition...

Yes Ed, you're knowledge of life in the NBA goes so far beyond that
of these guys that you can say they are wrong. I RECOGNIZE when an expert
is telling how it is, and when a desperate LOR-YER is trying to stay
afloat.

>> And an entire team sagging on him. Pretty good indeed.
>in a rout? pretty bad indeed. And there is no reason to believe yous BS
>of "an entire team sagging on him". You have any film clips that the
>Knicks quintuple-teamed Wilt?

Yet another Ed Lor-yer wiff. The entire team doesn't mean
simulaneously. And Yes, I do have film clips of the game. I told you,
it's been on ESPN multiple times. But you probably miss it, in order to
watch the Power Rangers.

Sheesh Ed...I just scrolled down to bottom of the screen!!!! Let
me answer all of your questions (since I gotta go down to the lab and do
some work). All of your answers can be answered with these 2 statements
from a guy who played in the series. You probably don't recognize them,
but I've used them many times. Write these down Ed. Any time you have a
question about Wilt in game #5 and #7, here is your answer and my response
to you. Save this in a file called "Answers to my Wilt questions." Ok,
got it? Ok here is answer #1:

Frazier (source #1: pp 223-24): "They should have buried us in the
second half...But they kept being overcautious and we kept coming
back...We pressured the passers and kept them from getting the ball
into Wilt, who was being guarded by comparitive midgets, DeBusschere
and Stallworth. By the end of the third quarter, aided by nine
Laker turnovers, we had cut the margin to seven points.

..."With a swarming, gambling, defense we caught up with them
and won the game going away 107 to 100. Our press helped considerably.

The Lakers didn't know what to do. If they did get through the press

they kept trying to go to Wilt and we kept picking off the passes.

We stole the ball from them eight times in the fourth period. I stole
it three times in the last 12 minutes."

And answer #2:

>> "We knew we had to help out Willis by sagging more than
>> usual on Chamberlain. L.A. helped us sometimes by standing around.
>> When they passed into Wilt they didn't cut around him or break
>> straight to the hoop. They just stood there, giving us golden
>> opportunities to double-team the big man.

THERE, now everyone's happy. No more wasted bandwidth and you can
sit down and study these answers. Now remember Ed, don't respond quickly...
sit down, write down your question about Wilt and then study these 2 answers.
I know it's a difficult process for you, but trust me, it will work. The
answer is there. No wasted bandwidth, you have your question answerd, and
you can see that you are wrong. Then my time is not wasted and neither is
anyone else's. Got that? Good boy! Now reward yourself with Barney.

Ed, I'd love to see you in the "Who's on first routine". My guess is
that you'd wear out the guy answering your questions. You'd turn a 3
minute routine into 5 hours of nonsense!

Ed: What's the name of the guy playing first?

Judden: Who

Ed: The guy playing first.

Judden: Exactly.

Ed: No. You said who is on first. Now you're trying to say that exactly
is playing first. You are a liar.

Hang in there guy, I'm sending PETA some mail about what Lucent is
doing to you. They'll be coming to rescue you shortly.

Judden

[Judd Vance]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>In article <4q78di$4...@abc.ksu.ksu.edu>,

>Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>>The way I see it, the job that best suits you is to be
>>>Wilt's ass-kisser. He sure needs someone like you to build his
>>>credentials...
>> That is a "hobby" Ed.
>Mudd, you really need a life. Kissing ass is your hobby? Is that the
>way to survive in KSU?

Excellent cut and paste job, Ed! You know, in one of the mindreadings
I did of you, I did an example of your cut and paste jobs that you use to
try and twist someone's words. I told you my mind readings were accurate and
that your thoughts betray you.

Let's analyze this conversation:

**********************************************************************
Message-Id: <4q78di$4...@abc.ksu.ksu.edu>
l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>In article <juddstud.834776570@gandalf>,
>Judd Vance <judd...@engg.ksu.edu> wrote:
>> If I neglect my work, I may end up as a gunie pig for tests at
>>Lucent Technologies, like you. Ed, the LAST think I want in life is to
>>be locked in a cage with you arguing Dick Barnett's position, while scientist
>>put cosmetics in our eyeballs.

>But what work do you have now? anything besides reading Knicks books

>to argue here? The way I see it, the job that best suits you is to be

>Wilt's ass-kisser. He sure needs someone like you to build his
>credentials...

That is a "hobby" Ed. You may not understand the difference, but
there is. Currently, I'm conducting tests on the effect of velocity on
the combustability of ammonia for the International Institute of Ammonia
Refridgeration.

Besides, if reading Knick books and arguing with you were a job,

I'd be a filthy rich man for all the arguments I've won against you. Bill
Gates, you think you're living large? Ha! You're living in a shack!

***********************************************************************

You said, "But what work do you have now? anything besides reading Knick
books to argue here?"

I responded with "That is a "hobby Ed. You may not understand the
difference, but there is." After an explanation of what the work is I have
now (to answer your question), I add, "Besides if reading Knick books and

arguing with you were a job, I'd be a filthy rich man for all the arguments
I've won against you."

And direclty above, you cut and paste to make it sound like it takes
on another meaning. Nice Ed. Like I said in a different post, Classic Ed
Lor-yer. When all else fails make something up.

Here's why a 2 week debate with Dave Meeks is far more enjoyable than
one with you:

1) Dave has a clue. I don't need to post the same answer/quote
over and over and over. He understands the first time.

2) Dave doesn't make up stuff that you said. (just like you did).

3) Dave doesn't waste bandwidth on what the difference is between
(Barnett?) and (was it Dick Barnett) in an attempt to accuse one
of deception.

4) Dave hasn't argued with me on a team without having a slight
clue about what position the players played, what their game plan
was, and the background of the game.

5) He understands basic basketball philosophy: He knows an intercepted
pass into the low post isn't the post player's fault and he knows
if that pass had not been intercepted, it can still be handled and
he knows that a guy fighting for position in the blocks should not
give up his position in order to go out and meet the ball.

See with Dave, we disagree on philosophy, opinion, and assessments. With you,
it's more of a teaching process. I work in vain to try to get you to under-
stand simple concepts and answers. Very frustrating. If we ever got past
this stage, then we could get to the higher levels of debate--past the
"liar liar pants on fire" stage that you dwell in.

Judden

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4q6u2u$2...@cbs.ksu.ksu.edu>,

Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>Clyde's quote? did Clyde say that the Knicks were "without Reed's service in
>>1973"? Cite it.
>
> Clueless Ed at it again.

Judd, who's clueless here? the context we were talking about were "without
service", as in <juddstud.834777149@gandalf>:

>Good, so you finally wimp out on the meaning of "without service", and
>have to use "a figure of speech". Yet answer these questions:

Ed, if defining something to you is "wimping out", then I am a big

time wimp. Everytime I post anything to you, I have to go back and

reiterate it many times, because you can't get it. For instance, I had to

reposts Clyde's quote FOUR TIMES in the same thread to answer your silly
questions and idiotic conclusions.

>I didn't say Clyde's quote said this.
You didn't, but in the context of "without service"? Boy, you are stupid...

>Clyde's quote spoke of picking off passes that Chamberlain never got. I
>see 4 times is not enough.

As far as picking off passes, we'll deal with that later..

> Clyde was pointing out that 'everybody' (note that 1st word?) was
>saying that wilt SHOULD have scored 100. I'm sure you'll argue this and
>you think Clyde is stupid enough to think that Wilt could have another 100
>point game (since Wilt did it all the time). Sorry Ed, Clyde isn't that
>dumb -- only you are.

Mudd, only you are dumb. If according to Clyde, everybody said it was Wilt's
fault, but not necessarily another 100 point game. I don't see ANYBODY would
be stupid enough to demand another 100 point game from Wilt, but if that's
what Clyde thought, that everybody is expecting another 100 point game from
Wilt, that's his problem. At least that's only his opinion, I don't have to
share Clyde opinion on another 100 point game. However, the rest of the stuff
are reasonable (wiped up the court with Bowman and Hosket, gone to the hoop
more, etc.) .

> The whole quote is pointing out others (namely mediots)

Jidiot, is that the mediots that selected the all-NBA team that you
ranted and raved about?

>expectations of Wilt.
Besides the 100 point expectation, what's wrong with the others?

>He concludes this by pointing out their bias, since they didn't
>like him. That's why it's in the same paragraph.

Wow, he concluded that it's their bias? You mean the expecting to win
the games for the Lakers is wrong? I don't even see Clyde saying that.
Did you?

> Ed, before you open your mouth, and futher your proven cluelessness,
>go back and study those English books.

Judd, before you think you know what Clyde said, re-read it, really
carefully. Don't put on your color glasses...

>The first sentence establishes
>the thought of the paragraph. The last one concludes it. This whole
>paragraph is about others' expectations of Wilt, not his own.

I don't see him calling these expectations as wrong. Do you?

> Mistake #2. (actually 2 million, if we're keeping a running total
>of you). I never said Wilt was faultless.

Then what are you whining about. Hey, if he deserve some N% (0 < N < 100)
of criticism, then you really have no beef...

>I was defending Wilt against your venom of his 1970 playoff performance.

Hey, since he's not faultless, any venom is not unjustified. Should he
carry SOME blame?

> If they intercepted the passes, then how was Wilt to handle what he
>never received? Hello? Earth to Ed, come in Ed.

Mudd, you get any senses? Not too tough for him to handle means that
he could mishandle passes that got to him which he's supposed to handle.
You don't suppose "steal" in the NBA only means "interception", do you? or
are you really that dumb? It can also mean that Wilt bobbled the ball,
fumbled the ball, cannot control the ball, that the other team recovered...

> Was Wilt passing to himself?

Wilt could have handled them, according to Holzman...

>>So in other words, you are proving nothing from you point. YOu are trying
>>to deflect all the blames to the other players. The Lakers threw some ill-
>>advised passes, but it didn't erase the fact that there were also passes
>>that weren't too tough for Wilt to handle...
>
> Ed, you are serioulsy demented.

Mudd, you have no argument here. I wonder why. Is it because Wilt could
have handled the ball but fail to?

>
>
>
>>> It is YOU who has tried to branch off -- classic Loryer -- when your
>>> getting bashed try to go to other topics and distract them.
>>Of course, because this branch off is one that killed you. You still haven't
>>been able to handle this branch off.
>
> I told you Ed. I quoted a guy who did more research on this than
>myself. He's read all the Knick books, checked the newspapers, etc.

Dumbo, you quoted him for the fact. When you are challenged, you ought
to be able to defend it yourself, either by

1) tracing where the guy you quote got his source
2) trace the source yourself.

If you reference someone else's theory in a paper, yet that theory
is found to be unproven (merely a conjecture), you are not off the
hook by saying that "the guy is creditable, I don't have to elaborate
on his theory".

Well, apparently, you know nothing about research...

>Because
>he has more books and sources than me hardly proves anything to me. I've
>pointed out my source. If you have a beef with it, take it up with him.

You have NO source that the 1-3-1 offense was illegal, i.e. zero refernce.
Besides, you claimed that THREE Knicks admitted that they cheated.
Spitz never said that in the book. So are you going to shove this lie
to him too?

So which THREE Knicks admitted that they cheated with this "illegal"
offense? Do you have the admissions? No?

> Ed, it sure beats a 1979 rulebook. That's for sure.

Jidiot, with your lack of references, it couldn't beat anything.

>>Dumbo, my argument doesn't have to be that. My argument only asks you to back
>>up what you said, and you have to cry mamma because you can't back it up...
>
> But it HAS been that. And I've backed it up.

By whom?

>He said yes, you said no.

You said yes too? where is your reference that the rule was illegal?
Spitz? where did Spitz get his reference? He's not arguing here, so it's
your responsibility to defend your words...

>Now, he's not omniscient, but he sure knows more about the Knicks than
>you.

That's not evidence. That's only a credibility issue. A criminal can serve
as a witness. A academian can be found guilty of plagarism.

Your dumb mindset is just that: since Spitz references a lot of books,
he's creditable. Anything he claims does not need proof and isn't
subject to challenge.

>He also knows that the Knicks back-up center WASN'T Dick Barnett and
>doesn't even ask if it is.

Well, he knows that there don't exist admissions from 3 Knicks that
they cheated on their offense. So as far as this claim is concerned, you
are on your own.

>Chosing between you 2, I'd have to go with him.

That's your problem. Yet it doesn't mean it frees you from furnishing
proof on a claim you made.

> Liar Liar pants on fire. Ed, I produced a quote 4 times about the
>Knicks pressuring the guards and forced passes to Wilt that were picked off.

So? I produced the quotes N times that the passes weren't too tough for
Wilt to handle. So there goes your quote 4 times...

>Because you can't understand that a pass is when a ball is sent from a
>different player to Wilt, and if that pass is intercepted, then it didn't
>get to Wilt, I can't help you there.

Or you don't understand jack. Say, if the pass isn't too tough for
him to handle, it means two things:

1) the pass actually got to him
2) he should be able to handle it.

> By the way Ed, if Steve Young throws an interception that never gets
>to the receiver, is it Jerry Rice's fault?

Depends, because the receiver also has the responsibility to go to the
ball aggressively, that include breaking up interceptions...

>No doubt he could have caught it!

Jidiot, if the pass isn't too tough for Jerry Rice to handle, yet he
couldn't grab it, is it Rice's fault? Sure.

>>>Now where Spitz got the illegal offense, I don't know,
>>You don't know? then why are you so stupid to claim that the Knicks ran
>>an illegal offense IN YOUR OWN STATEMENT?
>
> No, his statement. I pointed it out.

Are you so wimp that you don't have the nerve to defend that statement
anymore? Obviously so. In <4m87ei$8...@cbs.ksu.ksu.edu>:

this showed your total ignorance. You tried to slam Wilt
Chamberlain based upon something you knew nothing about.

#1) ...
#2) ...
#3) The Knicks ran an illegal offense.

Nope, didn't see you quote him at all. Actually, you took credit on
what you "discovered" on the Knicks' 'crime', until you got caught...

> Ed, you couldn't hang yourself, if I build the gallow and helped you
>in the noose.

Yeah, that gallow is specifically for yourself, like claiming the existence
of 3 Knicks' (Holzman, Bradley and Frazier) testimonies. I think they
would like to be witness of your execution, since you falsely accused
them for admitting a crime they didn't commit...

> [ Spitz could have made a mistake ]

> And an editor didn't catch it?

Wow, are you really that dumb? is it news to you that a writer could
have made a mistake in a book that the editors didn't catch?

>The players he talked to didn't correct him?

The player he talked to didn't admit that they cheated, did they?

>The quote I provided said West and Mullaney were screaming to
>the officials about it.

But the refs ignored them. As a result, Wilt scored 4 points and
West took 2 shots in the 2nd half. Such creditable account on the
Knicks' illegal OFFENSE...

>Why were they pointed out specifically? Sounds
>like an eyewitness account there, Ed. Give up. Resistance is futile.

Mudd, sometimes when you don't have the evidence, you just don't have it.
Crying doesn't create the evidence out of thin air...

>>Dumbo, what idea was that? that was a question.
>
> Which proves your questions are as ignorant as your statements.

Wow, for something I am not sure? Geez, you know what questions are for?
Maybe you never asked questions and instead, made claims on stuff that
you are muddy about, that's how you get into deep mudd...

>>So, if I accept playing 69 games as "without his serivce", I certainly can
>>consider injured and immobile "Reedless".
>
> Have you accepted it? If not, then you're back to the drawing
>boards.

Nope.

>>But if I don't accept playing 69 games as "without his service". I still can
>>considered injured and immobile as "Reedless".
>
> Interesting concept. The Bulls were "Pippenless" then?

Really? Was Pippen injured and immobile? hobbling on one leg?

>>Who said that being on a team photo would automatically give him a ring?
>>There are three other references saying otherwise. Try the NBA Register,
>>the Basketabll Handbook, and Jackson's bio on ESPN net sportszone.
>
> How's about Dave Meeks book? Oops.

Dave Meeks wrote a book? Wow, that's news to me...

> Besides, I'm proving Phil was a Knick in 1970 (funny an injured guy
>is not on the team, yet is in the team picture, and they knew before the
>season started that he was out for the year), just like Willis was in 1972.

You aren't proving anything, since there are three accounts that he
wasn't a member of the championship team as a player. If you prove
that he worked for the Knicks organization, like drawing a paycheck,
that's fine with me...

Yet in the argument on hand, comparing talents of players (for the
1972 runner-up), a player merely drawing a paycheck doesn't mean he
has his talent available to the team...

>I use judgement when I read.

Yes, like judgement of an ant...

>If it was a player or coach who
>played in that game, I'll give credence to his testimony.

You did more than that. You read their admissions of cheating even when
there is no such admission...

>If it's a guy
>who's read more books than I have, read newspaper accounts, etc, then I'll
>give him more benefit of the doubt than you,

Yes, if a well-respected person says that you committed a crime, then you
are willing to be convicted, without any trial or presentation of
evidences...

Mudd, that's why I said you have the judgement of an ant, because you
certainly are stupid beyond any reasonable doubt...

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <juddstud.835246714@gandalf>,

Judd Vance <judd...@engg.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>>>The way I see it, the job that best suits you is to be
>>>>Wilt's ass-kisser. He sure needs someone like you to build his
>>>>credentials...
>>> That is a "hobby" Ed.
>>Mudd, you really need a life. Kissing ass is your hobby? Is that the
>>way to survive in KSU?
>
>
> Excellent cut and paste job, Ed!

You respond with "That is a hobby" right after I mentioend what job
suits you the best. And that's cut and paste?

Mudd, learn how to post.

> I responded with "That is a "hobby Ed.

You responded with "That's a hobby right after I mentioned your potential
as Wilt's ass kisser". Hey, does that touch a nerve?

>After an explanation of what the work is I have
>now (to answer your question), I add, "Besides if reading Knick books and
>arguing with you were a job, I'd be a filthy rich man for all the arguments
>I've won against you."

That's not what you responded to. You responded to my statement stating
your potential in Wilt's ass-kissing career...

> And direclty above, you cut and paste to make it sound like it takes
>on another meaning. Nice Ed. Like I said in a different post, Classic Ed
>Lor-yer. When all else fails make something up.

Wow, in <4q78di$4...@abc.ksu.ksu.edu>, that's what you wrote:

=====================================================================

>But what work do you have now? anything besides reading Knicks books
>to argue here? The way I see it, the job that best suits you is to be
>Wilt's ass-kisser. He sure needs someone like you to build his
>credentials...

That is a "hobby" Ed. You may not understand the difference ...
=====================================================================

Are you telling me that I cut or paste any lines in your "That's a hobby
response"?

> 2) Dave doesn't make up stuff that you said. (just like you did).

Lie. You responded with 'that is a "hobby" Ed' in response to my claim
that you are an ass-kisser. How did I make up stuff?

> 3) Dave doesn't waste bandwidth on what the difference is between
> (Barnett?) and (was it Dick Barnett) in an attempt to accuse one
> of deception.

Maybe Dave doesn't know the meaning 'exactly what you wrote' mean...

> 4) Dave hasn't argued with me on a team without having a slight
> clue about what position the players played, what their game plan
> was, and the background of the game.

But was Dave able to pick on you on your lies about (1) the existence of
the illegal zone offense in 1970 (2) existence of the admission from the
3 Knicks that they cheated?

Apparently not, that's why he got dragged into your mud. You know, he
had been loud and clear on how he had testimonies from the Knicks players
that they ran the illegal offense, because he counted on you to furnish
such evidence. Now you sold him out...

> 5) He understands basic basketball philosophy:

> .....
Yes, like your basketball philosophies:

1) the effect of an illegal zone offense is to stop the other team's
gunners from scoring...
2) that a pass "not too tough to handle" means it's all the passer's
fault...
3) that a player shelved still has his playing talent available to the
team...
4) all-NBA only means first-team all-NBA
5) the NBA needed to outlaw a 1-3-1 offense for whatever reason. Help
me here. What's the exact reason? Why was the 1-3-1 bad for the game that
it had to be outlawed?

>See with Dave, we disagree on philosophy, opinion, and assessments. With you,
>it's more of a teaching process.

Yes, like getting taught on how to do research. You should be glad of this
flame war with me. At least that would help you in your career, like doing
research in ass-kissing...

>I work in vain to try to get you to under-
>stand simple concepts and answers. Very frustrating. If we ever got past
>this stage, then we could get to the higher levels of debate--past the
>"liar liar pants on fire" stage that you dwell in.

Well, a higher level of debate is possible only if the person really knows
that game and has some judgement, not Juddment...

[Judd Vance]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

(Much snipped about Wilt)...the answers are there for Ed, I wrote them
in my last post. If Ed reads the 2 quotes, all of his Wilt questions will
be answerd.

>>>So, if I accept playing 69 games as "without his serivce", I certainly can
>>>consider injured and immobile "Reedless".
>>
>> Have you accepted it? If not, then you're back to the drawing
>>boards.
>Nope.

Excellent comeback, Ed! Gotta write that one down and remember it.

>>>Who said that being on a team photo would automatically give him a ring?
>>>There are three other references saying otherwise. Try the NBA Register,
>>>the Basketabll Handbook, and Jackson's bio on ESPN net sportszone.
>>
>> How's about Dave Meeks book? Oops.
>Dave Meeks wrote a book? Wow, that's news to me...

He referred to an official book, or did you not see that? I'd be suprised
if you let Dave get the last word in on you.

I suppose you're going to start a debate that "Dave Meeks book" means not
that he possesses it, but that he authored it. In your words. "Nope".

>> Besides, I'm proving Phil was a Knick in 1970 (funny an injured guy
>>is not on the team, yet is in the team picture, and they knew before the
>>season started that he was out for the year), just like Willis was in 1972.
>You aren't proving anything, since there are three accounts that he
>wasn't a member of the championship team as a player. If you prove
>that he worked for the Knicks organization, like drawing a paycheck,
>that's fine with me...

Nope.

>Yet in the argument on hand, comparing talents of players (for the
>1972 runner-up), a player merely drawing a paycheck doesn't mean he
>has his talent available to the team...

Nope.

>>I use judgement when I read.
>Yes, like judgement of an ant...

Nope.

>>If it was a player or coach who
>>played in that game, I'll give credence to his testimony.
>You did more than that. You read their admissions of cheating even when
>there is no such admission...

Nope.

>>If it's a guy
>>who's read more books than I have, read newspaper accounts, etc, then I'll
>>give him more benefit of the doubt than you,
>Yes, if a well-respected person says that you committed a crime, then you
>are willing to be convicted, without any trial or presentation of
>evidences...

Ed, get out of the courtroom. Get back to the basketball court, not
the court of law. The 2 aren't connected, unless you are Scottie Pippen.

>Mudd, that's why I said you have the judgement of an ant, because you
>certainly are stupid beyond any reasonable doubt...

Nope.
I've got the hang of this Ed. I used an acceptable reply and I got the last
word in. According to Ed Lor-yer standards, I'm on top of this debate.

Judden
Playing "Rope a Nope" with the original dope.

[Judd Vance]

judd...@engg.ksu.edu (Judd Vance) writes:

> Desperation shot by Ed at the Buzzer....air ball!

> #1) Wilt was 8 years younger and far more athletic.

> #2) Wilt had the game of his life (28 of 32 from the stripe).

> #3) The Knicks decided in the 4th quarter to get 100 pts. The team's
> offense was designed to get Wilt every shot and fortunately ...

SUPPOSED to read read Warriors decided in 4th quarter to get Wilt
100 points. The team's offense was ....

I'm sure Ed will say "Liar, Wilt didn't play for Knicks." Typo, but
that's Ed for ya.

Judden

[Judd Vance]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>In article <juddstud.835246714@gandalf>,
>Judd Vance <judd...@engg.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>The way I see it, the job that best suits you is to be
>>>>>Wilt's ass-kisser. He sure needs someone like you to build his
>>>>>credentials...
>>>> That is a "hobby" Ed.
>>>Mudd, you really need a life. Kissing ass is your hobby? Is that the
>>>way to survive in KSU?
>>
>>
>> Excellent cut and paste job, Ed!
>You respond with "That is a hobby" right after I mentioend what job
>suits you the best. And that's cut and paste?

>Mudd, learn how to post.

Nope. Learn to read, Ed....

>> I responded with "That is a "hobby Ed.
>You responded with "That's a hobby right after I mentioned your potential
>as Wilt's ass kisser". Hey, does that touch a nerve?

>>After an explanation of what the work is I have
>>now (to answer your question), I add, "Besides if reading Knick books and
>>arguing with you were a job, I'd be a filthy rich man for all the arguments
>>I've won against you."
>That's not what you responded to. You responded to my statement stating
>your potential in Wilt's ass-kissing career...

The 2 paragraphs show the same topic, just different aspects of the
reading. You are cornered Ed. Either you did do the dastardly deed I accused
you of (cut and paste), or you are too clueless to READ and understand that
a word like "Besides" is used to link the 2 paragraphs together and transition
from one aspect of reading Knicks books to another.

No wonder you can't understand the quotes I use to answer your
questions, your reading skills are on the level of a first grader. I'm sorry
I accused you of cut-and-pasting Ed. I didn't realize you were so
clueless. I'm sorry I used those difficult quotes on you. I didn't realize
that you REALLY couldn't understand them. Let me tone down the argument to
your level.

See Dick. Dick play for Knicks. Dick play long time ago. Dick play
guard. Dick not backup center.

See Wilt. Knicks afraid of Wilt. Knicks more afraid of Wilt than
other Lakers. Knicks try and stop Wilt. Knicks work hard at stopping Wilt.
Knicks work VERY hard at stopping Wilt. Lakers not smart. Lakers should
shoot when Knicks not guard them. Lakers not smart. Lakers try to pass
ball to Wilt. Many Knicks around Wilt. Knicks steal pass. Jerry West
good. Jerry West should shoot when Knicks not guard him. Jerry not shoot
much. Jerry shoot 2 times in 2nd half. Jerry try to throw dum pass to Wilt.
Knicks steal Jerry pass.

Don't respond Ed, study this. Study it hard. When you get this,
let me know, and I'll give you another installment. In a few years, I can
explain things like a double team. But don't rush things, I don't want to
confuse you.

>> And direclty above, you cut and paste to make it sound like it takes
>>on another meaning. Nice Ed. Like I said in a different post, Classic Ed
>>Lor-yer. When all else fails make something up.
>Wow, in <4q78di$4...@abc.ksu.ksu.edu>, that's what you wrote:

>=====================================================================
> >But what work do you have now? anything besides reading Knicks books
> >to argue here? The way I see it, the job that best suits you is to be
> >Wilt's ass-kisser. He sure needs someone like you to build his
> >credentials...
>
>
> That is a "hobby" Ed. You may not understand the difference ...
>=====================================================================

>Are you telling me that I cut or paste any lines in your "That's a hobby
>response"?

Yes, the entire 2nd paragraph. That is Cutting. You pasted your answer
right between them. But you're not so evil as much as clueless. I realize
that now and I apologize for accusing you of delibertly cutting and
pasting.

>> 2) Dave doesn't make up stuff that you said. (just like you did).
>Lie. You responded with 'that is a "hobby" Ed' in response to my claim
>that you are an ass-kisser. How did I make up stuff?

>> 5) He understands basic basketball philosophy:

>> .....
>Yes, like your basketball philosophies:

(I'm still wanting to know why Wilt should give up his position in
the post to go out and meet a pass thrown into the post, like you said
he should have done.)

>1) the effect of an illegal zone offense is to stop the other team's
>gunners from scoring...

SEE: MADE THINGS UP (POINT 2)

>2) that a pass "not too tough to handle" means it's all the passer's
>fault...

See: understands basic philosophy (point 5)

>5) the NBA needed to outlaw a 1-3-1 offense for whatever reason. Help
>me here. What's the exact reason? Why was the 1-3-1 bad for the game that
>it had to be outlawed?

I don't make the rules Ed. I don't know why Isolation is such a
bad thing, but there are rules against clear-outs, or why a player should
shoot a free throw in 10 seconds instead of 15. I'm not going to argue the
moral reasons behind the NBA rules.

>>I work in vain to try to get you to under-
>>stand simple concepts and answers. Very frustrating. If we ever got past
>>this stage, then we could get to the higher levels of debate--past the
>>"liar liar pants on fire" stage that you dwell in.
>Well, a higher level of debate is possible only if the person really knows
>that game and has some judgement, not Juddment...

Nope. Heh heh.

Ed, let's look at your response to point #2...see if you can see what I
mean about the "liar liar pants on fire" stage you dwell in.

>> 2) Dave doesn't make up stuff that you said. (just like you did).
>Lie. You responded with 'that is a "hobby" Ed' in response to my claim
>that you are an ass-kisser. How did I make up stuff?

See?

Judden

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <juddstud.835241142@gandalf>,

Judd Vance <judd...@engg.ksu.edu> wrote:
>> "(was it Dick Barnett)"
> Ed, you say this is a question. Where is the question mark?

Mudd, I forgot the question mark, but it doesn't make it a statement.
Where is the period?

>Surely a master of English, such as yourself, would know this. Don't tell
>me all of your defenses of "it was a question" were lies !?!?

"Are you a woman" -- is it a question or a statement?

> Ed, DON'T make me bring back in Clyde's game #7 analysis of
>Wilt's teammates standing around, making it easier for the Knicks to double
>on Wilt and Wilt couldn't drive on injured Reed because the Knicks were
>swiping at the ball.... how many times do I have to write it?

You can write 200 more times, and that's still BS. Are you saying that
Wilt had no way to cope with double-team? he took 16 shots. He was also
fouled at least 5 times. Why wouldn't he get more shots like he did in
game 6? Easy, as Holzman admitted, they gambled by putting him on the
line, and they hit the jackpot. Wouldn't that deter the # chances Wilt got
at the post? Well, based on your stupidity, you'll probably say no.

So who do you believe? Clyde or Holzman? Geez, isn't that your game? use
quotes to paint your picture? This is a lovely game...

> Tell you what, Ed. Post your address and I'll mail you the quote.
>Then, when you get ready to dig yourself in a whole, you can tape the
>written quote to the screen, and you question will be answered, and you
>can save bandwidth for everyone.

Dumbo, it's not a matter of the existence of the quote. It's a matter of
how strongly you believe the quote. As I said, I have Holzman's quote.
Since Holzman's quote exist, your quote isn't the only account of
the Laker failure in game 7. I tell you what, you can come to NY and beat
up Holzman, and order him to retract his quotes. Yes, that's the ticket!

> Wilt had 21 points in these conditions and 24 rebounds. He held his
>couterpart to 4 pts and 3 rebounds and you claim he didn't dominate. You've
>tried to justify it every which way but loose, but when it comes down to
>it, Wilt dominated.

Well, according to Holzman, that's not the reason...

>Not flawless, but dominant, which was the issue at
>hand. You are wrong, Ed ... once again.

Mudd, you haven't proven Holzman wrong yet, have you?

> [ hypothetically the Rockets blowing out of the Knicks ]

> And you'd say Ewing didn't dominate? Heh.

Yep, I would say so. I would say any positive stats achieved in a
blowout loss is meaningless, let alone dominant. You have any problem
with that? What? Wilt's 21 points and 24 rebounds helped the team to
merely a 14 point loss while they were losing by XXX in the 4th quarter
and Holzman pulled his starters. You mean if Wilt weren't there? they
would suffer a 25 point loss?

Of course, by positive stats, I don't mean, say, 12 turnovers, 0-17
FG shooting, 1-11 FT shooting, opposing center's 12-15 FG shooting and
43 points, etc.

> Ed, he DID dominate. You said he didn't. You are wrong, I am
>right.

Wow, Mudd, who are you to determine who's right or wrong? Are you God?

> You said he failed to dominante against a Reedless team (strike 1)

Yes, because Reed was badly injured and immobile.

>and then you said Reedless means an injured Reed. How did an injured Reed
>cause Wilt to miss free throws?

Easy, in the previous 4 games when Reed wasn't injured, he would play
Wilt straight (he had 11 fouls in 198 minutes before the injury, that's
2.7/48m). In game 7, Reed fouled more than usual (4 in 27 minutes, 7.1/48m)
and they used Bowman for ***FIVE*** fouls.

> Once again, my whole existence on this thread is to disprove your
>accusation of Wilt failing to dominate the backup center in game 5 and the
>Reedless Knicks in game 7.

Have you? I am still waiting...

> It's called passing out of a double team. Knicks swarm Wilt.

Dumbo, are you saying that this is the first time Wilt saw a double team
that he couldn't handle it? Geez, what kind of stupid excuse is this?

> READ QUOTE ABOVE ED!!!!!!! I'm not going to print it again.

Your quote meant nothing. Your double team excuse is going nowhere...

> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Ed, you're killing me!

Don't blame me, it's Holzman's quote...

> You're still a liar. You didn't put a question mark. Thus, it was
>not a question, like you claimed. It was a statement of your ignorance.

Wow, it's not a statement either, since there is no punctuation mark
at all. So, does the words "Was it Dick Barnett" indicate a question or
a statement?

> Now don't cover your rear. You said Wilt failed to dominate the
>back-up center in game 5 as well.

Right. Who were playing centers in the 2nd half? Stallworth and DeBusshere.
Were they the starting centers?

>He DID dominate Bowman. DeBusschere and Dave the Rave were not centers.
>You lied.

Dumbo, when he stepped on the court against Wilt, his role was center.
Was Jose Canseco a pitcher? not regularly, but he was when he stepped on
the mound. Or when Walter Payton took the snaps, was he playing QB or RB?

> Wilt handles the pass, because the pass was not too difficult to
> handle. The pass is complete it was not intercepted. Then, Knicks
> steal ball from Wilt. This is not an intercepted pass, but rather
> a steal or "picking his rock".

Dumbo, learn the game. When he touches the pass but does not fully possess
it, it's also "steal a pass". We are not talking about passes that were fully
completed that Wilt had full possession. We are talking passes that he
could've handled but didn't.

> Frazier said they stole passes sent to Wilt. Holzman said these
> passes were not to difficult for Wilt to handle. This matches
> condition #1, not 2. See Ed?

Nope, I see Wilt couldn't fully control passes that's not too tough for
him to control. Well, based on your miniscule knowledge of the game and
Wilt worship, you would say that's not possible...

> That was the first time a team concentrated on stopping Wilt and

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>the Lakers committed 17 turnovers in one half and Jerry West only took 2
>shots and missed them both. There, happy?

Dumbo, that's the first time a team concentrated on stopping Wilt?
Remember this statement, and you'll see how dumb you've become. YOu even
contradicted yourself...

> Wilt didn't defend him. He wouldn't follow DeBusschere out. Next.

Then who did Wilt defend? a zone? DeBusshere is the last '1' in the 1-3-1,
designated to draw Wilt out of the low post. Mudd, you ought to learn
more about the game...

>>Really? so when the Texas Rangers put Jose Canseco on the mound, he
>>wasn't playing pitcher, he was just playing outfield. When the Cowboys
>>put Deion on offense, he wasn't playing WR, he was playing DB...
>
> This is basketball, Ed. (My Young example was pure sarcasm).

So? the point is that a player can switch position in a pre-determined
game plan, e.g. Magic in the 1980 game 6, MJ during a stretch in 1989.
There is no use denying it...

> Shall I reproduce the quote that the Knicks played a "3 forward
>offense?"

Nope, you shall reproduce the quote that DeBusschere was the last "1"
designated to be played by Wilt...

>>> Vinatage Lor: When all else fails, make something up.
>>make something up? Well, I wasn't the only one sayng that West took 2
>>shots and Wilt scored 4 points in the 2nd half.
>
> This isn't made up. It's fact.

So what did I make up in your Vinatage Lor response? You responded to

"use an offense to stop Wilt and West from scoring..."

the effect Bob Spitz mentioned on the 1-3-1 offense...

> Bzzzzt. I've showed you how Holzman and Frazier's statements do
>not contradict each other.

By fabricating another meaning of "passes not too tough for him to
handle"

>Holzman's comment did not assign blame to Wilt, no matter how HARD you
>try to make it.
He sure did. These are passes not too tough for him to handle, yet they
stole them.

> The part imbetween those 2 lines (which you so convieniently snipped)
>said that they kept trying to force the passes to Wilt, and the Knicks
>kept picking them off. The last statement says that the Lakers had a bad
>gameplan, the paragraph specifially assigns blame to the guards.

Yes, bad gameplan, does it mean the players were blameless? No? if the
guards didn't do their jobs, does it mean the center was blameless? What
did he do to help the guards who were struggling? As you said, this is
a team game. You can't have a good game when your team got blown out.
There must be something you did that's wrong.

> Ed, this is not a pass to the wing, it's a pass to the post. When
>you post, you do not go out to meet the ball. You fight for position and
>hold it. The pass is supposed to get to you.

Supposed by whom? If the pass is supposed to get to the center, why did
the Knicks even try to steal it?

So you know the Knicks were gambling on steals. You are the center, do you do
the "supposed" and let them intercept the rock, or do you go aggressively for
the ball and give up some of your position? And are you saying that Wilt
was useless if he got out 3 more feet?

Getting the ball farther away is not as bad as a turnover, is it?

>Gee Ed, have you ever PLAYED in the low post? Or are you even more cluelss
>than I give you credit for?

Well, look at your philosophy, I am not sure who the clueless is...

> Yeah, he made West and Garrett throw those bad passes,

sure, he could have handled them..

>Wilt did his job, he was a threat
>in the middle and the Knicks responded by designing a game plan to stop
>Wilt at the expense of the rest of the team and the didn't keep up their
>end of the bargain.

Well, if he did his job, he wouldn't have mishandled those passes, or
missed that many FTs, and worse yet, couldn't dominate someone 6'6".

>Basketball is a TEAM game and Wilt very much did his
>part, yet you blame him ... Ed, Ed, Ed.

Of course, for failing to rise to the occasion, against a 6'6" who played
center.

>>was arguably the biggest part. Did he succeed in bailing out his teammates?
>
>read above, Bill.

So Mudd, I read that as he didn't succeed...

> Ed, only you would consider 21 pts, 24 rebounds a bad game.

Geez, Mudd, only you would consider a 21 points 24 rebounds game in blowout
loss dominant. The Lakers should have thanked Wilt that they didn't lose by
25...

>A man who does his job (in game 5) doesn't have a bad game.

What job? like he failed to eat a 6'6" center alive? or his failure to
handle passes not too tough to handle, or the leader of a team that collapse
in the 2nd half?

>>Well, it doesn't look foggy to me on this issue, since Wilt did indeed
>>missed 10 out of 11 FTs.
>
> You were the one who said I can't trust what I read, because their
>memories can't be trusted...and then YOU quote one.

But he was right, Wilt did miss 10 FTs, that's a fact, so why shouldn't I
trust him in that part?

> #1) All took place after expansion (and the watering down process
> coming in).

More nonsense, do you have proof that the league was watered-down? And
besides, are you saying the theatrics of the game only apply to the league
in the 60s/early 70s? Some dope in a previous article mentioned Larry Bird
vs Indiana. Was it pre- or post- expansion?

> #2) None of the teams listed lost a center. The teams mentioned
> had guard injuries and a SF.

What about it? You mean only center are entitled to psychological boost?

>And to doubt the psychological boost that Holzman mentions AND Frazier shows
>your stupidity (claiming to know more than the members involved)

Of course, because I've watched the game long enough to know that players
are fully boosted for game 7 of a series ANYWAY, let alone game 7 of the finals...
Geez, too bad the Lakers didn't have an injured Kareem to boost them in
1988...

>>> [ Lakers standing around during double-teaming Wilt in game 5 ]
>
> Game 7...get it right...I've only posted this...HOW MANY TIMES????
>No wonder, you don't understand it...you don't even know what game
>it's referring to!

Dumbo, Wilt got double-teamed in game 5 (by Stallworth and DeBusshere),
and in game 7, he fell for the same trap again? Geez, you tell me about his
ability to adjust ...

>>He wasn't? so how much blame he should shoulder in that series loss?
>
> Not what you're trying to assign him,

Well, what I assign him was his failure to dominate (by dominate, I mean
the scoreboard, not his personal stats) in a favorable situation (his
nemesis out). All you spill on the net are excuses.

> In other words, that back-up center you claim he DIDN'T dominate? You
>are trapped Ed.

Oh, he dominated Bowman? what was the score then? a 27 point deficit?
Geez, Jidiot, you sure have a weird definition of domination...

> [ Phil Jackson ]

> Proved ya wrong on this one already, so has Dave.

Proved me wrong? I have more proofs that he wasn't a member of the 1970
champs.

> [ the 100 point game ]

> #2) Wilt had the game of his life (28 of 32 from the stripe).

Wow, Wilt had the game of his life in a regular season game in March?
How about the game of his life in an NBA finals series? Was he able to
do that?

> #3) The Knicks decided in the 4th quarter to get 100 pts. The team's
> offense was designed to get Wilt every shot and fortunately ...

the Knicks? Did Wilt play for the Knicks?

> #4) The defense wasn't the world champion Knicks defense.

Well, the defense was designated to stop him alone because the Warriors
only want to get him 100 points. What about your claim that

"That was the first time a team concentrated on stopping Wilt"?

> #5) Wilt wasn't coming off a major knee injury and surgery.

In the 1970 finals, he was healthy. As a matter of fact, he just scored
45 in game 6...

>Sorry Ed, play again.
You want to lose again?

You're welcome...

> Ed's guessing game on why the press blame Wilt is a nifty attempt to
>cover up the dis: He tried to say that Frazier was blaming Wilt. I pointed
>out that Frazier was saying the press blamed Wilt, and now Ed exits down
>a dirt road. Problem is, the road is a dead end road, and Ed's feelbe
>attempt to cover his accusation is dead. Next.

Mudd, you have NO defense on this, that the press blamed Wilt because
they don't like him. The "they don't like him" part is not the sole reason.
And you have nothing to justify that it's the sole reason, i.e. the blame
was personal, not about basketball. Even Clyde wasn't saying that.

So it's nice to put up Walt's quote, except you don't realize that he's not
helping you...

>>Of course, because he played very well in games 1-4. You don't assume
>>that the MVP was only for game 7, do you?
> Nope, but it was the deciding factor. Frazier would have otherwise
>received it.

Sure, so it was a close call. Willis played really well in game 1-4. Game 7
was just theatrics..

>But Clyde knows that no Willis, no win.

Yes, Clyde couldn't have scored 37 with no Willis. Did he give his winner's
share to Willis?

I can't imagine that you are so dumb, by believing these lines. It's like
Lou Holtz saying "our team has no chance", yet always come up with a win...

You must be as intelligent as Notre Dame's opponents...

Use your brain, that's game 7 of the finals. Without Willis' theatrics,
Clyde would have mailed in the score... Yeah, more Muddsense....

>So game 7 had a very major part in deciding series MVP, and Ed, when 1970
>mention what is ALWAYS mentioned? Willis awesome game 1 or game 7?

Immobile Willis awesome in game 7? against the Golaith Wilt? You are telling
me the Goliath's inepitute.

Besides, all I've heard about Willis' heroics in game 7 was the theatrics,
not his line on the boxscore.

> I've already won. I have torn up your assessment on Wilt.

Geez, you ADMITTED that Wilt failed to rise to the occasion. You failed to
provide any reference, other than a blind trust, that the Knicks offense was
illegal. Worse yet, you have NO admissions of Knicks players that they cheated,
something you claimed to have. You claimed that Phil Jackson was a member
of the 1970 champions when 3 sources proved that he wasn't. You tried to
paint a picture for Wilt in the finals but got torn apart by Holzman...

Yes, you've already won your rap on the net: an idiot...

>I've dropped the atomic bombs on you.

Well, you've done lots of droppings, that's for sure...

> Ed, you are like Sadaam Hussein. No matter how bad you lose an
>argument, you claim victory.

Mudd, you can't describe yourself better...

> #1) Red went with Reed (remember, half of Reed was better than anything
> else they could put up against Wilt...Walt's saying). Game
> 6, he went with a back-up center that you claimed Wilt couldn't
> dominate.

Well, let's see. The backup centers he couldn't dominated in games 5 and 7:
Debusshere, Bowman...

>
> #2) The psychological factor of having the hometown crowd going crazy
> and pumping up the team and inspiring the players....as pointed out
> by Frazier and Holzman, a guy who's words you believe. It is
> not overrated.

Geez, Mudd, are you so stupid that you think that trust is complete and absolute?
If A say something that you trust, then you trust EVERYTHING he says?

I would say that you are beyond repair...

No, I don't agree with Clyde and Holzman on Willis' psychological boost that
won them the game. Players at that level are beyond that. They won the game
because they played better. Yes, there are also stuff from them that I
agree with. There are even stuff from Meek and you that I agreed with...

>>After he came back for the final 12 games of the season,
>>he averaged 27.3 ppg and 18.9 FGA/game.
>
> That wasn't the final 12 games of the season. Next.

Dumbo, that's the final 12 games of the regular season.

> Bowman didn't play in the 2nd half. See Ed, your ignorance of the
>1970 series is apparent.

I didn't say that Bowman play in the 2nd half. Who was that 6'6" guy playing
emergency center in the 2nd half? How did Wilt do against him? 4 points?
let the other team rally for a victory?

> Good point. You can't understand the quotes so if I keep posting
>them, I thought you might get it through eventual osmosis, but that's
>wishful thinking, so I won't post them after this.

Because your point is not getting thru'. Of course, that's what you get
when you try to paint a picture...

>It's pointless to argue with you, since I've said the same thing over
>and over.

Because you picture will get torn, it's pointless to get ripped again
and again...

> Thinking like this is why you are a farce. No game is a giveaway.

Dumbo, they lost game 6 but still won the championship. So you tell me how
important game 6 was to them...

> [ psychological boost needed for game 7 ]

> Yes Ed, you're knowledge of life in the NBA goes so far beyond that
>of these guys that you can say they are wrong. I RECOGNIZE when an expert
>is telling how it is,

That's why I say you are dumb. Geez, the good counter example was 1988 game 7.
Howcome Isiah didn't give the Pistons the boost like Reed did to the Knicks?
Howcome the Lakers were so pumped up? Was Kareem faking an injury that we
don't know?

>>> And an entire team sagging on him. Pretty good indeed.
>>in a rout? pretty bad indeed. And there is no reason to believe yous BS
>>of "an entire team sagging on him". You have any film clips that the
>>Knicks quintuple-teamed Wilt?
>
> Yet another Ed Lor-yer wiff. The entire team doesn't mean
>simulaneously.

Wow, that's news to me. So when you say double-team, do you mean
simultaneously? Oh, so double team means Debusshere guarded him for 12
seconds while Stallworth guarded him for the next 12... Yep, that's
the Jidiot definition of double/triple/quadruple/quintuple-teaming...

>And Yes, I do have film clips of the game. I told you,
>it's been on ESPN multiple times.

Yes, and so it's not really "entire team sagging on him"...

> Sheesh Ed...I just scrolled down to bottom of the screen!!!! Let
>me answer all of your questions (since I gotta go down to the lab and do
>some work). All of your answers can be answered with these 2 statements
>from a guy who played in the series. You probably don't recognize them,
>but I've used them many times. Write these down Ed. Any time you have a
>question about Wilt in game #5 and #7, here is your answer and my response
>to you. Save this in a file called "Answers to my Wilt questions." Ok,
>got it? Ok here is answer #1:

More attempts to try to deflect the blame...

I noticed that you cut out all of Red's quotes from Red on Red, about
Wilt's performance in the series. I wonder why...

> THERE, now everyone's happy. No more wasted bandwidth and you can
>sit down and study these answers.

I don't study "answers" intended to paint a misleading picture. You better
study what Red said (and I posted) and try to come up with an answer. For
starter, why was Red so harsh to your Uncle Wiltie? there must be a
conspiracy...

Wait, Mudd, you still haven't told us where the illegal offense references
are... Better yet, where are the admissions from the three Knicks that they
cheated?

[Air Judden]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>In article <juddstud.835241142@gandalf>,
>Judd Vance <judd...@engg.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>> "(was it Dick Barnett)"
>> Ed, you say this is a question. Where is the question mark?
>Mudd, I forgot the question mark, but it doesn't make it a statement.
>Where is the period?

You mean you are going to argue at length with Martin about
grammar rules and you "forgot" a question mark? What a double-standard!

>game 6? Easy, as Holzman admitted, they gambled by putting him on the
>line, and they hit the jackpot. Wouldn't that deter the # chances Wilt got
>at the post? Well, based on your stupidity, you'll probably say no.

Dave's pointed out the averages. The ft attempts were not outrageous.
Sorry Ed, play again. next. (Funny you'd say Walt Frazier was full of
BS.) YOU saying this. YOU. BWAAHAHAHAHAHA!

>So who do you believe? Clyde or Holzman? Geez, isn't that your game? use
>quotes to paint your picture? This is a lovely game...

I've already answered this question. Comb through my posts, Ed, it's there.

>> Tell you what, Ed. Post your address and I'll mail you the quote.
>>Then, when you get ready to dig yourself in a whole, you can tape the
>>written quote to the screen, and you question will be answered, and you
>>can save bandwidth for everyone.
>Dumbo, it's not a matter of the existence of the quote. It's a matter of
>how strongly you believe the quote. As I said, I have Holzman's quote.
>Since Holzman's quote exist, your quote isn't the only account of
>the Laker failure in game 7. I tell you what, you can come to NY and beat
>up Holzman, and order him to retract his quotes. Yes, that's the ticket!

Red's quote only confirms Walt's. I figure you'd wanna beat him
up, since he dared to say Willis gave the team a psychological boost. The
nerve of him to dispute you! (and the nerve of him to play Barnett at
guard. Dick would have been a better back-up center -- heh-- the senile
old man!) Next.

>>Not flawless, but dominant, which was the issue at
>>hand. You are wrong, Ed ... once again.
>Mudd, you haven't proven Holzman wrong yet, have you?

I'm not going to prove an expert wrong. That's your field, Ed.
Remember, Walt is full of BS, and the pyschological factor both spoke of
is overrated. Ed knows. They lie. Next.

>> [ hypothetically the Rockets blowing out of the Knicks ]
>> And you'd say Ewing didn't dominate? Heh.
>Yep, I would say so. I would say any positive stats achieved in a
>blowout loss is meaningless, let alone dominant. You have any problem
>with that? What? Wilt's 21 points and 24 rebounds helped the team to
>merely a 14 point loss while they were losing by XXX in the 4th quarter
>and Holzman pulled his starters. You mean if Wilt weren't there? they
>would suffer a 25 point loss?

That's right Ed. When Michael scored 63 points against the Celtics
in 1986, that just wasn't dominating! Ainge ate him for lunch! With
no Wilt, the thing would have been a Knick sweep. With no Wilt, Phoenix
would have beaten them in the first round. Oooops, Ed not know about Wilt
vs. Phoenix....Ed, better see if it in Stat Book. I wonder if Ed know
Wilt block 6 Connie Hawkins shots in one game?

>>and then you said Reedless means an injured Reed. How did an injured Reed
>>cause Wilt to miss free throws?
>Easy, in the previous 4 games when Reed wasn't injured, he would play
>Wilt straight (he had 11 fouls in 198 minutes before the injury, that's
>2.7/48m). In game 7, Reed fouled more than usual (4 in 27 minutes, 7.1/48m)
>and they used Bowman for ***FIVE*** fouls.

And when Wilt stepped up to the line, no doubt he said, "I can't hit
these free throws. Willis is in the game. I just can't shoot them when
Willis is around. He intimidates me. I wish Imhoff were here. I can shoot
them when he is around." Heh. Next....

>> Once again, my whole existence on this thread is to disprove your
>>accusation of Wilt failing to dominate the backup center in game 5 and the
>>Reedless Knicks in game 7.
>Have you? I am still waiting...

Not suprising Ed. No matter how often I put up the quotes, you
don't get it (I've proven you can't read), so you will be forever waiting.
Perhaps if Clyde and Red came over and explained it to you personally. But
I suspect you'll be like Homer Simpson and while they talk, you'll hear
"Blah Blah Blah".

>> Now don't cover your rear. You said Wilt failed to dominate the
>>back-up center in game 5 as well.
>Right. Who were playing centers in the 2nd half? Stallworth and DeBusshere.
>Were they the starting centers?

The Knicks played a 3 forward lineup. That means 2 guards and
3 forwards (in this case). If I haven't produced the quote that it was
a 3 forward lineup, I could produce it for you. Not that it would do any
good. If you want, I'll list the 3 forwards and 2 guards, just incase you
get confused in sports and think Dick Barnett was a rover or quarterback.

>>He DID dominate Bowman. DeBusschere and Dave the Rave were not centers.
>>You lied.
>Dumbo, when he stepped on the court against Wilt, his role was center.
>Was Jose Canseco a pitcher? not regularly, but he was when he stepped on
>the mound. Or when Walter Payton took the snaps, was he playing QB or RB?

See what I mean about confusing sports? If Oscar Robertson is such
a great passer, then how come he didn't throw any touchdowns, huh? huh?
The thoughts that come from Ed Lor-yer...fascinating!

No wonder the topic of Wilt confuses you so: Since Wilt also ran
track in college and played volleyball and raquetball after retiring!
Ed: {Wilt lost the jumpball because he scratched on takeoff!}

>> That was the first time a team concentrated on stopping Wilt and
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>the Lakers committed 17 turnovers in one half and Jerry West only took 2
>>shots and missed them both. There, happy?
>Dumbo, that's the first time a team concentrated on stopping Wilt?
>Remember this statement, and you'll see how dumb you've become. YOu even
>contradicted yourself...

Ed, the English prof who forgets his punctuation marks, fails to
grasp what the word "and" means. Poor Ed missed class when the teacher
covered conjunctions.
See what I mean? Ed cannot read. No wonder he couldn't understand
what a hobby was.

>> Wilt didn't defend him. He wouldn't follow DeBusschere out. Next.
>Then who did Wilt defend? a zone? DeBusshere is the last '1' in the 1-3-1,
>designated to draw Wilt out of the low post. Mudd, you ought to learn
>more about the game...

Yep, he did zone and stayed toward the middle of the 1-3-1. It was
no secret Wilt didn't follow people outside that year (knee injury and
laziness). If you saw the video footage of game 7, you'd see that Willis
hit 2 wide open shots. But you don't remember it, since they were Reedless.

Perhaps you should read the quote on the 1-3-1. If the center doesn't
go out, they give up open shots. Do you know how the word "if" works in
this statement, Ed?

>>kept picking them off. The last statement says that the Lakers had a bad
>>gameplan, the paragraph specifially assigns blame to the guards.
>Yes, bad gameplan, does it mean the players were blameless? No? if the
>guards didn't do their jobs, does it mean the center was blameless? What
>did he do to help the guards who were struggling? As you said, this is
>a team game. You can't have a good game when your team got blown out.
>There must be something you did that's wrong.

Only Ed could associate losing with a lousy perfomance by each and
every person on the team. Shhhhhhh! Nobody tell Ed that Jerry West won
the 1969 finals MVP despite playing on the losing team.

>> Ed, this is not a pass to the wing, it's a pass to the post. When
>>you post, you do not go out to meet the ball. You fight for position and
>>hold it. The pass is supposed to get to you.
>Supposed by whom? If the pass is supposed to get to the center, why did
>the Knicks even try to steal it?

Basketall 010: A pass goes from point A to point B. If a hand
gets between the line connecting A and B, the ball will deflect.

You can't understand this, Ed. How can I explain something as
complicated as a pass to the post? Simple: I can't. I've tried and you're
beyond teaching.

I pity your 1st grade teacher:

Teacher: Ed, what's 1+1?

Ed: 11

Teacher: No, Ed, It is 2.

Ed: No, it's 11.

Teacher: Ed, use your fingers, hold up one finger. Now hold up another.
what do you have?

Ed: 11

Teacher: Ed, if I have a marble and you have a marble, how many do we have?

Ed: 2

Teacher: see? each of have one. 1 + 1 = 2.

Ed: No. You said we have "a" marble, not "one" marble. You lie. 1+1 = 11.

>So you know the Knicks were gambling on steals. You are the center, do you do
>the "supposed" and let them intercept the rock, or do you go aggressively for
>the ball and give up some of your position? And are you saying that Wilt
>was useless if he got out 3 more feet?

Funny, coulda swore I pointed out a statement from the video footage
of game 7 when they said Wilt missed a fingeroll because he was taking them
from farther out than he's used to, because of Reed's strenth.
Coulda swore I produced a quote from Holzman that part of Willis
being there was to push Wilt a little farther out. Red is that guy you
quote, remember?

I can tell you never played in the post. What are you Ed, 5'1"?

>Getting the ball farther away is not as bad as a turnover, is it?

Forcing a bad pass is even worse. Shooting an open shot is better.
Especially if it's a guy like, say, Jerry West.

>> #2) None of the teams listed lost a center. The teams mentioned
>> had guard injuries and a SF.
>What about it? You mean only center are entitled to psychological boost?

We are talking about gameplans. It's easier to play post defense
injured than the wing. In the post, you can shove and use teammates to
swarm and nullify a mobile advantage. Against a guard, you can't push
and you are useless out there on a wing without mobility. Go take Basketball
010 Ed. No, don't do it. It's a waste of your money, like 1st grade was.
{1+1 = 11...you're a liar!}

>Geez, too bad the Lakers didn't have an injured Kareem to boost them in
>1988...

Didn't need it. They won already.

>>>> [ Lakers standing around during double-teaming Wilt in game 5 ]
>>
>> Game 7...get it right...I've only posted this...HOW MANY TIMES????
>>No wonder, you don't understand it...you don't even know what game
>>it's referring to!
>Dumbo, Wilt got double-teamed in game 5 (by Stallworth and DeBusshere),
>and in game 7, he fell for the same trap again? Geez, you tell me about his
>ability to adjust ...

Not only did Ed screw up his facts, again, but he lied (in his own
fine words). Wilt did not get 2-teamed by Stallworth and DeBusschere.
Dave the Rave REPLACED DeBusschere after DeBusschere picked up his 5th foul
in the 4th quater. Was Stallworth 2-teaming from the bench?
Once again Ed, we see who knew what was going on in that series and
who has a stat book and is trying to fill in the gaps with his imagination.

Reedless team in game 7
Barnett a backup center
Wilt failed to dominate the backup center (a.k.a. Nate Bowman)
DeBusschere was a center
DeBusschere and Stallworth double-teamed Wilt.
Phil Jackson wasn't a Knick in 1970
Willis Reed wasn't a Knick in 1972
21 pts and 24 rebounds is not a dominating performance
An intercepted pass to the post is the fault of the post man
It is better to make an ill-advised pass to the post rather than
shoot have a hall of fame guard take an open shot.

Anything else you'd like to screw up, Ed?

{Ed not screw up. Ed right! And 1+1=11!!!}

>>>He wasn't? so how much blame he should shoulder in that series loss?
>>
>> Not what you're trying to assign him,
>Well, what I assign him was his failure to dominate (by dominate, I mean
>the scoreboard, not his personal stats) in a favorable situation (his
>nemesis out). All you spill on the net are excuses.

Ahhhhhhhh....one man is responsible for the outcome. Just like
Jordan failed to dominate against the Celtics with those 63 points.
West failed to dominate against the 69 Celts with a 40 point average.
And Shawn Kemp didn't dominate Luc Longley.

>> In other words, that back-up center you claim he DIDN'T dominate? You

>> [ the 100 point game ]
>> #2) Wilt had the game of his life (28 of 32 from the stripe).
>Wow, Wilt had the game of his life in a regular season game in March?
>How about the game of his life in an NBA finals series? Was he able to
>do that?

Not "of his life." You have the game of your life once. That's why
it is singular. Have you learned that game = 1 and games = 2+, Mr. English
master?
And since that 100 point feat has been topped so many times, ol
Wilt should have done it against Russell and Reed in the finals.

Oh yeah, forgot who I was dealing with. Wilt only had one quality
playoff series against Russell (1967). All of the others were just great
big flops. Wilt choked.

{that right! and 1+1 = 11}

>> #3) The Knicks decided in the 4th quarter to get 100 pts. The team's
>> offense was designed to get Wilt every shot and fortunately ...
>the Knicks? Did Wilt play for the Knicks?

I told ya you'd say it!!!! I corrected it yesterday and you
still had to comment on it today. Ed, you're so prediable!

>> #4) The defense wasn't the world champion Knicks defense.
>Well, the defense was designated to stop him alone because the Warriors
>only want to get him 100 points. What about your claim that

> "That was the first time a team concentrated on stopping Wilt"?

Nice cut and paste Ed...I believe there were a series of "ands" after
that statement. Now, are you the cut-and-paster, that I once accused you
of being, or are you just clueless and can't read, like I later accused you
of being? Which is it? And because you'll say "liar", I'll print the entire
quote again....

"That was the first time a team concentrated on stopping Wilt and

the Lakers committed 17 turnovers in one half and Jerry West only took 2
shots and missed them both. There, happy?"

See the "ands" in it Ed?

Yes, the Knicks concentrated on stopping Wilt and the Warriors tried to
get Wilt the 100 (since the game was out of reach and it was a meaningless
game, since Boston had clinched). Wilt's career free throw night was the
only reason he got the 100. An average night, and he would have fallen
short.

>> #5) Wilt wasn't coming off a major knee injury and surgery.
>In the 1970 finals, he was healthy. As a matter of fact, he just scored
>45 in game 6...

Yeah, he started off against Nate Bowman (remember him?) and the
Laker guards took and hit the shots, preventing the Knicks from swarming
on Wilt. These are a little too advanced hoops concepts for you, Ed.
I produced a quote with it, but I see it went by you already.

>>Sorry Ed, play again.
>You want to lose again?

There has to be a first time, before there can be an "again." Poor
English master Ed has a hard time with punctuation, conjuntions, singluar/
plural (game/games), the word "if," and the word "again."

>>>Of course, because he played very well in games 1-4. You don't assume
>>>that the MVP was only for game 7, do you?
>> Nope, but it was the deciding factor. Frazier would have otherwise
>>received it.
>Sure, so it was a close call. Willis played really well in game 1-4. Game 7
>was just theatrics..

Yep. 2 jumpers to start the game were theatrics. Leaning into
Wilt and pushing him a little off the blocks were just theatrics. The
picks he set were just theatrics.

>>So game 7 had a very major part in deciding series MVP, and Ed, when 1970
>>mention what is ALWAYS mentioned? Willis awesome game 1 or game 7?
>Immobile Willis awesome in game 7? against the Golaith Wilt? You are telling
>me the Goliath's inepitute.

And Ed fumbles again. "awesome" is with game 1. But this
doesn't suprise me, since you don't understand conjunctions ("or").

>> Ed, you are like Sadaam Hussein. No matter how bad you lose an
>>argument, you claim victory.
>Mudd, you can't describe yourself better...

{Ed get him! "What you say is what you are!" Ha Ha! I bet he
not hear that one. If he use it on me, I really get him, I say "What you
say is what you are--you're a naked movie star!" Ed is king of comebacks!}

>Well, let's see. The backup centers he couldn't dominated in games 5 and 7:
>Debusshere, Bowman...

Bowman comes in, Wilt score 7 of the next 12 points. Red pulled him
out, admitting it didn't work. Ed is right. Numbers wrong! Red wrong!
Heh. And Ed, still hasn't caught on that DeBusschere is a forward.
At least you're consistent, Ed.

>> #2) The psychological factor of having the hometown crowd going crazy
>> and pumping up the team and inspiring the players....as pointed out
>> by Frazier and Holzman, a guy who's words you believe. It is
>> not overrated.
>Geez, Mudd, are you so stupid that you think that trust is complete and absolute?
>If A say something that you trust, then you trust EVERYTHING he says?

I could pick and chose what matches my belifs, like you do, but
nah! I'll trust a guy whose knowledge about that series far exceeds the
2 of us. I will trust it especially when 2 independent eyewitnesses/experts
confer.

>I would say that you are beyond repair...

Actually, it says a lot about how you use a source to argue. If he
says what you believe, use it. If it disagrees, that person is wrong...and
what makes it so much more amusing is that you have proven how little you
knew about the details of that series.

>>>After he came back for the final 12 games of the season,
>>>he averaged 27.3 ppg and 18.9 FGA/game.
>>
>> That wasn't the final 12 games of the season. Next.
>Dumbo, that's the final 12 games of the regular season.

BZZZZZZT!!!!! Wilt did not start the season out injured. Wrong
again Eddo. Another missed fact of 1970 you missed. Quite a list you're
building there, Ed.

{Yeah, But Ed know that Stretch Armstrong landed on the moon in 1970 because
earlier that year JFK said the U.S. should put a man on the moon by the end of
the decade. Wow! JFK say that and they do it a few
months later! JFK shoulda said "pluto." Better yet, "Vulcan." JFK
inspire people quickly, unlike Wilt. Wilt loser. Ed knows all facts and
details from 1970! I wonder why they call him JFK? I wonder if he related
to KFC?}

>> Good point. You can't understand the quotes so if I keep posting
>>them, I thought you might get it through eventual osmosis, but that's
>>wishful thinking, so I won't post them after this.
>Because your point is not getting thru'. Of course, that's what you get
>when you try to paint a picture...

Nice of you to admit your ignorance and inability to understand
a statement. That is the first step in seeking help.
The details in your picture are great. Modern art, they call it?

>> Thinking like this is why you are a farce. No game is a giveaway.
>Dumbo, they lost game 6 but still won the championship. So you tell me how
>important game 6 was to them...

Yep, Pat Riley tells his team in the playoffs, "we're up guys, let's
throw this one away." No doubt Michael Jordan said, "We're up 3-0 on
Seattle. This one's a giveaway, let's go lose it. It's not important. We
have 3 more chances to put them away."

Ed...listen to me....go enroll in Basketball 010.

>>>> And an entire team sagging on him. Pretty good indeed.
>>>in a rout? pretty bad indeed. And there is no reason to believe yous BS
>>>of "an entire team sagging on him". You have any film clips that the
>>>Knicks quintuple-teamed Wilt?
>>
>> Yet another Ed Lor-yer wiff. The entire team doesn't mean
>>simulaneously.
>Wow, that's news to me. So when you say double-team, do you mean
>simultaneously? Oh, so double team means Debusshere guarded him for 12
>seconds while Stallworth guarded him for the next 12... Yep, that's
>the Jidiot definition of double/triple/quadruple/quintuple-teaming...

Ed, when your plans call for double and triple teaming a guy, you
don't have to use the same players everytime down the court. All 5 guys
did not converge on Wilt at once, but during the game, the guys closest
to Wilt were helping out, while the team sagged back somewhat....Basktball
010...take it, Ed. They will teach you sags and double teams...but that
will come later on. 010 will teach you the basics -- why the ball is
round, why the hoop is 10 feet high, etc...

Oooops...got a problem. They have a book in there.
Gotta take those reading classes first, then take Basketball 010
once you get that 6th grade reading level. Ok?

Judden

[Martin Shobe]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) wrote:
[stuff deleted]

>>>After he came back for the final 12 games of the season,
>>>he averaged 27.3 ppg and 18.9 FGA/game.
>>
>> That wasn't the final 12 games of the season. Next.
>Dumbo, that's the final 12 games of the regular season.

Wilt didn't play the final 12 games of the season. He only played the last 3.
As evidence I have the following quote from _Pro Basketball 4th edition_ by Neft
& Cohen :

In the Los Angeles Lakers ninth game of the year, Chamberlain hurt his knee and
underwent surgery.

So, Wilt played in the first 9 games.

[stuff deleted]

Martin Shobe
kh...@unix.ksu.ksu.edu

"Everything you know is wrong
Black is white, up is down, and short is long
And everything you thought was just so important doesn't matter"
"Weird Al" Yankovic, "Everything You Know is Wrong" _Bad Hair Day_

[Dave Meeks]

In article <4qddar$n...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
>In article <juddstud.835241142@gandalf>,
>Judd Vance <judd...@engg.ksu.edu> wrote:
>
>You can write 200 more times, and that's still BS. Are you saying that
>Wilt had no way to cope with double-team? he took 16 shots. He was also
>fouled at least 5 times. Why wouldn't he get more shots like he did in
>game 6? Easy, as Holzman admitted, they gambled by putting him on the

Maybe because game 6 was the extreme exception to the rule for Wilt in those
days. His offensive explosion was NOT the norm for him in 1970. You ask
why he didn't get as many shots as he did in game 6, yet you have not shown
any evidence as to how this was Wilt's fault. You can only shoot the ball if
you get the touches, and you haven't shown that he touched the ball the same
number of times in Game 7.

>line, and they hit the jackpot. Wouldn't that deter the # chances Wilt got
>at the post? Well, based on your stupidity, you'll probably say no.

And, Holzmans gamble, as you mention, didn't seem to mean much, in the sense
that Wilt wasn't going to the line any more than he normally did. If
Holzman's plan was to work as you try to imply, we should see Wilt at the line
much more often than normal. It seems to me that with Wilt going the exact
same # of times as his average would dictate, that the 'plan' didn't alter
Wilt's normal output much.

>> Wilt had 21 points in these conditions and 24 rebounds. He held his
>>couterpart to 4 pts and 3 rebounds and you claim he didn't dominate. You've
>>tried to justify it every which way but loose, but when it comes down to
>>it, Wilt dominated.
>Well, according to Holzman, that's not the reason...

Really? You got a quote where Holzman claims that Wilt didn't dominate?

>>Not flawless, but dominant, which was the issue at
>>hand. You are wrong, Ed ... once again.
>Mudd, you haven't proven Holzman wrong yet, have you?

You haven't shown Holzman say that Wilt wasn't dominating.

>> It's called passing out of a double team. Knicks swarm Wilt.
>Dumbo, are you saying that this is the first time Wilt saw a double team
>that he couldn't handle it? Geez, what kind of stupid excuse is this?

Where does Judd claim Wilt couldn't handle the double team. And what, pray
tell, would you consider 'handling the double team'? How do players like
Hakeem, Malone, Jordan, etc.. handle the double team in most cases... Pass
to the open man, that's how. Pass to the cutters, pass to the spot up
shooters, etc. We know that, based on the testimonies, the players weren't
spotting up very well, that they weren't cutting through very well, etc...
We also know that those players weren't shooting very well. So, it seems
like (since Wilt wasn't forcing shots) WIlt was passing out of those double
and triple teams and those players were not performing up to snuff...

>Wow, it's not a statement either, since there is no punctuation mark
>at all. So, does the words "Was it Dick Barnett" indicate a question or
>a statement?

So, you are going to defend yourself by admitting you are a fuck-up?

Interesting defense...

>> Proved ya wrong on this one already, so has Dave.
>Proved me wrong? I have more proofs that he wasn't a member of the 1970
>champs.

More proof for you Ed...The Pro Basketball Sports Encyclopedia lists
Phil Jackson as a member of the Championship Knicks in 1970.

>something you claimed to have. You claimed that Phil Jackson was a member
>of the 1970 champions when 3 sources proved that he wasn't. You tried to
>paint a picture for Wilt in the finals but got torn apart by Holzman...

Well, we've seen a number of sources that also claim he was... So, what's
your point?

>No, I don't agree with Clyde and Holzman on Willis' psychological boost that
>won them the game. Players at that level are beyond that. They won the game
>because they played better. Yes, there are also stuff from them that I
>agree with. There are even stuff from Meek and you that I agreed with...

Well, who cares what YOU think. It seems that just about every account of
that game highlights the effect WIllis had. If you want to think that it had
no effect, not many will care. Those that played the game seemed to think
it played an important part. It is part of basketball folklore and everyone
seems to acknowledge the positive impact it had.

>That's why I say you are dumb. Geez, the good counter example was 1988 game 7.
>Howcome Isiah didn't give the Pistons the boost like Reed did to the Knicks?
>Howcome the Lakers were so pumped up? Was Kareem faking an injury that we
>don't know?

Different events have different effects. Just because a team gets pumped up
doesn't mean they have an automatic win. Different players as well. You can't
discount the effect one event had just because another didn't have the same
effect.

--
David T. Meeks || "Walking the line of innocence and guilt
Senior Software Engineer || Are you fine with circumstance?"
VMark Software, Inc. || Iluvatar - Children
e-mail: da...@vmark.com || www: http://infoserv.vmark.com/~davem

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <juddstud.835298667@gandalf>,

Judd Vance <judd...@engg.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>> Excellent cut and paste job, Ed!
>>You respond with "That is a hobby" right after I mentioend what job
>>suits you the best. And that's cut and paste?
>
>>Mudd, learn how to post.
>
>Nope. Learn to read, Ed....

Learn to post, Mudd.

> The 2 paragraphs show the same topic, just different aspects of the
>reading.

Who cares what your 2 paragraphs show? You responded with '"That's a
"hobby", Ed' right after I mentioned your ass-kissing. True or false?

Message-ID: <4q78di$4...@abc.ksu.ksu.edu>

=======================================================================

>But what work do you have now? anything besides reading Knicks books
>to argue here? The way I see it, the job that best suits you is to be
>Wilt's ass-kisser. He sure needs someone like you to build his
>credentials...


That is a "hobby" Ed.

=======================================================================

Show what I cut and paste, i.e. there existed text between my paragraph
and 'That is a "hobby" Ed.' in the article.

>You are cornered Ed. Either you did do the dastardly deed I accused
>you of (cut and paste), or you are too clueless to READ and understand that
>a word like "Besides" is used to link the 2 paragraphs together and transition
>from one aspect of reading Knicks books to another.

Besides what? like which 2 paragraphs? You responded with the "hobby"
right after the ass-kissing potential. What 2 paragraphs are you lying
about?

> No wonder you can't understand the quotes I use to answer your
>questions, your reading skills are on the level of a first grader.

Or your writing skill is below a first grader.

>I'm sorry
>I accused you of cut-and-pasting Ed. I didn't realize you were so
>clueless. I'm sorry I used those difficult quotes on you. I didn't realize
>that you REALLY couldn't understand them. Let me tone down the argument to
>your level.

Mudd, eat it. Your

'That's a "hobby", Ed'

statement is there, right after I mention about your ass-kissing. Now
deny it...

> Don't respond Ed, study this. Study it hard. When you get this,
>let me know, and I'll give you another installment.

I don't worry about it, not until you can cite the testimonies from the
3 Knicks that they cheated with their "illegal" offense ...

>In a few years, I can
>explain things like a double team. But don't rush things, I don't want to
>confuse you.

In a few years, when you no longer can stay in KSU and get no account
to post, I'll worry about where to get such a dumb ass to flame...

>
>>> And direclty above, you cut and paste to make it sound like it takes
>>>on another meaning. Nice Ed. Like I said in a different post, Classic Ed
>>>Lor-yer. When all else fails make something up.
>>Wow, in <4q78di$4...@abc.ksu.ksu.edu>, that's what you wrote:
>
>>=====================================================================
>> >But what work do you have now? anything besides reading Knicks books
>> >to argue here? The way I see it, the job that best suits you is to be
>> >Wilt's ass-kisser. He sure needs someone like you to build his
>> >credentials...
>>
>>
>> That is a "hobby" Ed. You may not understand the difference ...
>>=====================================================================
>
>>Are you telling me that I cut or paste any lines in your "That's a hobby
>>response"?
>
>
>Yes, the entire 2nd paragraph. That is Cutting. You pasted your answer
>right between them.

LIE. What 2nd paragraph? What my answer?

'That is a "hobby" Ed.'

is not my answer. It's your answer.

====================================================================
From judd...@ksu.ksu.edu Tue Jun 18 22:40:45 EDT 1996
Article: 139190 of rec.sport.basketball.pro
Path: nntphub.cb.lucent.com!cbgw1.att.com!fnnews.fnal.gov!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.ksu.ksu.edu!not-for-mail
From: judd...@ksu.ksu.edu (Air Judden)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: Ed Lor-yer...let's rock!
Date: 18 Jun 1996 16:51:46 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Lines: 30
Distribution: na
Message-ID: <4q78di$4...@abc.ksu.ksu.edu>
References: <4pl7p6$s...@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu> <4pmrl0$b...@fox.ksu.ksu.edu> <4ppkqp$3...@nntpa.cb.att.com> <juddstud.834776570@gandalf> <4pteb8$c...@nntpa.cb.att.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: abc.ksu.ksu.edu
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #2 (NOV)
Xref: nntphub.cb.lucent.com rec.sport.basketball.pro:139190

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>In article <juddstud.834776570@gandalf>,

>Judd Vance <judd...@engg.ksu.edu> wrote:
>> If I neglect my work, I may end up as a gunie pig for tests at
>>Lucent Technologies, like you. Ed, the LAST think I want in life is to
>>be locked in a cage with you arguing Dick Barnett's position, while scientist
>>put cosmetics in our eyeballs.

>But what work do you have now? anything besides reading Knicks books

>to argue here? The way I see it, the job that best suits you is to be
>Wilt's ass-kisser. He sure needs someone like you to build his
>credentials...

That is a "hobby" Ed. You may not understand the difference, but
there is. Currently, I'm conducting tests on the effect of velocity on
the combustability of ammonia for the International Institute of Ammonia
Refridgeration.
Besides, if reading Knick books and arguing with you were a job,
I'd be a filthy rich man for all the arguments I've won against you. Bill
Gates, you think you're living large? Ha! You're living in a shack!

>Any other line of jobs? it's out of your league...

Naw, I could always be a gunei pig for Lucent Technologies, like

you. Or I could be a PETA fanatic and free you, but then you'd have no
meaning in your life.

Judden

====================================================================

Your this is a "hobby" is right after the ass-kissing comment? What
2nd paragraph was there between ass-kissing and "hobby" that I cut?

> (I'm still wanting to know why Wilt should give up his position in
>the post to go out and meet a pass thrown into the post, like you said
>he should have done.)

Because it would be better than a turnover. Are you so stupid to say
that a turnover is better than losing position but keeping possession?

>>1) the effect of an illegal zone offense is to stop the other team's
>>gunners from scoring...
>
> SEE: MADE THINGS UP (POINT 2)

Well, I didn't make it up. That's what Spitz said on the effect of the
offense. Are you going to deny it?

>>2) that a pass "not too tough to handle" means it's all the passer's
>>fault...
>
> See: understands basic philosophy (point 5)

which is something you don't understand...

>>5) the NBA needed to outlaw a 1-3-1 offense for whatever reason. Help
>>me here. What's the exact reason? Why was the 1-3-1 bad for the game that
>>it had to be outlawed?
>
> I don't make the rules Ed. I don't know why Isolation is such a
>bad thing, but there are rules against clear-outs,

Dumbo, and you tell me you understand basketball? Let me help you here:
the isolation violation is to prevent a team from playing one on one
basketball, e.g. 4 players on the weak side above the key, and one
player (the one with the ball) on the strong side and play one on
one (or even one on two). Say, the player with the ball is MJ, he can
beat his defender, and he has a clear sailing to the hole. That's why
the NBA doesn't like it...

>or why a player should shoot a free throw in 10 seconds instead of 15.

Easy, speed up the game.

>I'm not going to argue the moral reasons behind the NBA rules.

Of course, because you can't. Because you don't know the rationale behind
the rules. That's how a blind trust on reading hurts your following of
the game...

>Ed, let's look at your response to point #2...see if you can see what I
>mean about the "liar liar pants on fire" stage you dwell in.
>
>>> 2) Dave doesn't make up stuff that you said. (just like you did).
>>Lie. You responded with 'that is a "hobby" Ed' in response to my claim
>>that you are an ass-kisser. How did I make up stuff?
>
>See?

See what? You responded with 'that is a "hobby" Ed' in response to
my claim that you are an ass-kisser. Now deny it. Remember, there is
no use denying it. Your article is right here.

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <juddstud.835298054@gandalf>,

Judd Vance <judd...@engg.ksu.edu> wrote:
>(Much snipped about Wilt)...the answers are there for Ed, I wrote them
>in my last post. If Ed reads the 2 quotes, all of his Wilt questions will
>be answerd.

Well, what you wrote are all junk, just trying to paint a picture you want,
you do you think it will parse?

>>>>So, if I accept playing 69 games as "without his serivce", I certainly can
>>>>consider injured and immobile "Reedless".
>>>
>>> Have you accepted it? If not, then you're back to the drawing
>>>boards.
>>Nope.
>
>

> Excellent comeback, Ed! Gotta write that one down and remember it.

Go ahead, remember it?

So I don't accept playing 69 games as "without his service", now what?

>He referred to an official book, or did you not see that?

Yes, but I referred to 5 officials bookS. Or did you not
see that?

>I'll be surprised

>if you let Dave get the last word in on you.

Of course you'll be surprised, because the NBA Encyclopedia, the
Sports Encyclopedia, the Basketball Handbook, TSN NBA Register,
the NBA Guide, the Laker Media Guide, etc. are as official as any
set of books you can get.

>>You aren't proving anything, since there are three accounts that he
>>wasn't a member of the championship team as a player. If you prove
>>that he worked for the Knicks organization, like drawing a paycheck,
>>that's fine with me...
>

>Nope.
Then you have NO proof that he was a member of the championship team.
In other words, nice try but no cigar...

>>Yet in the argument on hand, comparing talents of players (for the
>>1972 runner-up), a player merely drawing a paycheck doesn't mean he
>>has his talent available to the team...
>

>Nope.
OK, I take it as

"Nope, a player merely drawing a paycheck does not mean he has

his talent available to the team..."

Glad that you agree...

>>>I use judgement when I read.
>>Yes, like judgement of an ant...
>

>Nope.
Nope, you don't use judgement?

>>You did more than that. You read their admissions of cheating even when
>>there is no such admission...
>

>Nope.
Nope? then cite the admissions? in which books did they appear?

> Ed, get out of the courtroom. Get back to the basketball court, not
>the court of law. The 2 aren't connected, unless you are Scottie Pippen.

The two aren't connected? but even so, why do I have to believe what
Bob Spitz said? You claimed that he read a lot of references. How come
you can't locate any one of the reference in which it said that the Knicks
ran an illegal offense. Geez, if he could find that information in one
of the books, why can't you point it out to us?

Dumbo, it is not a matter of just trust anymore. If you trust him,
then you must be able to find it somewhere when challenged. Your habit
is to cite quotes that paint your picture. You can't you do it this
time

Show it.

>>Mudd, that's why I said you have the judgement of an ant, because you
>>certainly are stupid beyond any reasonable doubt...
>

>Nope.

>I've got the hang of this Ed. I used an acceptable reply and I got the last
>word in. According to Ed Lor-yer standards, I'm on top of this debate.

You are no top of no debate since you still can't show that:

1) the existence of the illegal offense rule in 1970
2) the existence of testimonies from 3 Knicks (Bradley, Frazier, Holzman)
that their offense was illegal.

NOw be a good boy and tell me where they are...

[Martin Shobe]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) wrote:

>In article <juddstud.835298054@gandalf>,
>Judd Vance <judd...@engg.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>(Much snipped about Wilt)...the answers are there for Ed, I wrote them
>>in my last post. If Ed reads the 2 quotes, all of his Wilt questions will
>>be answerd.
>Well, what you wrote are all junk, just trying to paint a picture you want,
>you do you think it will parse?

Speaking of parsing, reread what you just wrote and *just try* to tell me that
it parses.

[Dave Meeks]

In article <4ql5gt$2...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
>In article <juddstud.835298667@gandalf>,
>Judd Vance <judd...@engg.ksu.edu> wrote:

>>But what work do you have now? anything besides reading Knicks books
>>to argue here? The way I see it, the job that best suits you is to be
>>Wilt's ass-kisser. He sure needs someone like you to build his
>>credentials...


> That is a "hobby" Ed. You may not understand the difference, but
>there is. Currently, I'm conducting tests on the effect of velocity on
>the combustability of ammonia for the International Institute of Ammonia
>Refridgeration.
> Besides, if reading Knick books and arguing with you were a job,
>I'd be a filthy rich man for all the arguments I've won against you. Bill
>Gates, you think you're living large? Ha! You're living in a shack!
>

>Your this is a "hobby" is right after the ass-kissing comment? What
>2nd paragraph was there between ass-kissing and "hobby" that I cut?

Actually Ed, if you want to be 'correct' here, you are wrong.

Judd claims that his 'hobby', as he was referring, was in reference to
reading Knicks books. This is supported by the 2nd paragraph of his
comment, were he says 'if reading Knicks books and ...'.

Judd claims and supports his claim that he was responding to your 1st
and 2nd statements in that paragraph... the 'But what work do you have
now? anything besides reading Knicks books to argue here?'.

See, those were the questions you asked. The 'jobs that suits you is to
be WIlt's ass-kisser' is a statement you make. Judd correctly claims and
supports his claim that he is responding to your question about whether he
has any work besides reading Knicks books. He claims that reading Knicks
books is just 'a hobby', and goes on to describe his 'real' work.

And, while you try to carefully pull out the 'ass kisser' line, and try
to push it off as the 'last statement', that in itself is a lie. Your
last statement was 'He sure needs someone like you to build his credentials...'
and not the 'ass-kisser' part..

Ed, you are really pretty pathetic. Your constant attempts to pick apart
the exact working, cut/pasting, and arguing over semantics/(il)logic/etc..
are the acts of a severely desperate man.

This 'line' is among the more blatant and idiotic of your attempts, but
does clearly highlight your idiocy...

>Well, I didn't make it up. That's what Spitz said on the effect of the
>offense. Are you going to deny it?

Sure.. post the whole quote and let's see if that's indeed what he said
the effect of the offense was...

>>See?
>See what? You responded with 'that is a "hobby" Ed' in response to
>my claim that you are an ass-kisser. Now deny it. Remember, there is
>no use denying it. Your article is right here.

Because it is total bullshit, as I have shown up above.

Your paragraph above is a collection of 4 sentences. It starts out with
two questions which ask what Judd does for work and ask whether he just reads
Knicks books for his work. The 3rd statement is your attempt at guessing at
what Judd does, and your fourth tries to justify that statement.

In response TO YOUR QUESTIONS (you know, those things with those funny looking
'?' at the end.. We call them question marks and imply someone asking a
question which often calls for a response), Judd responds to your
'what work...' and '...reading Knicks books...' questions with his
'...hobby...' response. He goes on to inform you just what his real job
is. His second paragraph further supports the fact that he was responding
to your questions by referencing the particulars of the 2nd question yet
again, with the '...if reading Knicks books...' comments.

Geesh Ed... this is a pretty pathetic attempt, even from you.

[Dave Meeks]

In article <4qlt3g$s...@newserv.ksu.ksu.edu> kh...@unix.ksu.ksu.edu (Martin Shobe) writes:

>l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) wrote:
>>Well, what you wrote are all junk, just trying to paint a picture you want,
>>you do you think it will parse?
>
>Speaking of parsing, reread what you just wrote and *just try* to tell me that
>it parses.

Well, for what it's worth, my 3 year old daughter said something that
sounded very similar to that just the other day...

You draw your own conclusions :)

Dave

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4ql3rm$9...@uvmark.vmark.com>,

Dave Meeks <da...@uvmark.vmark.com> wrote:
>Maybe because game 6 was the extreme exception to the rule for Wilt in those
>days.

Or maybe an extreme exception is needed for the most important game of the
season: game 7 of the finals.

>His offensive explosion was NOT the norm for him in 1970. You ask
>why he didn't get as many shots as he did in game 6, yet you have not shown
>any evidence as to how this was Wilt's fault.

Why not his fault? Look at the bottom line, not the reason. If he
didn't touch the ball one single time in the whole game, it's still his
problem. Based on his status, there is no reason that he didn't take charge
in whatever way to win the game. If he didn't block enough shots to
imtimidate the Knicks' inside shooting, then he still should take some
blame. And you don't see that in the scoreboard...

>You can only shoot the ball if
>you get the touches, and you haven't shown that he touched the ball the same
>number of times in Game 7.

He's Wilt, the Goliath in the NBA. Not touching the ball enough times is not
an excuse. If he didn't touch it enough times, there is a big problem on his
own perceived role on the team. Look at Larry Bird's explosion in the
Nique/Bird shootout, he touches the ball in EVERY possession in the shootout
period. Can you imagine MJ playing lame in a crucial playoff game
because he didn't touch the ball enough times? No, I can't.

If MJ had a bad game and his team lost the series, he might have shot
10 out of 27, no way 10 out of 16...

>And, Holzmans gamble, as you mention, didn't seem to mean much, in the sense
>that Wilt wasn't going to the line any more than he normally did. If
>Holzman's plan was to work as you try to imply, we should see Wilt at the line
>much more often than normal. It seems to me that with Wilt going the exact
>same # of times as his average would dictate, that the 'plan' didn't alter
>Wilt's normal output much.

What's his normal output? As I posted in another article, his trips to the
line did increase after Reed was injured. Reed and Bowman committed 9 fouls
in game 7, more than their normal output (3.8/g) when Reed was healthy
(games 1-4).

>>Well, according to Holzman, that's not the reason...
>
>Really? You got a quote where Holzman claims that Wilt didn't dominate?

The problem is, you got a quote from Holzman that Wilt did dominate? No?

OTOH, I got a quote from Holzman saying that Wilt contributed big
to their victory. Look at <4q7oqb$q...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>.

>You haven't shown Holzman say that Wilt wasn't dominating.

Wow, there were a lot of things Holzman didn't say. Why should
I show any quote from Holzman saying that Wilt was not dominating?

Does it exist quotes from Holzman that said Wilt dominated in
game 7? No.

Does it exist quotes from Holzman that said Wilt was a very
big reason of their win? yes.

>Where does Judd claim Wilt couldn't handle the double team. And what, pray
>tell, would you consider 'handling the double team'? How do players like
>Hakeem, Malone, Jordan, etc.. handle the double team in most cases... Pass
>to the open man, that's how. Pass to the cutters, pass to the spot up
>shooters, etc. We know that, based on the testimonies, the players weren't
>spotting up very well, that they weren't cutting through very well, etc...
>We also know that those players weren't shooting very well. So, it seems
>like (since Wilt wasn't forcing shots)

But why didn't Wilt try to force shots? Pray tell, the guy guarding
him was an immobile player. So if he's doubled team by a shorter player
and an immobile player, are you saying that he should try to rely on his
teammates to score?

That comes your Stockton mindset again: blame it on the teammates...

>WIlt was passing out of those double
>and triple teams and those players were not performing up to snuff...

And pray tell,

1) if his teammates weren't performing up to snuff, what could Wilt do
to help them out? by passing to the teammates to have them missed more
shots?

2) if West was scoring 28 points on 9 of 19 shooting, Baylor was 9
of 17 for 19 points, why do you say it's not up to snuff?

>So, you are going to defend yourself by admitting you are a fuck-up?

Nope, I was asking "Was it Dick Barnett" looks like a question or a
statement. You mean you can't tell?

>More proof for you Ed...The Pro Basketball Sports Encyclopedia lists
>Phil Jackson as a member of the Championship Knicks in 1970.

If you want to use team stats, fantastic, the NBA guide didn't list
Phil Jackson as a member of the 1970 Knicks. Look at the individual
stats for the team, he wasn't there.

Besides, the Pro Basketball Sports Encyclopedia said that

"Phil Jackon (back injury)"

in both the regular season and the playoffs. In his career code, it's

68-69NY 70XJ 71-73NY 79-80 NJ

You don't suppose XJ mean NY Knicks, do you?

So it's more proof that he wasn't a member of the 1970 champs. Whether
he's on the Knicks payroll (thus you can call him a member of the team)
is not my concern.

>Well, we've seen a number of sources that also claim he was... So, what's
>your point?

What sources claimed that he was? If you use team stats, I still have more
sources claiming that he wasn't.

>Well, who cares what YOU think. It seems that just about every account of
>that game highlights the effect WIllis had.

But then who care what you and the other Knicks think? Do you think that
an NBA player need motiviation liek that to play in game 7?

>If you want to think that it had no effect, not many will care.

Sure, because I've followed the NBA long enough to know that players
get up for such a do or die game no matter what.

>Those that played the game seemed to think
>it played an important part. It is part of basketball folklore and everyone
>seems to acknowledge the positive impact it had.

So? everyone seems to acknowlege a finer detail that doesn't mean much,
if it falls into a bigger picture: players get up for game 7 of the finals
no matter what, whether you get the inspiration from an injured captain
or not.

>>That's why I say you are dumb. Geez, the good counter example was 1988 game 7.
>>Howcome Isiah didn't give the Pistons the boost like Reed did to the Knicks?
>>Howcome the Lakers were so pumped up? Was Kareem faking an injury that we
>>don't know?
>
>Different events have different effects.

Yes, tell me that it's different. That the Lakers' will to win the 1988
game 7 was not stronger than the Knicks' will to win the 1970 game 7,
simply because Kareem was not hobbing in that game...

>Just because a team gets pumped up doesn't mean they have an automatic win.

If that's the case, wouldn't you say the same to the Knicks? Did they
win because they were a better team? or because Reed pump them up? If
you ask me ONE SOLE REASON, I would say the former...

>Different players as well. You can't
>discount the effect one event had just because another didn't have the same
>effect.

But you can't discount the effect that game 7 of the finals pump up
players no matter what.

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4qlt3g$s...@newserv.ksu.ksu.edu>,

Martin Shobe <kh...@unix.ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>Well, what you wrote are all junk, just trying to paint a picture you want,
>>you do you think it will parse?

^^^

>
>Speaking of parsing, reread what you just wrote and *just try* to tell me that
>it parses.

OK, subsitutute that with "why". Now try again. If you need help, just
raise your hand....

[Air Judden]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>In article <juddstud.835298667@gandalf>,
>Judd Vance <judd...@engg.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>>> Excellent cut and paste job, Ed!
>>>You respond with "That is a hobby" right after I mentioend what job
>>>suits you the best. And that's cut and paste?
>>
>>>Mudd, learn how to post.
>>
>>Nope. Learn to read, Ed....
>Learn to post, Mudd.

Did not.
Did too.
Did not.
Did too.

{Ed show him!}

>> The 2 paragraphs show the same topic, just different aspects of the
>>reading.
>Who cares what your 2 paragraphs show? You responded with '"That's a
>"hobby", Ed' right after I mentioned your ass-kissing. True or false?

Good Ed. You admit your weakness. Now, go buy hooked on Phonics and
well see if it works for you.

You admit you cannot read a paragraph and understand what it is
saying. They teach this in 2nd grade. It wasn't a good idea to drop out
after kindergarden. I told you that you didn't know it all when you decided
to drop out. See?

>> No wonder you can't understand the quotes I use to answer your
>>questions, your reading skills are on the level of a first grader.
>Or your writing skill is below a first grader.

Nope. 3rd grade. But I'm still 3 grades ahead of you. That explains
why you have such a difficult time arguing with me.

>>In a few years, I can
>>explain things like a double team. But don't rush things, I don't want to
>>confuse you.
>In a few years, when you no longer can stay in KSU and get no account
>to post, I'll worry about where to get such a dumb ass to flame...

Ed, if Martin, Dave, and I quit posting, you are in trouble. Others
just ignore your ramblings, unless you want to argue "world champion".
What's scary is that most folks will probably believe the historical revision
you post (Barnett = center, Reedless game 7, DeBusschere-Stallworth double
team.) And those who do know, just ignore your foolishness because they
realized a long time ago that you're just too clueless to discuss an issue
with.

>>Yes, the entire 2nd paragraph. That is Cutting. You pasted your answer
>>right between them.

>LIE. What 2nd paragraph? What my answer?

Liar liar pants on fire. I wrote a 2 paragraph answer to your
question. You DO realize that an indention signals a new paragraph, don't
you? Ooops. That's taught in 2nd grade. Forgot.

>>Judd Vance <judd...@engg.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>> If I neglect my work, I may end up as a gunie pig for tests at
>>>Lucent Technologies, like you. Ed, the LAST think I want in life is to
>>>be locked in a cage with you arguing Dick Barnett's position, while scientist
>>>put cosmetics in our eyeballs.

>>But what work do you have now? anything besides reading Knicks books
>>to argue here? The way I see it, the job that best suits you is to be
>>Wilt's ass-kisser. He sure needs someone like you to build his
>>credentials...

> That is a "hobby" Ed. You may not understand the difference, but
>there is. Currently, I'm conducting tests on the effect of velocity on
>the combustability of ammonia for the International Institute of Ammonia
>Refridgeration.

This is the first paragraph Ed. Hold up a finger.

> Besides, if reading Knick books and arguing with you were a job,
>I'd be a filthy rich man for all the arguments I've won against you. Bill
>Gates, you think you're living large? Ha! You're living in a shack!

This is the 2nd paragraph (the one you deleted and inserted your
response to. Thus "cut" paragraph, "paste" answer.). Hold up another
finger. Count them. 1 and 1. That is 2.

{No! Ed prove 1+1 = 11. You lie!}

>>>5) the NBA needed to outlaw a 1-3-1 offense for whatever reason. Help
>>>me here. What's the exact reason? Why was the 1-3-1 bad for the game that
>>>it had to be outlawed?
>>
>> I don't make the rules Ed. I don't know why Isolation is such a
>>bad thing, but there are rules against clear-outs,
>Dumbo, and you tell me you understand basketball? Let me help you here:
>the isolation violation is to prevent a team from playing one on one
>basketball, e.g. 4 players on the weak side above the key, and one
>player (the one with the ball) on the strong side and play one on
>one (or even one on two). Say, the player with the ball is MJ, he can
>beat his defender, and he has a clear sailing to the hole. That's why
>the NBA doesn't like it...

It doesn't work. The clearouts aren't as obvious, but they are still
there. Basketball is still a game of 1-on-1. That's why I said I don't under-
stand why they make their rules. If they want to eliminate the 1-on-1 aspect,
they should legalize zones and eliminate the 3 point line.

>>or why a player should shoot a free throw in 10 seconds instead of 15.
>Easy, speed up the game.

Doesn't work. Teams foul too much at the end. Slows games down.
Then, they don't even enforce this rule (Malone, Mourning). If they pass
a rule, they should enforce it (like this and Travelling)

>>I'm not going to argue the moral reasons behind the NBA rules.
>Of course, because you can't. Because you don't know the rationale behind
>the rules. That's how a blind trust on reading hurts your following of
>the game...

Ed screws up again.

>>
>>>> 2) Dave doesn't make up stuff that you said. (just like you did).
>>>Lie. You responded with 'that is a "hobby" Ed' in response to my claim
>>>that you are an ass-kisser. How did I make up stuff?
>>
>>See?
>See what? You responded with 'that is a "hobby" Ed' in response to
>my claim that you are an ass-kisser. Now deny it. Remember, there is
>no use denying it. Your article is right here.

Yes it is there, and it's proving your cluelessness. I should add
another point in why I prefer debating with Dave. Dave's reading level
exceeds Kindergarden level.

Judden

[Dave Meeks]

Ed Lor spews:

>Why not his fault? Look at the bottom line, not the reason. If he
>didn't touch the ball one single time in the whole game, it's still his
>problem. Based on his status, there is no reason that he didn't take charge
>in whatever way to win the game. If he didn't block enough shots to

Ask yourself this Ed. If Lucent technologies, as a company, fails or has
a bad quarter, will it be all your fault? Even if whatever you do there
comes out ahead of schedule, making money, etc... (based on how much you
post, I can't see you doing much real work...)

Bottom line:
Wilt performed very well in the game, period. Irregardless of your
complaints otherwise, you will be very, very hard pressed to find
someone to agree that a 20+pt, 20+reb, 60+%FG% night would be
considered a 'bad game'.

The Lakers, as a team, lost the game, period. This wasn't entirely
Wilt's fault. In fact, I wouldn't even say this was largely Wilt's
fault. Could he do more? Sure... every single game in history that
has seen a team lose can make this claim. But, whether he could do
more does not diminish what he did do.

If you work for a company that has 4 sales regions. In your sales region,
you exceed your sales goals for a particular quarter/year, but the company
ends up losing money because the other 3 regions underperform or because
your main competitor does even better, is this entirely your fault? Is it
largely your fault? To both I'd say no. Could you have done more? Sure,
maybe you could have double/tripled your quarter/year goals, but that's
not the point.

>>You can only shoot the ball if
>>you get the touches, and you haven't shown that he touched the ball the same
>>number of times in Game 7.
>He's Wilt, the Goliath in the NBA. Not touching the ball enough times is not
>an excuse. If he didn't touch it enough times, there is a big problem on his
>own perceived role on the team.

Sure it is an excuse/reason. In your idiotic mind, Wilt was supposed to
take every shot, grab every rebound, block every shot, make every pass (to
himself apparantly), etc... or he had a bad game. Wilt was part of the
offense, and a part that had only play 12 games in the regular season (and
only a few at the end of the regular season, being injured early on). The
team did not revolve around him like Wilt's teams in the past.
In the regular season, for example, the primary scoring was being done by
Jerry West (31.2ppg), Elgin Baylor(24.0ppg), and Happy Hairston (20.6ppg).
In the playoffs, it was still the Jerry West show, especially offensively,
who was still scoring at 31.2ppg during the playoffs.

Wilt's 'perceived' role was not for you to decide. Offensively, it was
still the Jerry West show, with Wilt being 2nd or 3rd fiddle.

>>>>...but when it comes down to it, Wilt dominated.

>>>Well, according to Holzman, that's not the reason...

>>You haven't shown Holzman say that Wilt wasn't dominating.
>Wow, there were a lot of things Holzman didn't say. Why should
>I show any quote from Holzman saying that Wilt was not dominating?

Because you claim that 'according to Holzman...' Show us where Holzman
says this...

Trying to get out of your lie Ed???

>But why didn't Wilt try to force shots? Pray tell, the guy guarding

Well, maybe because forcing shots is usually a bad way to play basketball,
but you wouldn't understand that, as you seem to have very little understanding
of how to play the game...

So Ed, have you ever actually PLAYED basketball??

>>So, you are going to defend yourself by admitting you are a fuck-up?
>Nope, I was asking "Was it Dick Barnett" looks like a question or a
>statement. You mean you can't tell?

With you?? Of course not. Since you are such a stickler for exactness,
you are using the "I'm a fuck-up" approach to an excuse. Your statement
of 'Was it Dick Barnett', as it did not have any punctuation, could be
interpreted either way. You mean we have to make assumptions when you
make mistakes?

Wasn't it you that bitched and moaned about it being the sender's
responsibility and all? Want to show us how leaving punctuation off of
things and then claiming that it was definitevely a question is 'standard
English' Ed?

>>More proof for you Ed...The Pro Basketball Sports Encyclopedia lists
>>Phil Jackson as a member of the Championship Knicks in 1970.
>If you want to use team stats, fantastic, the NBA guide didn't list
>Phil Jackson as a member of the 1970 Knicks. Look at the individual
>stats for the team, he wasn't there.

Again, indeterminate... The NBA Guide DOES list Phil as a member of that
team. I see his picture on page 493 of my Guide as a member of the
NBA Champions. I also see him listed as a member of the team in the NBA
Register.

>>Well, who cares what YOU think. It seems that just about every account of
>>that game highlights the effect WIllis had.
>But then who care what you and the other Knicks think? Do you think that
>an NBA player need motiviation liek that to play in game 7?

Heheh.. you are hilarious.. 'Who cares what you, Martin, Judd, and all those
Knicks player, not to mention reporters, authors, sports references, etc..
all think. Who cares what other NBA sources also think... ED LOR thinks
it didn't matter'

When Larry Bird came back into the game after smashing his face on the floor
against Indiana, every single person on the team and many of the Pacers
claimed it was a key factor in the game, that it gave them an additional
lift. I guess 'Win one for the Gipper' is just media hype, that when
athletes dedicate performances to special events (personal tragedy,
etc..) it's all hype, etc...

Do I think anyone needs motivation to play in game 7 of the NBA Finals?
No. But, do I think that certain things will assist players/teams in
such circumstances? Of course. What the heck do you think home court
advantage is about? Having 40,000 people cheering you on is a definite
motivational boost.

>So? everyone seems to acknowlege a finer detail that doesn't mean much,
>if it falls into a bigger picture: players get up for game 7 of the finals
>no matter what, whether you get the inspiration from an injured captain
>or not.

Really, so based on all the testimonies from players in this series and
other very similar situations, and all the experts and reporters and all
those other people who have commented how this helped, you still believe
it's a lie? Got any proof that all these people who felt this way are
in error?

>>Different events have different effects.
>Yes, tell me that it's different. That the Lakers' will to win the 1988
>game 7 was not stronger than the Knicks' will to win the 1970 game 7,
>simply because Kareem was not hobbing in that game...

Being motivated doesn't make one a sure winner. If I were to face Andre
Agassi in a tennis match, I guarantee I'd want the win more than he would,
but I still wouldn't win. In the Olympics, when the original Dream Team
played, I'd bet many of those teams from the rest of the world who faced
the DT wanted the win more, were more motivated, etc... but, it still
didn't change the outcome.

We have many, many sources saying that the emotional lift of such events
is a big help, often being cited as one of the main reasons, yet you
still cling to your belief that 'it doesn't matter'. Either provide some
proof that the beliefs of all these people are wrong, or shut up...

>>Just because a team gets pumped up doesn't mean they have an automatic win.
>If that's the case, wouldn't you say the same to the Knicks? Did they
>win because they were a better team? or because Reed pump them up? If
>you ask me ONE SOLE REASON, I would say the former...

No one's asking for ONE SOLE REASON, so your final point is meaningless.
Many of the Knicks cite Reed's ability to play as one of the reasons they
played so well. Yes, the Knicks were the better team and were expected to
win and were playing at home, so the Lakers losing was no big surprise.
But, having Reed come on the court provided an emotional lift that inspired
the teammates to play even harder.

>>Different players as well. You can't
>>discount the effect one event had just because another didn't have the same
>>effect.
>But you can't discount the effect that game 7 of the finals pump up
>players no matter what.

Sure you can. You can discount it in the same way you can the effect Reed
had (or Isiah, etc..) on his teammates. Being more motivated, pumped up,
or excited, whether that's because of the emotional lift a situation like
Reed/Bird/Isiah/etc.. brings or whether that comes simply due to it being
a game 7 doesn't ensure a victory. It will often help a team play harder
than they would have, but that doesn't mean they will always win.

[Dave Meeks]

Ed Lor babbles:

>>>Well, what you wrote are all junk, just trying to paint a picture you want,
>>>you do you think it will parse?
^^^
>>Speaking of parsing, reread what you just wrote and *just try* to tell
>>me that it parses.

>OK, subsitutute that with "why". Now try again. If you need help, just
>raise your hand....

Ok... so now we have:

"Well, what you wrote are all junk, just trying to pain a picture you want,
why do you think it will parse?"

It still has problems. It's a major run on sentence, has a questionable
use of commas, and 'what you wrote ARE all junk' uses improper verb tense,
and should likely read "...what you wrote IS all junk...'

Try this one, it might help...

'Well, what you wrote is nothing but junk trying to paint a picture you want.
Why do you think it will parse?'

There, that maintains your assumed meaning while being much easier to parse.

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4qmd6v$s...@uvmark.vmark.com>,

Dave Meeks <da...@uvmark.vmark.com> wrote:
>Judd claims that his 'hobby', as he was referring, was in reference to
>reading Knicks books.

Then he should be more careful when he used quotes. As of now, the
immediate context which hobby can bind to is ass-kissing.

>This is supported by the 2nd paragraph of his
>comment, were he says 'if reading Knicks books and ...'.

His second paragraph does not contradict ass-kissing being a hobby,
it can only enhance it. He read a lot of Knicks books to make excuses
for Wilt (the ass-kissing part). So the hobby of ass-kissing requires
the means of reading Knicks books. If you want to play guitar as a
hobby, you need to learn & practice as the means.

>See, those were the questions you asked. The 'jobs that suits you is to
>be WIlt's ass-kisser' is a statement you make. Judd correctly claims and
>supports his claim that he is responding to your question about whether he
>has any work besides reading Knicks books.

If you want a response to be clearly mapped to a question, you can
respond right after the question. If you respond with something else
in between, that's not my problem.

>He claims that reading Knicks
>books is just 'a hobby', and goes on to describe his 'real' work.

while responding to the context

>And, while you try to carefully pull out the 'ass kisser' line, and try
>to push it off as the 'last statement', that in itself is a lie. Your
>last statement was 'He sure needs someone like you to build his credentials...'
>and not the 'ass-kisser' part..

But that's not what Judd did. That statement was about what Wilt needed.
The last statement describing Judd's tasks was the ass-kissing. And he
responded that with 'That's a "hobby"'.

>Ed, you are really pretty pathetic. Your constant attempts to pick apart
>the exact working, cut/pasting, and arguing over semantics/(il)logic/etc..

>are the acts of a severely desperate man.
Meek, you are really pathetic. My comment on his hobby is supposed to be
a flame in jest. It didn't carry much signal as far as the argument
is concerned, sort of like the "Meek is a woman", you guys' flame on me
on working for Lucent, etc. I don't carry too much grudge on these flames..

Yet he is so ticked by this comment. It strongly indicates that the job
prospect in his field is not good, that he may not have a real job in the
future...

>This 'line' is among the more blatant and idiotic of your attempts, but
>does clearly highlight your idiocy...

Or this 'line' indicates that he was really dense...

>Sure.. post the whole quote and let's see if that's indeed what he said
>the effect of the offense was...

" The one-three-one was a college type of offense
designed to draw out a big, imposing center so that the rest of the
team could get off their shots...It was risky, inasmuch as it was
illegal to play a zone--in this case, a zone offense--but the Knicks
had practiced it on several occasions and felt they pull it off
without getting caught.

As luck would have it, the Knicks came out in the third
quarter and played a picture-perfect one-three-one offense that
went right over the refs' heads. For some reason, Mendy Rudolph
and Ed Rush refused to call the zone, despite wild protests from
West and Mullaney. It completely flummoxed the Lakers, so much so
that they switched from a determinedly aggressive style of play to
one that could only be characterized as overcautious.
To illustrate exactly how overcautious the Lakers were, Jerry West
took only two shots in the second half. And Chamberlain, with all
that height advantage, could score only four more points".

>Because it is total bullshit, as I have shown up above.

As you have shown nothing above. His response of 'That's a "hobby" Ed'
follows the context of my mention the task that best suited him: ass-kissing
for Wilt.

>Your paragraph above is a collection of 4 sentences. It starts out with
>two questions which ask what Judd does for work and ask whether he just reads
>Knicks books for his work. The 3rd statement is your attempt at guessing at
>what Judd does, and your fourth tries to justify that statement.

So far so good.

>In response TO YOUR QUESTIONS (you know, those things with those funny looking
>'?' at the end.. We call them question marks and imply someone asking a
>question which often calls for a response), Judd responds to your
>'what work...' and '...reading Knicks books...' questions with his
>'...hobby...' response.

Yes, if I ask you

-- what work do you have now?
you answer "That's a hobby", does it make sense?

-- anything besides reading Knicks books to argue here?
you answer "That's a hobby", it still doesn't makes sense.

E.g. What do you eat now? anything besides vegatable?

You answer: That's for vitamin C. Geez, I don't know about you,
but that doesn't answer even one of the two questions...

>He goes on to inform you just what his real job is.

No problem, but he didn't inform me what his hobby was. Don't blame
me if I bind it to the immediate context...

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4qpqb4$c...@cbs.ksu.ksu.edu>,

Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>Who cares what your 2 paragraphs show? You responded with '"That's a
>>"hobby", Ed' right after I mentioned your ass-kissing. True or false?
>
> Good Ed. You admit your weakness. Now, go buy hooked on Phonics and
>well see if it works for you.
>
> You admit you cannot read a paragraph and understand what it is
>saying.

Dumbo, I don't care about a paragraph == cannot read a paragraph and
understand what is's saying? More uddlogic...

> Nope. 3rd grade. But I'm still 3 grades ahead of you. That explains
>why you have such a difficult time arguing with me.

They admit students with 3rd grade reading skills in KSU? No wonder
the Big Eight is only known as football factories. The worst thing
is that you couldn't even get into Nebraska/Colorado...

> Ed, if Martin, Dave, and I quit posting, you are in trouble. Others
>just ignore your ramblings, unless you want to argue "world champion".

Geez, you argued on that too. What does that mean?

>What's scary is that most folks will probably believe the historical revision
>you post (Barnett = center, Reedless game 7, DeBusschere-Stallworth double
>team.)

Barnett = center? you care to cite where I stated Barnett as a center?

About most folks, they certain should thank me for correcting distortions
like:

-- The illegal offense rule existed in 1970
-- The Knicks' 1-3-1 offense was illegal
-- The Knicks admitted that they cheated with an illegal offense
-- The 1972 runner-up had Willis Reed on it
-- The 1973 Knicks were without Reed's service for most of the season
-- Phil Jackson was on the 1970 championship team
-- it's all the passers' fault in passes intended to Wilt in game 5 & 7...

See, you have polluted the net with enough distortions...

>And those who do know, just ignore your foolishness because they
>realized a long time ago that you're just too clueless to discuss an issue
>with.

I'll file you as one who doesn't know, doesn't know that there's someone
on the net catching all your distortions...

> Liar liar pants on fire. I wrote a 2 paragraph answer to your
>question.

You wrote a statement "That's a hobby Ed". What does the "That" refer
to? The immediate context was ass-kissing.

You wrote other statements to try to convince me that you have a
"job". What do they have to do with your reference of "That" as a hobby?

> [ two paragraphs ]

> This is the 2nd paragraph (the one you deleted and inserted your
>response to. Thus "cut" paragraph, "paste" answer.). Hold up another
>finger. Count them. 1 and 1. That is 2.

what do your "job" description in these two paragraphs have to do
with your "That's a hobby" comment?

> It doesn't work. The clearouts aren't as obvious, but they are still
>there.

If it's not obvious to you, then maybe it's not really a clearout. You know,
sometimes you should realize that what you think is not a fact.

>Basketball is still a game of 1-on-1.

You can't play 1-on-1 on half of the half-court.

>That's why I said I don't under- stand why they make their rules.

Then let it go. Don't push for things that's beyond your capability...

> Doesn't work. Teams foul too much at the end. Slows games down.
>Then, they don't even enforce this rule (Malone, Mourning). If they pass
>a rule, they should enforce it (like this and Travelling)

Dumbo, they "should" enforce it? Why? It's a superstar's game. The intentions
of the rules are easily comprehensible. Whether they enforce it for superstar
is another matter.

So, since the superstars travel, are you so stupid to say that you
don't understand why they have the travelling rule?

Wait, don't answer, you are stupid...

> Ed screws up again.
Probably, I screw up your perception that you know the game...

> Yes it is there, and it's proving your cluelessness. I should add
>another point in why I prefer debating with Dave. Dave's reading level
>exceeds Kindergarden level.

Or maybe Dave isn't so harsh on you. You should find some kinder soul to
debate with, like Fester...

[Martin Shobe]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) wrote:

>In article <4qmd6v$s...@uvmark.vmark.com>,
>Dave Meeks <da...@uvmark.vmark.com> wrote:
>>Judd claims that his 'hobby', as he was referring, was in reference to
>>reading Knicks books.
>Then he should be more careful when he used quotes. As of now, the
>immediate context which hobby can bind to is ass-kissing.

As usual, you are the only person who had any trouble understanding what Judd
wrote. As usual, even after he explains it to you, you go on and on about it.
As usual, you are wrong.

[stuff deleted]

>Yet he is so ticked by this comment. It strongly indicates that the job
>prospect in his field is not good, that he may not have a real job in the
>future...

Who's ticked? Judd is just proving that in every way, you are wrong.

[stuff deleted]

[stuff deleted]

>E.g. What do you eat now? anything besides vegatable?

>You answer: That's for vitamin C. Geez, I don't know about you,
>but that doesn't answer even one of the two questions...

Actually it answers the first. It does tell you that he eats vegatables. It
implies (as in insinuates, not the logical implication) that he eats other
things besides vegatables. Once again, you are wrong.

[Dave Meeks]

In article <4qt7t4$l...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
>In article <4qmd6v$s...@uvmark.vmark.com>,
>Dave Meeks <da...@uvmark.vmark.com> wrote:
>>Judd claims that his 'hobby', as he was referring, was in reference to
>>reading Knicks books.
>Then he should be more careful when he used quotes. As of now, the
>immediate context which hobby can bind to is ass-kissing.

No, YOU should be more careful. In no way could this reference be used to
bind it to 'ass-kissing'. It wasn't the primary point of the paragraph, it
wasn't the questions being asked, and it wasn't even the final line of the
paragraph.

>>This is supported by the 2nd paragraph of his
>>comment, were he says 'if reading Knicks books and ...'.
>His second paragraph does not contradict ass-kissing being a hobby,
>it can only enhance it. He read a lot of Knicks books to make excuses
>for Wilt (the ass-kissing part). So the hobby of ass-kissing requires
>the means of reading Knicks books. If you want to play guitar as a
>hobby, you need to learn & practice as the means.

Bzzt... Even if Judden wanted to be an 'ass-kisser', as it were, there
would be no requirement for him to read Knicks books. Besides, since when
was Wilt ever a New York Knick, so why would a Wilt 'ass-kisser' be required
to read Knicks books?

If you want to play guitar as a hobby, you aren't required to read books, and
more importantly, you aren't required to read books on Car Engine Repair in
order to play guitar.

Finally, the 2nd paragraph DOES eliminate the 'ass-kissing' portion of
your paragraph as that which was replied to.

>>See, those were the questions you asked. The 'jobs that suits you is to
>>be WIlt's ass-kisser' is a statement you make. Judd correctly claims and
>>supports his claim that he is responding to your question about whether he
>>has any work besides reading Knicks books.
>If you want a response to be clearly mapped to a question, you can
>respond right after the question. If you respond with something else
>in between, that's not my problem.

But, the 'ass-kisser' was just a comment buried within the entirety of the
paragraph, and no one but you would look at his paragraph and think he was
responding to that.

Based on your comments, and standard English and net.posting rules, his
response in this paragraph will either be bound to the questions (as the
questions were the thing inquiring for a response) or the final statement
in the paragraph, not just a particular word/phrase/sentence within that
paragraph you feel you can make a stupid point with.

>>And, while you try to carefully pull out the 'ass kisser' line, and try
>>to push it off as the 'last statement', that in itself is a lie. Your
>>last statement was 'He sure needs someone like you to build his credentials

>>and not the 'ass-kisser' part..
>But that's not what Judd did. That statement was about what Wilt needed.
>The last statement describing Judd's tasks was the ass-kissing. And he
>responded that with 'That's a "hobby"'.
>

>Yet he is so ticked by this comment. It strongly indicates that the job
>prospect in his field is not good, that he may not have a real job in the
>future...

Heh... how you got from 'ticked by this comment' to 'may not have a real job
in the future' is remarkable. Just where do you pull this crap out of?

>>This 'line' is among the more blatant and idiotic of your attempts, but
>>does clearly highlight your idiocy...
>Or this 'line' indicates that he was really dense...

No, it does indicate denseness, but it is yours on clear display...

>>Sure.. post the whole quote and let's see if that's indeed what he said
>>the effect of the offense was...
>
>" The one-three-one was a college type of offense
>designed to draw out a big, imposing center so that the rest of the
>team could get off their shots...It was risky, inasmuch as it was
>illegal to play a zone--in this case, a zone offense--but the Knicks
>had practiced it on several occasions and felt they pull it off
>without getting caught.
>
> As luck would have it, the Knicks came out in the third
>quarter and played a picture-perfect one-three-one offense that
>went right over the refs' heads. For some reason, Mendy Rudolph
>and Ed Rush refused to call the zone, despite wild protests from
>West and Mullaney. It completely flummoxed the Lakers, so much so
>that they switched from a determinedly aggressive style of play to
>one that could only be characterized as overcautious.
>To illustrate exactly how overcautious the Lakers were, Jerry West
>took only two shots in the second half. And Chamberlain, with all
>that height advantage, could score only four more points".

Very nice. Now, where does he claim that the 1-3-1 offense used by the
Knicks was used for defensive purposes? He claims that it confused them
and made them very overcautious, and this carried over onto the offensive
end. Common thing that happens.

>>Because it is total bullshit, as I have shown up above.
>As you have shown nothing above. His response of 'That's a "hobby" Ed'
>follows the context of my mention the task that best suited him: ass-kissing
>for Wilt.

No, not at all. It follows a paragraph in which you ask two questions, one
specifically about 'what work...' and the other about 'reading Knicks books'.
His response was obviously towards the 'reading Knicks books' was his 'hobby'.

>
>-- anything besides reading Knicks books to argue here?
>you answer "That's a hobby", it still doesn't makes sense.

Sure does. You ask about he does anything but 'reading Knicks books to argue
here', and he responsds that this is just a hobby. The 'hobby' is
his 'reading Knicks books to argue here'. In other words, for your simple
mind, he reads Knicks books as a hobby.

In the second paragraph, he deals directly with your first question.

>You answer: That's for vitamin C. Geez, I don't know about you,
>but that doesn't answer even one of the two questions...
>
>>He goes on to inform you just what his real job is.
>No problem, but he didn't inform me what his hobby was. Don't blame
>me if I bind it to the immediate context...

But you lie on that issue. 'ass-kissing' was in no way the 'immediate
context'.

Your paragraph consisted of two questions. His response consisted of
two paragraphs, each dealing with one of those questions.

Your first question dealt with what work he had.
Your second question deal with his reading Knicks books to argue here.

His first paragraph dealt with the fact that reading Knicks books was just
a hobby.
His second paragraph dealt with what work he had.

Pretty simple...

What you've done is similar to the following example:

'Ed, where do you work? Are you even from this country? Just wondering,
because you seem to be lying all the time. You sure need someone to help
you with this.'

and then you reply:

"Yes I am. And I don't to tell you, because I'm sure you know.

And, I work at Lucent Technologies."

In your example, in such a situation, your 'Yes I am' must be bound
to you being an liar, and we could then use that as admission that you
always lie.

Now, in our world, such a situation would imply you were replying that you
were from this country and that you worked at Lucent, in response to the
two questions asked.

But, your mileage may vary...

[Dave Meeks]

In article <4qtbcj$l...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
>In article <4qpqb4$c...@cbs.ksu.ksu.edu>,
>Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>> Nope. 3rd grade. But I'm still 3 grades ahead of you. That explains
>>why you have such a difficult time arguing with me.
>They admit students with 3rd grade reading skills in KSU? No wonder
>the Big Eight is only known as football factories. The worst thing
>is that you couldn't even get into Nebraska/Colorado...

Gotta love how Ed keeps harping on the qualifications of the Big Eight schools
from an academic standpoint. So Ed, just where did you go to school again?
And no, we aren't interested in your Buck Rogers Day Camp... We want this
year, not last...

>About most folks, they certain should thank me for correcting distortions
>like:

Heh... this should be interesting. Want to take a poll and see just how many
of those 'most folks' are going to thank you for 'correcting distortions'?
Especially since you are unable to prove this so-called 'distortions'.

>See, you have polluted the net with enough distortions...

And I just see those thank you's pouring in from all over the net...

>> Liar liar pants on fire. I wrote a 2 paragraph answer to your
>>question.
>You wrote a statement "That's a hobby Ed". What does the "That" refer
>to? The immediate context was ass-kissing.

No it was not. The two paragraphs referred to the two questions asked in
the paragraph. 'That' refered to your second question, in which you ask
about reading Knicks books. So, in this case, 'That' == 'Reading Knicks books'
is the immediate reference/context used. The 'ass-kissing' statement was
treated exactly for what it was worth... it was ignored.

>what do your "job" description in these two paragraphs have to do
>with your "That's a hobby" comment?

Easy. The two paragraphs effectively answer your two questions. See, a
nice correlation there. You ask two questions, Judden gives two answers.
Works nicely that way.

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4qvs6r$h...@newserv.ksu.ksu.edu>,

Martin Shobe <kh...@unix.ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>As usual, you are the only person who had any trouble understanding what Judd
>wrote.

As usual, you are defending whatever junk he wrote no matter what.
Are you trying to please him or what?

>As usual, even after he explains it to you, you go on and on about it.

As usual, if what he wrote was so clear cut, why did he even bother to
explain it?

>>Yet he is so ticked by this comment. It strongly indicates that the job
>>prospect in his field is not good, that he may not have a real job in the
>>future...
>

>Who's ticked? Judd is just proving that in every way, you are wrong.

In every way, like you have the admissions from the Knicks that they
cheated? Remember, they didn't admit that they cheated. It's your camp
who tried to use some unsubstantiated claims to prove that they cheated...

>>E.g. What do you eat now? anything besides vegatable?
>
>>You answer: That's for vitamin C. Geez, I don't know about you,
>>but that doesn't answer even one of the two questions...
>

>Actually it answers the first.

Sob, learn more English, it's apparent that you can even answer a simple
question...

>It does tell you that he eats vegatables.

No, he try to be a smart ass and answer more that he has to. My question
already assumes that he eats vegatables...

>It implies (as in insinuates, not the logical implication) that he eats other
>things besides vegatables.

If the answer "for vitamin C" implies "vegatables", I don't see how it
insinuates that he eats anything other than veggie. This answer only
justifies (which he doesn't have to) why he eats veggie. Since my question
already assumes that he eats veggie, he's not giving me any new signal...

>Once again, you are wrong.

Sob, once again, you are clueless...

[Martin Shobe]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) wrote:

>In article <4qvs6r$h...@newserv.ksu.ksu.edu>,
>Martin Shobe <kh...@unix.ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>As usual, you are the only person who had any trouble understanding what Judd
>>wrote.
>As usual, you are defending whatever junk he wrote no matter what.
>Are you trying to please him or what?

No. I am fighting for truth, justice, and the Spoon way.

>>As usual, even after he explains it to you, you go on and on about it.
>As usual, if what he wrote was so clear cut, why did he even bother to
>explain it?

Becuase you didn't understand it. (Like duh)

>>>Yet he is so ticked by this comment. It strongly indicates that the job
>>>prospect in his field is not good, that he may not have a real job in the
>>>future...
>>

>>Who's ticked? Judd is just proving that in every way, you are wrong.
>In every way, like you have the admissions from the Knicks that they
>cheated? Remember, they didn't admit that they cheated. It's your camp
> who tried to use some unsubstantiated claims to prove that they cheated...

Already posted that stuff. You really should try to keep up. And at least we
have the "unsubstantiated claims", you have posted much of anything resembling
evidence.

>>>E.g. What do you eat now? anything besides vegatable?
>>
>>>You answer: That's for vitamin C. Geez, I don't know about you,
>>>but that doesn't answer even one of the two questions...
>>

>>Actually it answers the first.
>Sob, learn more English, it's apparent that you can even answer a simple
>question...

Why thank you.

>>It does tell you that he eats vegatables.
>No, he try to be a smart ass and answer more that he has to. My question
>already assumes that he eats vegatables...

"question" should be plural. And whether you like it or not, his response does
answer the first question. (Which is what you asked about). You obviously
haven't been studying your "Hook on Phonics" lessons enough.

>>It implies (as in insinuates, not the logical implication) that he eats other
>>things besides vegatables.
>If the answer "for vitamin C" implies "vegatables", I don't see how it
>insinuates that he eats anything other than veggie. This answer only
>justifies (which he doesn't have to) why he eats veggie. Since my question
>already assumes that he eats veggie, he's not giving me any new signal...

Only you could be this dense. I hear that black holes catch on faster. The
reason it implies that he eats other things besides vegatables, is because he
gave specific reason, one that does explain why he eats.

[Martin Shobe]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) wrote:
[stuff deleted]

>> Nope. 3rd grade. But I'm still 3 grades ahead of you. That explains

>>why you have such a difficult time arguing with me.
>They admit students with 3rd grade reading skills in KSU? No wonder
>the Big Eight is only known as football factories.

We make footballs here. And to think I never knew.

>> It doesn't work. The clearouts aren't as obvious, but they are still
>>there.
>If it's not obvious to you, then maybe it's not really a clearout. You know,
>sometimes you should realize that what you think is not a fact.

Surprisingly good advice from Ed Lor. I wonder when he (Ed Lor) will actually
start following it.

>>Basketball is still a game of 1-on-1.
>You can't play 1-on-1 on half of the half-court.

He he. This says an awful lot about your basketball knowledge, Lor. And none
of it is good (from your point of view). When I was a kid, I played one-on-one
in the a driveway that amounted to about a quarter of the half-court. Didn't
stop me then. And if you were to actually watch a few games (instead of just
looking at the box scores), you would find that clearouts are a major part of
todays game.

>> Doesn't work. Teams foul too much at the end. Slows games down.
>>Then, they don't even enforce this rule (Malone, Mourning). If they pass
>>a rule, they should enforce it (like this and Travelling)
>Dumbo, they "should" enforce it? Why? It's a superstar's game. The intentions
>of the rules are easily comprehensible. Whether they enforce it for superstar
>is another matter.

It's no surprise that Ed Lor is comfortable with a double standard.

[Air Judden]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>In article <4qpqb4$c...@cbs.ksu.ksu.edu>,
>Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>>Who cares what your 2 paragraphs show? You responded with '"That's a
>>>"hobby", Ed' right after I mentioned your ass-kissing. True or false?
>>
>> Good Ed. You admit your weakness. Now, go buy hooked on Phonics and
>>well see if it works for you.
>>
>> You admit you cannot read a paragraph and understand what it is
>>saying.
>Dumbo, I don't care about a paragraph == cannot read a paragraph and
>understand what is's saying? More uddlogic...

Are you saying I have no J? Well, I could kick your rear E Lor-yer,
with no "D". Never thought you'd be a trash-talker Ed.

>> Nope. 3rd grade. But I'm still 3 grades ahead of you. That explains
>>why you have such a difficult time arguing with me.
>They admit students with 3rd grade reading skills in KSU? No wonder
>the Big Eight is only known as football factories. The worst thing
>is that you couldn't even get into Nebraska/Colorado...

3rd grade is where they draw the line. You can't get in, Ed.

The Big Eight.... only known as a football factory ... heh....

1) The Big Eight doesn't exist. It's now the Big 12. Get out
from under the rock, E.

2) Have you ever heard of a team called the Kansas Jayhawks? No?
Well, put down the football stat book, E, they suck. Now,
pick up that basketball statbook. Ok, E, see the Jayhawks
now? (so you are not confused, it's the same team I refer to
as "Chickenhawks"). good! Yes, that same team, in the Big
12 (fomerly Big 8) has one of the 5 richest winning traditions
in college basketball. If you'd like to argue this, I'm sure
Jazzy J could have his turn kicking your rear, like the rest
of us have!

3) Go grab your wrestling stat book: See Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?
Good! Yes, they are Big 12 also.

4) Baseball: See Oklahoma and Oklahoma State? Yes, that is the
same 2 teams mentioned in 3, and that is the same Oklahoma that
won a national title this decade!

5) Football: The region is so awesome in football, that people said
"Big 8" with reverence, knowing that if they didn't Barry
Switzer of Tom Osborne would come and distribute the Beat
Down! So, we can't play with Coloardo? Funny, we placed
higher than them in the 1994 Coalition. We tied em in 93
and played them down to the wire in 94 and 95. Chickenhawks
(4th best team in conference) spanked them. Better brush up
on that history again, Eddie. Also, while you are in that
stat book, look up Big Eight passing/total yardage leaders.
See Chad May and Matt Miller? Yes, that is the same "Kansas
State" I go to.

6) Ever heard of Wilt Chamberlain? yes, THAT Wilt Chamberlain.
Mitch Richmond? Danny Manning? Wayman Tisdale? Rolondo
Blackman? Clyde Lovellete? Bob Boozer? Darnell Valentine?
Mookie Blaylock? Alvin Adams? Stacey King? Harvey Grant?
Steve Stipanovich? Derrick Chievious? JoJo White? Jacque
Vaughn? John Starks? Jay Humphries? Erik Piatkowski? Mike
Evans? Guess where these defective footballs (from the football
factory) played--more specificlly, which conference?

7) Remember the last collegiate mens basketball team? Guess which
conference put 25% of the players on the team? (just incase
this confuses you: Kansas and Iowa State were in the Big
8).

*Flush*

>> Ed, if Martin, Dave, and I quit posting, you are in trouble. Others
>>just ignore your ramblings, unless you want to argue "world champion".
>Geez, you argued on that too. What does that mean?

>>What's scary is that most folks will probably believe the historical revision
>>you post (Barnett = center, Reedless game 7, DeBusschere-Stallworth double
>>team.)
>Barnett = center? you care to cite where I stated Barnett as a center?

I'll show you where you DIDN'T know he was a guard and was thought he
was a center.

>About most folks, they certain should thank me for correcting distortions
>like:

>-- The illegal offense rule existed in 1970

What correction? You've corrected this?

>-- The Knicks' 1-3-1 offense was illegal

DITTO.

>-- The Knicks admitted that they cheated with an illegal offense

Nope. I proved it.

>-- The 1972 runner-up had Willis Reed on it

Strike 4

>-- Phil Jackson was on the 1970 championship team

Strike 5. Funny thing in Spitz book: Jackson is on the photo that
says the 1969-70 official team photograph. Naw! Jackson wasn't
on the team. Couldn't be. Must have been his clone!

>-- it's all the passers' fault in passes intended to Wilt in game 5 & 7...

Strike 6.

>See, you have polluted the net with enough distortions...

Co'mon E, don't stop: I have a perfect game going here.

>> Liar liar pants on fire. I wrote a 2 paragraph answer to your
>>question.
>You wrote a statement "That's a hobby Ed". What does the "That" refer
>to? The immediate context was ass-kissing.

E proves his Kindegarden reading again. If there was any question,
the paragraph spells it out. But it must be hard for you to see 2 sentences
back-to-back and tie them together.

>> Yes it is there, and it's proving your cluelessness. I should add
>>another point in why I prefer debating with Dave. Dave's reading level
>>exceeds Kindergarden level.
>Or maybe Dave isn't so harsh on you. You should find some kinder soul to
>debate with, like Fester...

E, we SAVED you from Fester. He was plugging away on you and we
decided that some newbie cockroach wasn't going to pick on our kid net-brother.
Only we can do that. So we proceeded to "erase" him.

Ed vs. Fester: Did not, Did Too, Did Not, Did Too.
A match made in heaven.

Judden

[Air Judden]

da...@uvmark.vmark.com (Dave Meeks) writes:

>What you've done is similar to the following example:

>'Ed, where do you work? Are you even from this country? Just wondering,
>because you seem to be lying all the time. You sure need someone to help
>you with this.'

>and then you reply:

>"Yes I am. And I don't to tell you, because I'm sure you know.

>And, I work at Lucent Technologies."

>In your example, in such a situation, your 'Yes I am' must be bound
>to you being an liar, and we could then use that as admission that you
>always lie.

Dave, E is growing as a person (I still call him E, since he has no
"D"). He admitted he was wrong about Wilt playing the last 12 games in
1970's season and he's admitted his reading problems. He may just admit to
being a liar. After all, he's the Henry Rollins of rsbp.

I wouldn't chase this thread too much more. It's obvious I caught
him red handed at his cut-and-paste game. He can deny and justify all
he wants, but no matter what, he comes out looking bad. He either has
the reading skills of a Kindergardener or he did indeed cut-and-paste, and
nothing he can say can change it. All I have to do is repost the entire
context and anyone can see E's deceit/cluelessness (whichever it is).

Go over to the new E threads (Ed Lor-yer: Ouch, Doah! ouch Doah! or
Ed Lor-yer: Kaw! Kaw!) if you want to E get dissed some more and exposed
in all of his cluelessness and double-standards, as I prove he is clueless,
he doesn't know the facts from 1970, he kisses Kareem's rear, and lied about
my claiming Barnett was a hall of famer.

Judden
smelling E's fear from this far away (or did I forget to put on deodorant?)

[Douglas Glass]

Air Judden (judd...@ksu.ksu.edu) wrote:
: l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

:
: 3rd grade is where they draw the line. You can't get in, Ed.

: The Big Eight.... only known as a football factory ... heh....

: 1) The Big Eight doesn't exist. It's now the Big 12. Get out
: from under the rock, E.

: 2) Have you ever heard of a team called the Kansas Jayhawks? No?
: Well, put down the football stat book, E, they suck. Now,
: pick up that basketball statbook. Ok, E, see the Jayhawks
: now? (so you are not confused, it's the same team I refer to
: as "Chickenhawks"). good! Yes, that same team, in the Big
: 12 (fomerly Big 8) has one of the 5 richest winning traditions
: in college basketball. If you'd like to argue this, I'm sure
: Jazzy J could have his turn kicking your rear, like the rest
: of us have!

HALLELUJAH!!! Judden has finally seen the light!!!! It is clearly apparent
that he uses the name "chickenhawk" merely because he can do little but
bask in the glory of the might Rock Chalk while being stranded in
Manhattan (and a half assed version of the real one, I might add). You are
allowed to denounce your Wildcats and defer to the greatness of Oread. It
has been done before. You can even start thinking of slanderous nicknames
for your former team. Mildcats (no, reserved for a complete dud of a
sports program like Northwestern), Kittycats (I think LSU uses that one),
Pussies (nope, Duke). I guess you'll just have to use the degrading name
I've used for so many years to describe the teams from Manhattan, KS:
K-STATE. I know it is low, cheap, and you wouldn't want to use it on your
worst enemy, but it is fitting and unique (unlike the "W" word used to
describe every fourth team in college sports).

And did you ever find out the KU/So Miss box score when Scott used and
abused the Spork?

: 5) Football: The region is so awesome in football, that people said

: "Big 8" with reverence, knowing that if they didn't Barry
: Switzer of Tom Osborne would come and distribute the Beat
: Down! So, we can't play with Coloardo? Funny, we placed
: higher than them in the 1994 Coalition. We tied em in 93
: and played them down to the wire in 94 and 95. Chickenhawks
: (4th best team in conference) spanked them. Better brush up

Last time I checked, when three teams have the same record and they all
beat each other (and got destroyed by NU), that's a three way tie for
second. But if you wish to have K-State finish fourth, that's fine.

And while you're at it, can you name any ranked team other than KU that
they've beaten? Or a ranked non-conference team they've even played in the
last five years?

: 7) Remember the last collegiate mens basketball team? Guess which

: conference put 25% of the players on the team? (just incase
: this confuses you: Kansas and Iowa State were in the Big
: 8).

You were doing so well, Jud. But you lost me on this one.

Despite our contrasting collegiate affilliations, at least we can agree on
the glory of the Big 8. Now there is a new mission: kick some Texas butt.

GO BIG TWELVE NORTH!!!

Doug

PS Weren't you supposed to be out of the country or something? (answer via
email)

[Air Judden]

glas...@querulous.cims.nyu.edu (Douglas Glass) writes:

>Air Judden (judd...@ksu.ksu.edu) wrote:
>: l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>:
>: 3rd grade is where they draw the line. You can't get in, Ed.

>: The Big Eight.... only known as a football factory ... heh....

>: 1) The Big Eight doesn't exist. It's now the Big 12. Get out
>: from under the rock, E.

>: 2) Have you ever heard of a team called the Kansas Jayhawks? No?
>: Well, put down the football stat book, E, they suck. Now,
>: pick up that basketball statbook. Ok, E, see the Jayhawks
>: now? (so you are not confused, it's the same team I refer to
>: as "Chickenhawks"). good! Yes, that same team, in the Big
>: 12 (fomerly Big 8) has one of the 5 richest winning traditions
>: in college basketball. If you'd like to argue this, I'm sure
>: Jazzy J could have his turn kicking your rear, like the rest
>: of us have!

>HALLELUJAH!!! Judden has finally seen the light!!!! It is clearly apparent

>that he uses the name "chickenhawk" merely because he can do little but
>bask in the glory of the might Rock Chalk while being stranded in
>Manhattan (and a half assed version of the real one, I might add). You are

Doug,

Let's get this straight. I'll crow and crow and crow on you about
the Chickenhawks, but let some outsider come in and I'll go down his throat.
The Chickens maybe a 2nd rate Kansas school, but that ranks them far ahead
of most others.

And you noticed I said "richest" winning tradition? You know that
was Literal, don't you. After all, Kentucky is up there also.

Better just back off, or I'll be forced to quote from you out of
Wilt Chamberlain's book all the illegal inducements he got while visiting
the Ant Hill Ornead.

>Last time I checked, when three teams have the same record and they all
>beat each other (and got destroyed by NU), that's a three way tie for
>second. But if you wish to have K-State finish fourth, that's fine.

After what we did to KU (I'm not sure there is a word strong enough
to describe it), we know who was better.

>And while you're at it, can you name any ranked team other than KU that
>they've beaten?

Hello? How many times to I have to say it? How bout I sing it?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOklahoma, where the wind comes sweeping down the plains...

>: 7) Remember the last collegiate mens basketball team? Guess which

>: conference put 25% of the players on the team? (just incase
>: this confuses you: Kansas and Iowa State were in the Big
>: 8).

>You were doing so well, Jud. But you lost me on this one.

1988 Olympians: Mitch Richmond (star), Jeff Grayer (6th man), Danny Manning
(overrated stiff). That is 25% of the team, from the Big 8.

>Despite our contrasting collegiate affilliations, at least we can agree on
>the glory of the Big 8. Now there is a new mission: kick some Texas butt.

True.

>PS Weren't you supposed to be out of the country or something? (answer via
>email)

I'm just trying to be like Mike.

Judden

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4qrg8t$u...@uvmark.vmark.com>,

Dave Meeks <da...@uvmark.vmark.com> wrote:
>Ask yourself this Ed. If Lucent technologies, as a company, fails or has
>a bad quarter, will it be all your fault?

If I am the CEO of the company, sure. Are you really that naive?

>Even if whatever you do there comes out ahead of schedule, making
>money, etc...

If I am the CEO, and if what I did was ahead of schedule, making money,
how could the company had a bad quarter?

If I am just a engineer (small fish in the ocean), then even if the
company is doing really well as a whole, I don't think I'll get much of
the credit either.

>(based on how much you post, I can't see you doing much real work...)

Meek, there are more things that you can't see. Reality is one of them...

>Bottom line:
> Wilt performed very well in the game, period.

Bottom line:
Wilt performed poorly in that game, period.

>Irregardless of your
> complaints otherwise, you will be very, very hard pressed to find
> someone to agree that a 20+pt, 20+reb, 60+%FG% night would be
> considered a 'bad game'.

Irregardless of your ranting and raving for him, you will be very very hard
pressed to find someone to agree that a player on a team routed had a
very good game...

> The Lakers, as a team, lost the game, period. This wasn't entirely
> Wilt's fault.

Strawman argument. Who's arguing that it's ALL his fault? I am saying that
he just should get a large chunk of it.

>In fact, I wouldn't even say this was largely Wilt's fault.

So you are stupid, that's all...

>Could he do more? Sure... every single game in history that
> has seen a team lose can make this claim.

There you get it.

>But, whether he could do more does not diminish what he did do.

Sure does. What he did do wasn't enough. What Reed did was. That's why
Reed's performance(hitting the first 2 jumpers, pushing Wilt out of the low
post) was a contributing factor; Wilt's 21 pts 24 reb weren't. In
other words, a performance doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has to be placed
in the proper context -- whether it contributed to the bottom line.

>Sure it is an excuse/reason. In your idiotic mind, Wilt was supposed to
>take every shot, grab every rebound, block every shot, make every pass (to
>himself apparantly), etc... or he had a bad game.

or in your idiotic mind, a player only has to do his job, regardless of
whether it's enough to help the team, to meet your standard. As I say,
you probably watch the game to find out who should be in the all-star game...

>Wilt's 'perceived' role was not for you to decide.

Really? how come West gave up that role for Wilt to tally 45 points in
game 6?

>>>>>...but when it comes down to it, Wilt dominated.
>>>>Well, according to Holzman, that's not the reason...
>>>You haven't shown Holzman say that Wilt wasn't dominating.
>>Wow, there were a lot of things Holzman didn't say. Why should
>>I show any quote from Holzman saying that Wilt was not dominating?
>
>Because you claim that 'according to Holzman...' Show us where Holzman
>says this...

I claimed that 'according to Holzman, that's not the reason'. Show us
where I claimed that 'according to Holzman, Wilt was not dominating'.

>Trying to get out of your lie Ed???

Not before you can tell me what I lied about...

>Well, maybe because forcing shots is usually a bad way to play basketball,
>but you wouldn't understand that, as you seem to have very little understanding
>of how to play the game...

Yes? forcing shots is usually a bad way? against an immobile defender?
For a player who can rise to the occasion and take advantage of an injuried
opponent, that's like daylight...

Of course, you wouldn't understand these finer points of the game, you can
only follow the stats to determine whether a player is faulty or not. Good
stats, then he's doing his job...

>So Ed, have you ever actually PLAYED basketball??

Meek, have you ever really followed basketball? You know, this is the NBA,
not your neighborhood pick-up games...

>Wasn't it you that bitched and moaned about it being the sender's
>responsibility and all? Want to show us how leaving punctuation off of
>things and then claiming that it was definitevely a question is 'standard
>English' Ed?

So leaving the punctuation off is a typo. If you aren't sure that whether
it's a question or a statement, and thus don't understand what "was it
Dick Barnett" meant, you can always ask. What are you whining about?

>>Phil Jackson as a member of the 1970 Knicks. Look at the individual
>>stats for the team, he wasn't there.
>
>Again, indeterminate...

Again, determinate.

>The NBA Guide DOES list Phil as a member of that team.

Not in the stats. And as you admitted in the Baylor case, being in the
picture wasn't enough. Better contradict yourself again.

>I see his picture on page 493 of my Guide as a member of the
>NBA Champions. I also see him listed as a member of the team in the NBA
>Register.

Really? I also see him not listed as a member of the 1970 championship
team in the NBA Register. So you want to tally who has more support?

My support:

His bio in ESPNNet SportZone
His bio in the Basketball Handbooks
His absence in the 1970 Knicks team stats in the NBA Guide
His description in the NBA Register
His career profile in the Basketball Encyclopedia

So what do you have? a type of picture that you yourself rejected for
Baylor? a career profile that stated him as a 'did not play' while not
listed as a member of the 1970 championship team.

Meek, you are really desperate!

>Heheh.. you are hilarious.. 'Who cares what you, Martin, Judd, and all those
>Knicks player, not to mention reporters, authors, sports references, etc..
>all think. Who cares what other NBA sources also think... ED LOR thinks
>it didn't matter'

Yes, Meek, you get it right, as you later learned...

>I guess 'Win one for the Gipper' is just media hype, that when
>athletes dedicate performances to special events (personal tragedy,
>etc..) it's all hype, etc...

Well, Meek, what was that Gipper game? was it the climax of the season?
No, it was just a regular season game for a struggling team. Do they
need extra motivation? probably.

>Do I think anyone needs motivation to play in game 7 of the NBA Finals?
>No.

Good, you have hope, although not much...

>But, do I think that certain things will assist players/teams in
>such circumstances?

Dumbo, if they don't need motivation to play in game 7 of the finals,
then those "certain things that assist players/teams" are not reasons
but theatrics. Because even without those intangible things to assist
them, the players would still have played the way they played. That's
why I believed that the Knicks won because they were a better team that
played very well, not because of that theatrics.

>Of course. What the heck do you think home court advantage is about?

It's about the team playing at home, more often than not, was the better
team.

>Really, so based on all the testimonies from players in this series and
>other very similar situations, and all the experts and reporters and all
>those other people who have commented how this helped, you still believe
>it's a lie? Got any proof that all these people who felt this way are
>in error?

Well, from your own testimony, that players do not need motivation to
play in game 7 of the finals. In other words, they wouldn't even need Reed's
theatrical entrance to motivate them.

I am glad that in this regard, you agree with me, albeit slowly...

>We have many, many sources saying that the emotional lift of such events
>is a big help, often being cited as one of the main reasons, yet you
>still cling to your belief that 'it doesn't matter'.

Well, who cares about the many many sources? At least in this regard,
you agreed that it didn't matter, since you agreed that no one would
need motivation to play in game 7 of the finals. The event itself is
enough motivation to demand the absolute best from the players.

>Either provide some
>proof that the beliefs of all these people are wrong, or shut up...

Dumbo, if you want me to shut up, you should have rejected in the first
place the premise that players don't need psychological boost to play
in game 7 of the finals. As of now, it's too late for you to wimp out...

>No one's asking for ONE SOLE REASON, so your final point is meaningless.
>Many of the Knicks cite Reed's ability to play as one of the reasons they
>played so well.

Or a real effect: it's game 7 of the finals, since you acknowledged that
players don't need motivation to play in such a game.

>Yes, the Knicks were the better team and were expected to
>win and were playing at home, so the Lakers losing was no big surprise.
>But, having Reed come on the court provided an emotional lift that inspired
>the teammates to play even harder.

Or playing in game 7 of the finals itself is enough of an emotional
lift for the team. Remember, they don't need motivations. If that is
something you don't even need, how could you even say that as the reason
for their win?

>Sure you can. You can discount it in the same way you can the effect Reed
>had (or Isiah, etc..) on his teammates.

Then you contradict yourself: no motivation needed to play in game 7
of the finals.

>Being more motivated, pumped up, or excited,

But dumbo, no motivation needed, how can it be more motivated? Meek, you
really are clueless...

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In <4qfqn9$6...@cbs.ksu.ksu.edu>, udd whined:
> You mean you are going to argue at length with Martin about
>grammar rules and you "forgot" a question mark? What a double-standard!
What double standard? You mean you don't know what a typo is?

> Dave's pointed out the averages. The ft attempts were not outrageous.
Dumbo, what's outrageous? His FT attempts were more after Willis
was injured. Willis and Bowman committed many more fouls than before Wilis
was injured. What more do you want?

>I've already answered this question. Comb through my posts, Ed, it's there.
As you should know, your post had no substance in there, so there really
had nothing to comb thru'...

> Red's quote only confirms Walt's.
Really? So Red said that Wilt's poor foul shooting was a big factor. Glad
you accept Red's quote so gracefully...

>nerve of him to dispute you! (and the nerve of him to play Barnett at
>guard. Dick would have been a better back-up center -- heh-- the senile
>old man!) Next.
OK, so you thought Phil Jackson was on that team too. Geez, I wonder how
many minutes he played...

> I'm not going to prove an expert wrong. That's your field, Ed.
udd, of course you aren't going to do that, because you have no ability
to judge anything an 'expert' says...

>Remember, Walt is full of BS, and the pyschological factor both spoke of
>is overrated. Ed knows.
Exactly, udd, this is the first time you show a little knowledge about
the NBA, especially how the players perceive game 7 of the finals...

> That's right Ed. When Michael scored 63 points against the Celtics
>in 1986, that just wasn't dominating! Ainge ate him for lunch! With
>no Wilt, the thing would have been a Knick sweep.
udd, you are an idiot. How do you know it would have been a Knick sweep
without Wilt? Hey, you can speculate, so can I. I speculate at least
a 4-3 series, now what?

>With no Wilt, Phoenix would have beaten them in the first round.
More udd speculation. With no Wilt, the Lakers would still have beaten
Phoenix in the first round.

>Oooops, Ed not know about Wilt
>vs. Phoenix....Ed, better see if it in Stat Book. I wonder if Ed know
>Wilt block 6 Connie Hawkins shots in one game?
Yes, that's 1970, and you saw Wilt block 6 Hawkins shots. I wonder what
constitute a block shot in 1970. Better see if that's in your imagination.
I could have swore that block shots weren't recorded until 1973-74...

>>Wilt straight (he had 11 fouls in 198 minutes before the injury, that's
>>2.7/48m). In game 7, Reed fouled more than usual (4 in 27 minutes, 7.1/48m)
>>and they used Bowman for ***FIVE*** fouls.
>
> And when Wilt stepped up to the line, no doubt he said, "I can't hit
>these free throws. Willis is in the game. I just can't shoot them when
>Willis is around. He intimidates me. I wish Imhoff were here. I can shoot
>them when he is around." Heh. Next....
udd, is that something you can't argue? faking as Wilt's mind-reader
isn't going to save your inability to face the facts...

>>> Once again, my whole existence on this thread is to disprove your
>>>accusation of Wilt failing to dominate the backup center in game 5 and the
>>>Reedless Knicks in game 7.
>>Have you? I am still waiting...
>
> Not suprising Ed. No matter how often I put up the quotes, you
>don't get it (I've proven you can't read), so you will be forever waiting.
Of course I don't get it, because you didn't put up any quotes. How did
Wilt dominate the guy who played him in the 2nd half of game 5 (DuBusshere
and Stallworth)? and Willis and Bowman in game 7?

>Perhaps if Clyde and Red came over and explained it to you personally. But
Better do, since you still aren't able to prove that Wilt could dominate
the back-up centers. And guess what constitute a back-up center...

>>Right. Who were playing centers in the 2nd half? Stallworth and DeBusshere.
>>Were they the starting centers?
>
> The Knicks played a 3 forward lineup. That means 2 guards and
>3 forwards (in this case).
Dumbo, a 3 forward lineup doesn't mean there is no center. It means using
a forward playing the other team's center. As DeBusshere said in his book,
he considered himself the fourth string and Stallworth the fifth string
CENTER.

>If I haven't produced the quote that it was
>a 3 forward lineup, I could produce it for you.
You can't produce anything, because your "no center" thinking is all BS.

>Not that it would do any
>good. If you want, I'll list the 3 forwards and 2 guards, just incase you
>get confused in sports and think Dick Barnett was a rover or quarterback.
Better not, since in your dismal mind, you may think that in a 3 forward
lineup, the 3 Knicks forwards must be playing Erickson and Baylor, and
no-one was playing Wilt...

>>Dumbo, when he stepped on the court against Wilt, his role was center.
>>Was Jose Canseco a pitcher? not regularly, but he was when he stepped on
>>the mound. Or when Walter Payton took the snaps, was he playing QB or RB?
>
> See what I mean about confusing sports?
See what you mean about confusing positions? udd, better learn more about
this 3 forward line-up. They didn't really leave Wilt unguarded...

>>> That was the first time a team concentrated on stopping Wilt and
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>the Lakers committed 17 turnovers in one half and Jerry West only took 2
>>>shots and missed them both. There, happy?
>>Dumbo, that's the first time a team concentrated on stopping Wilt?
>>Remember this statement, and you'll see how dumb you've become. YOu even
>>contradicted yourself...
>
> Ed, the English prof who forgets his punctuation marks, fails to
>grasp what the word "and" means. Poor Ed missed class when the teacher
>covered conjunctions.
> See what I mean? Ed cannot read. No wonder he couldn't understand
>what a hobby was.
See how stupid you've become? can't argue the content of his stupid
statement, better concentrate on English then...

> Yep, he did zone and stayed toward the middle of the 1-3-1. It was
>no secret Wilt didn't follow people outside that year (knee injury and
>laziness).
^^^^^^^^
Wilt was lazy? Geez, I wonder whether this laziness contributed to the loss..

>If you saw the video footage of game 7, you'd see that Willis
>hit 2 wide open shots. But you don't remember it, since they were Reedless.
Wow, udd, did Willis played the '1' in the 1-3-1? you got confused again...

> Perhaps you should read the quote on the 1-3-1. If the center doesn't
>go out, they give up open shots. Do you know how the word "if" works in
>this statement, Ed?
Perhaps you should learn more about the game. In the NBA, if the guy the
center guards (usually an undersized opposing center) goes out, there
are ways to cope with it. Or maybe your feeble mind thinks that if
the guy goes out and hit the perimeter shots, then the defending center should
be free of blame....

> Only Ed could associate losing with a lousy perfomance by each and
>every person on the team.
Why not? for a player of his statue, his lousy performance includes "fail to
take over the game", "fail to bail out his teammates", "fail to rise to
the occasions", etc.

All you can do is to make excuses for him, that it's enough for him to
do just his job, anything else is the fault of the teammates....

> Basketall 010: A pass goes from point A to point B. If a hand
>gets between the line connecting A and B, the ball will deflect.
Oh, dumbo, so a hand can get between to deflect the pass? so is the
receiver supposed to guard against that? Afterall, it would cost his team
a possession...

Well, for Wilt, probably not, because if the hand gets in front of him
to deflect the pass, then he's off the hook...

> You can't understand this, Ed.
udd, stop talking about understanding. From all these articles, you don't
even grasp the responsibility of a team game. You think a player is off
the hook if he has done only his job, even though his team gets blown out...

> Funny, coulda swore I pointed out a statement from the video footage
>of game 7 when they said Wilt missed a fingeroll because he was taking them
>from farther out than he's used to, because of Reed's strenth.
Funny, you were talking about the steals in game 5, how come all in
a sudden, you change the context to Willis pushed him out of position
in game 7. And funny, I guess a turnover is better than a shot attempt.
More udd perception of the game...

> Coulda swore I produced a quote from Holzman that part of Willis
>being there was to push Wilt a little farther out. Red is that guy you
>quote, remember?
Coulda swore that a turnover is worse than a FG attempt, even a FG attempt
that missed. Is there anyway that a turnover is better? better enlighten
me...

> I can tell you never played in the post. What are you Ed, 5'1"?
the way you talk about the game, I doubt you've even watched the sport, let
alone play...

>>Getting the ball farther away is not as bad as a turnover, is it?
>
> Forcing a bad pass is even worse.
What about forcing a bad pass? we are talking about whether the center
has the responsibility to prevent the steal, one alternative is to step out
to get the ball. Apparently you can't grasp this...

>>What about it? You mean only center are entitled to psychological boost?
>
> We are talking about gameplans.
Dumbo, we were talking about psychological boost, now you have to wimp out
to gameplans?

>It's easier to play post defense
>injured than the wing. In the post, you can shove and use teammates to
>swarm and nullify a mobile advantage. Against a guard, you can't push
>and you are useless out there on a wing without mobility.
Oh, so you have to resort to gameplans? So in other words, the psychological
boost was all hype, since in the case of Isiah and Worthy, the psychological
boost didn't work.

But even if the psychological boost was hype, why was Wilt so inept to
take advantage of an injured opponent?

> Not only did Ed screw up his facts, again, but he lied (in his own
>fine words). Wilt did not get 2-teamed by Stallworth and DeBusschere.
Well, let's see. In <juddstud.832046889@gandalf>

>2) In two crucial games in the finals, Wilt who couldn't beat a double
>team of DeBusschere and Stallworth, and couldn't beat the immobile Reed,
>yet you have nerve to rant and rave for his greatness constantly. You should be ashame of yourself.

Double to triple team. Ed, you're an idiot. You blame a teams' loss
on one guy who doesn't dominate multiple defenders when his teammates can't
hit open shots. Learn some basketball.

Wow, it's your own words, an acknowledgemnet of double team by DeBusshere
and Stallworth. Udd, better keep track of what you wrote...

>Dave the Rave REPLACED DeBusschere after DeBusschere picked up his 5th foul
>in the 4th quater. Was Stallworth 2-teaming from the bench?
udd, I think a quarter consist of 12 minutes. DeBusschere was replaced by
Stallworth at the 9-min mark of the 4th quarter. DeBusshere played 36 minutes,
Stallworth 19. How many minutes they spent together on the court is left
as an exercise. Of course, if you have trouble doing the arithmetic, let me
know...

> Reedless team in game 7
Reed was badly injured.

> Barnett a backup center
Wow, you get any evidence that I claimed Barnett as a backup center.

> Wilt failed to dominate the backup center (a.k.a. Nate Bowman)
backup center wasn't necessarily Nate Bowman...

> DeBusschere was a center
DeBusschere played center in the 2nd half of game 5.

> DeBusschere and Stallworth double-teamed Wilt.
learn some simple arithmetic...

> Phil Jackson wasn't a Knick in 1970
That's from his bio. I think that has more credibilities than any picture...

> Willis Reed wasn't a Knick in 1972
more imagination. Did you mention Knick or runner-up?

> 21 pts and 24 rebounds is not a dominating performance
any stats in a blowout (27 point half-time defcicit, 25 point 3rd
quarter deficit) was dominating.

> An intercepted pass to the post is the fault of the post man
An intercepted pass make the post man faultless...

> It is better to make an ill-advised pass to the post rather than
> shoot have a hall of fame guard take an open shot.
It's better to have the ball intercepted than to have the ball a little
out of position.

> Anything else you'd like to screw up, Ed?
udd, someone has screwed up, but I am not sure that's me. Let's see

1) playing 69 games was without his serivce for most of the season
2) Reed was a member of the 1972 runner-up
3) I claimed that Dick Barnett was a backup center
4) Phil Jackson was a member of the 1970 championship team
5) a player had a dominating performance when the game was lost by half
time
6) an intercepted pass is better than having the ball slightly out of
position
7) a player who can't help out his teammates should not be blamed
8) a player who can't take advantage of an injured opponent should not
be blamed
9) the 1-3-1 was illegal
10) there exist admission from Knicks players that they cheated with
an illegal offense.

udd, anything else I forgot?

> Ahhhhhhhh....one man is responsible for the outcome. Just like
>Jordan failed to dominate against the Celtics with those 63 points.
udd, Jordan helped his team to double OT. With Wilt's help, game 7
was over by the 2nd quarter. Are you saying that the Lakers could have
done much worse without Wilt? I see, the Lakers would have been down by 35
without Wilt, rather than just down by 27 with Wilt...

And you dare compare Jordan to Wilt?

> West failed to dominate against the 69 Celts with a 40 point average.
Probably, but West was injured during garbage time in game 5 that he was
hobbling in games 6 and 7. Was Wilt?

> Not "of his life." You have the game of your life once.
Of course, his game 7 performance was not even close. The game was over
by the 2nd quarter. Maybe the only thing he could play for was stats, for
a moron like you to make a case for him.

> Oh yeah, forgot who I was dealing with. Wilt only had one quality
>playoff series against Russell (1967). All of the others were just great
>big flops. Wilt choked.
Well, look at 1968 and 1969. Geez, Wilt was on the teams that blew a 2-0
and a 3-1 lead. He might have great stats, did he know anything about
finishing off the opponents?

>>> #3) The Knicks decided in the 4th quarter to get 100 pts. The team's
>>> offense was designed to get Wilt every shot and fortunately ...
>>the Knicks? Did Wilt play for the Knicks?
>
> I told ya you'd say it!!!! I corrected it yesterday and you
>still had to comment on it today. Ed, you're so prediable!
Dumbo, of course that's prediable (sic). I didn't have to wait for all
your postings before I point out your mistake, did I? When you screwed up
on your post, why do you expect me to spare you?

>> "That was the first time a team concentrated on stopping Wilt"?
>
> Nice cut and paste Ed...I believe there were a series of "ands" after
>that statement.
What about that series of 'ands'? If the first conjunct is not true in a
conjunction, do you still evaluate the other conjuncts? Silly boy, you
don't even know logic...

>Now, are you the cut-and-paster, that I once accused you
>of being, or are you just clueless and can't read, like I later accused you
>of being? Which is it? And because you'll say "liar", I'll print the entire
>quote again....
>
> "That was the first time a team concentrated on stopping Wilt and
>the Lakers committed 17 turnovers in one half and Jerry West only took 2
>shots and missed them both. There, happy?"
>
> See the "ands" in it Ed?
Yes, I saw them, what about them? That was not the first time a team
concentrated on stopping Wilt. So at least this conjunct is false.

> Yeah, he started off against Nate Bowman (remember him?) and the
>Laker guards took and hit the shots, preventing the Knicks from swarming
>on Wilt.
Well, it's more than that. DeBusshere claimed that Wilt wanted the ball
and wanted the game. I wonder why he wanted the ball only in game 6.

>These are a little too advanced hoops concepts for you, Ed.
I guess DeBusshere's perception of the game is beyond your comprehension.

>>You want to lose again?
>
> There has to be a first time, before there can be an "again."
But your first time was way back. You are talking about the Nth time,
where N >> 1.

> Yep. 2 jumpers to start the game were theatrics. Leaning into
>Wilt and pushing him a little off the blocks were just theatrics. The
>picks he set were just theatrics.
Oh, so his contribution wasn't exclusively the psychological hype? Now
if you think about his tangible contribution, then sure, he deserved the
playoff MVP, mostly due to games 1-4 and some tangible contributions in
game 7. But come to think of it, what does it say about Wilt's
ability playing against an immobile Reed. Wilt should be slammed for
his defense against a healthy Reed (37 and 38 points in games 1 and 3),
let alone letting the immobile Reed push him out...

>>>So game 7 had a very major part in deciding series MVP, and Ed, when 1970
>>>mention what is ALWAYS mentioned? Willis awesome game 1 or game 7?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Immobile Willis awesome in game 7? against the Golaith Wilt? You are telling
>>me the Goliath's inepitute.
>
> And Ed fumbles again. "awesome" is with game 1. But this
>doesn't suprise me, since you don't understand conjunctions ("or").
udd, you mean a game ALWAYS MENTIONED was the reason a player won the
MVP? I think the MVP is won by solid performance, not by what is more
frequently mentioned, but your mileage may vary...

Maybe that's why Isiah won the MVP in 1988, his game 6 performance was
always mentioned ...

> Bowman comes in, Wilt score 7 of the next 12 points. Red pulled him
>out, admitting it didn't work. Ed is right. Numbers wrong! Red wrong!
>Heh. And Ed, still hasn't caught on that DeBusschere is a forward.
>At least you're consistent, Ed.
udd, are you so stupid to realize that a forward can play center for a few
minutes? udd still hasn't caught on the fact that players are not fixed on
positions. Geez, in the 1980 game 6, the Lakers must be playing a 3
guard offense...

> I could pick and chose what matches my belifs, like you do, but
>nah! I'll trust a guy whose knowledge about that series far exceeds the
>2 of us.
Well, then go ahead. I'll trust the fact that players get up psychologically
for game 7 of the finals no matter what.

>I will trust it especially when 2 independent eyewitnesses/experts
>confer.
Go ahead, no one can stop you from being stupid.

> Yep, Pat Riley tells his team in the playoffs, "we're up guys, let's
>throw this one away." No doubt Michael Jordan said, "We're up 3-0 on
>Seattle. This one's a giveaway, let's go lose it. It's not important. We
>have 3 more chances to put them away."
Yes, and how come they still won the championship. You care to enlighten
us? So you think game 4 was the game that determined the series? Geez,
no wonder you were so hung up on Jordan's dismal performance in game 4.

> Ed...listen to me....go enroll in Basketball 010.
Udd, go enroll in common sense 101.

>Basktball
>010...take it, Ed. They will teach you sags and double teams...but that
>will come later on.
They will teach you more, like double team means two people on the same
guy simultaneously...

[Martin Shobe]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) wrote:

>In <4qfqn9$6...@cbs.ksu.ksu.edu>, udd whined:

[stuff deleted]

Say Ed, it's sooo nice to see you back. For a second I thought you were wimping
out. I mean, first you are telling jokes, and then you don't respond for a long
time. Aren't these your idea of losing an arguement?

>> Dave's pointed out the averages. The ft attempts were not outrageous.
>Dumbo, what's outrageous? His FT attempts were more after Willis
>was injured. Willis and Bowman committed many more fouls than before Wilis
>was injured. What more do you want?

You care to post the numbers?

>>I've already answered this question. Comb through my posts, Ed, it's there.
>As you should know, your post had no substance in there, so there really
>had nothing to comb thru'...

No substance? Let's see, quotes by the players, analysis of what happened.
Yep, no substance. Boy, I'm so glad you pointed that out, I would never have
noticed otherwise.

[stuff deleted]

>>Remember, Walt is full of BS, and the pyschological factor both spoke of
>>is overrated. Ed knows.
>Exactly, udd, this is the first time you show a little knowledge about
>the NBA, especially how the players perceive game 7 of the finals...

Yeah, all those players, coaches, etc. are wrong. The people who were involved
disagree with you, Ed. They all agree that the psychological factor was a major
part of that game. You say it wasn't. You say that NBA players become inhuman
during game 7s of the finals. Whatever.

>> That's right Ed. When Michael scored 63 points against the Celtics
>>in 1986, that just wasn't dominating! Ainge ate him for lunch! With
>>no Wilt, the thing would have been a Knick sweep.
>udd, you are an idiot. How do you know it would have been a Knick sweep
>without Wilt? Hey, you can speculate, so can I. I speculate at least
>a 4-3 series, now what?

Why? Who will slow down Willis Reed? Who will contain the other Knicks when
they drive? Who will grab the 20+ rebounds? Rick Roberson certainly wasn't up
to the task.

>>With no Wilt, Phoenix would have beaten them in the first round.
>More udd speculation. With no Wilt, the Lakers would still have beaten
>Phoenix in the first round.

They might have. However, it was Wilt who pulled them out of what looked like
an upset.

>>Oooops, Ed not know about Wilt
>>vs. Phoenix....Ed, better see if it in Stat Book. I wonder if Ed know
>>Wilt block 6 Connie Hawkins shots in one game?
>Yes, that's 1970, and you saw Wilt block 6 Hawkins shots. I wonder what
>constitute a block shot in 1970.

That would be altering the flight path of a ball when the opposing player is
shooting.

> Better see if that's in your imagination.
>I could have swore that block shots weren't recorded until 1973-74...

So blocks didn't exist then? Hmmm. You know I've heard an awful lot about some
Russell fellow blocking a few shots, guess he must not have.

[stuff deleted]

>>>Dumbo, when he stepped on the court against Wilt, his role was center.
>>>Was Jose Canseco a pitcher? not regularly, but he was when he stepped on
>>>the mound. Or when Walter Payton took the snaps, was he playing QB or RB?
>>
>> See what I mean about confusing sports?
>See what you mean about confusing positions? udd, better learn more about
>this 3 forward line-up. They didn't really leave Wilt unguarded...

He didn't say they left him unguarded. You still confused, Ed.

[stuff deleted]

>>If you saw the video footage of game 7, you'd see that Willis
>>hit 2 wide open shots. But you don't remember it, since they were Reedless.
>Wow, udd, did Willis played the '1' in the 1-3-1? you got confused again...

Look at the game number, Ed. Judd says that this is game 7. They played the
1-3-1 in game 5. You got yourself confused, still.

[stuff deleted]

>> Basketall 010: A pass goes from point A to point B. If a hand
>>gets between the line connecting A and B, the ball will deflect.
>Oh, dumbo, so a hand can get between to deflect the pass?

Sure can. When a team tries to do this, it is usually referred to as playing
the passing lanes. Rather common really.

> so is the
>receiver supposed to guard against that?

Not really. The receiver needs to run his part of the offense, it is the
passers responsibility to make sure the passes don't get intercepted. (There
are a few exceptions, most involving traps and such.)

[stuff deleted]

>Well, for Wilt, probably not, because if the hand gets in front of him
>to deflect the pass, then he's off the hook...

Yep. Course that applies to people not named Wilt as well.

[stuff deleted]

>>>Getting the ball farther away is not as bad as a turnover, is it?
>>
>> Forcing a bad pass is even worse.
>What about forcing a bad pass? we are talking about whether the center
>has the responsibility to prevent the steal, one alternative is to step out
>to get the ball. Apparently you can't grasp this...

Apparently you can't grasp the fact that this isn't a reasonable alternative.
First of all, stepping out probably wouldn't have prevented steals. The players
making the steals are already between Wilt and the ball. In order to prevent
the steals, Wilt would have to go *through* the defenders. Can you say "foul"?
And, guess what, Ed. That is a turnover, too. Secondly, he is giving up
position. If he has to do this, the pass should never have been made. He isn't
in a position to be effective with it anymore.

>>>What about it? You mean only center are entitled to psychological boost?
>>
>> We are talking about gameplans.
>Dumbo, we were talking about psychological boost, now you have to wimp out
>to gameplans?

Looks liked you missed a context switch, Ed. Funny how often those get by you.

[stuff deleted]

>> Not only did Ed screw up his facts, again, but he lied (in his own
>>fine words). Wilt did not get 2-teamed by Stallworth and DeBusschere.
>Well, let's see. In <juddstud.832046889@gandalf>

> >2) In two crucial games in the finals, Wilt who couldn't beat a double
> >team of DeBusschere and Stallworth, and couldn't beat the immobile Reed,
> >yet you have nerve to rant and rave for his greatness constantly. You should be ashame of yourself.
>
> Double to triple team. Ed, you're an idiot. You blame a teams' loss
> on one guy who doesn't dominate multiple defenders when his teammates can't
> hit open shots. Learn some basketball.

>Wow, it's your own words, an acknowledgemnet of double team by DeBusshere
>and Stallworth. Udd, better keep track of what you wrote...

Ed? Ed? Hello. Those are your words claiming that Wilt couldn't beat a double
team of DeBusschere and Stallworth. Unless you've been ranting and raving about
Wilt's greatness behind our backs.

>>Dave the Rave REPLACED DeBusschere after DeBusschere picked up his 5th foul
>>in the 4th quater. Was Stallworth 2-teaming from the bench?
>udd, I think a quarter consist of 12 minutes. DeBusschere was replaced by
>Stallworth at the 9-min mark of the 4th quarter. DeBusshere played 36 minutes,
>Stallworth 19. How many minutes they spent together on the court is left
>as an exercise. Of course, if you have trouble doing the arithmetic, let me
>know...

Insufficient data. We could put bounds on it, but we would need more
information to actually work the number out.

>> Reedless team in game 7
>Reed was badly injured.

Wilt wasn't exactly 100% either.

[stuff deleted]

>> Phil Jackson wasn't a Knick in 1970
>That's from his bio. I think that has more credibilities than any picture...

Could you cite this, please.

>> Willis Reed wasn't a Knick in 1972
>more imagination. Did you mention Knick or runner-up?

Yes.

>> 21 pts and 24 rebounds is not a dominating performance
>any stats in a blowout (27 point half-time defcicit, 25 point 3rd
>quarter deficit) was dominating.

Oh good. You do agree Wilt dominated. Now that that is settled....

>> An intercepted pass to the post is the fault of the post man
>An intercepted pass make the post man faultless...

Nobody has said that. (Except you when trying to make straw-men.)

>> Anything else you'd like to screw up, Ed?
>udd, someone has screwed up, but I am not sure that's me. Let's see

>1) playing 69 games was without his serivce for most of the season

No screw up here. There are reasonable definitions of without his services that
would make this true.

>2) Reed was a member of the 1972 runner-up

No screw up here. He was a member of that team.

>3) I claimed that Dick Barnett was a backup center

It's more like you didn't know that he wasn't, and you still claim to know more
about what went on than the people who were there.

>4) Phil Jackson was a member of the 1970 championship team

No screw up here, either.

>5) a player had a dominating performance when the game was lost by half
> time

Yep. It's happened before, it will happen again.

>6) an intercepted pass is better than having the ball slightly out of
> position

Your screwed up here. The claim is that the pass should never have been made at
all.

>7) a player who can't help out his teammates should not be blamed

Depends on what sort and how much. Nobody has claimed that Wilt was blameless.
Just that most of the blaim should fall on his teammates.

>8) a player who can't take advantage of an injured opponent should not
> be blamed

Last time I checked, outscoring your man by 16+ and outrebounding him by 18+ was
taking advantage of someone.

>9) the 1-3-1 was illegal

No screw-up here.

>10) there exist admission from Knicks players that they cheated with
> an illegal offense.

No screw-up here.

>udd, anything else I forgot?

To think. To read. To understand.

>> Ahhhhhhhh....one man is responsible for the outcome. Just like
>>Jordan failed to dominate against the Celtics with those 63 points.
>udd, Jordan helped his team to double OT. With Wilt's help, game 7
>was over by the 2nd quarter. Are you saying that the Lakers could have
>done much worse without Wilt?

Yes. He has said that.

> I see, the Lakers would have been down by 35
>without Wilt, rather than just down by 27 with Wilt...

Probably. And that's assuming they manage to get to that game at all.

>And you dare compare Jordan to Wilt?

Both lost. The end result is the same. In fact, if Jordan had just hit one
more jumper during regulation, the Bulls would have won. If Wilt had hit one
more jumper, the Lakers still would have lost.

[stuff deleted]

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4r3edh$m...@newserv.ksu.ksu.edu>,

Martin Shobe <kh...@unix.ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>No. I am fighting for truth, justice, and the Spoon way.

Except you have nothing to back up your "truth", like the Knicks claimed
that their offense was illegal, that the illegal offense rule existed, etc...

>Becuase you didn't understand it. (Like duh)

Of course I don't understand your juvenile mindset, but that's not the
end of the world...

>>In every way, like you have the admissions from the Knicks that they
>>cheated? Remember, they didn't admit that they cheated. It's your camp
>> who tried to use some unsubstantiated claims to prove that they cheated...
>
>Already posted that stuff.

Really? cite the post.

You didn't post anything from the Knicks that their offense was
illegal. You only had testimonies from them that they ran the 1-3-1.

So you made another lie -- you already posted the stuff from the Knicks
saying that their offense was illegal.

>You really should try to keep up.

Sob, keep up the good work. The way you are doing it, you are adding
up your lies pretty fast...

>And at least we have the "unsubstantiated claims", you have posted

>much of anything resembling evidence.

I sure have. Thank you.

"Unsubstantiated claims" from the Knicks that their offense was illegal?
which Knick make such a claim? Again, better wimp out with "already
posted it". You are not new in lying with non-existing stuff...

>>>It does tell you that he eats vegatables.
>>No, he try to be a smart ass and answer more that he has to. My question
>>already assumes that he eats vegatables...
>
>"question" should be plural. And whether you like it or not, his response does
>answer the first question. (Which is what you asked about).

Whether you like it or not, I don't need this response to know that he
eats vegatable. And whether you like it or not, his response didn't
answer the 2nd question.

>You obviously
>haven't been studying your "Hook on Phonics" lessons enough.

You obviously skipped your classes in remedial reading. Why? did you spend
too much time with Judd in McDonalds?

>reason it implies that he eats other things besides vegatables, is because he
>gave specific reason, one that does explain why he eats.

Dumbo, save your implication for lunch. So he explains why he eats
vegatable. There is no implication that he eats other things besides
vegatables. Don't spout your "Sob-implications" here. No sane person
will buy it.

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4r9u7u$2...@fox.ksu.ksu.edu>,

Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
> I wouldn't chase this thread too much more. It's obvious I caught
>him red handed at his cut-and-paste game.

Yes, udd, better wimp out when your cut-and-paste accusation doesn't get
you anywhere....

But I won't let you off the hook. I'll keep pursuing you on your claimed
that the Knicks admitted that their 1-3-1 offense was illegal.

You know, seeing children making lies in a lost course is really fun.

>He either has
>the reading skills of a Kindergardener or he did indeed cut-and-paste, and

Or indeed catch you red-handed with your so called "hobby".

>nothing he can say can change it.

Sure can. You don't determine the facts.

>All I have to do is repost the entire
>context and anyone can see E's deceit/cluelessness (whichever it is).

Wow, udd, that's the key, can't argue on this thread, why don't you post
it to the public for justice. That's ususally the way of the meek. Ask
something else to enforce justice for you when you obviously can't fight.

Are there any net.police around here?

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4r0ndt$m...@uvmark.vmark.com>,

Dave Meeks <da...@uvmark.vmark.com> wrote:
>Gotta love how Ed keeps harping on the qualifications of the Big Eight schools
>from an academic standpoint. So Ed, just where did you go to school again?

Geez, I don't even want to say, but since you force me. But please keep it
to yourself...

I went to Purdue, got a master in EECS, but since that degree is virtually
useless. It could only get me a job in some software junkyard (V****) overseas
(over Lake Ontario, you know). I decided to threw away that degree and got
for a football scholarship in KSU. You know, I am not good enough for
Nebraska or Oklahoma...

The degree in Purdue is really the low point in my life. Of course, I am
not surprised that some low IQ lifeform would treat such a degree as a prized
possession...

>And no, we aren't interested in your Buck Rogers Day Camp... We want this
>year, not last...

I haven't gone to school for a long time, not since I couldn't make the KSU
squad, and the education from a school like that is useless. If
it can't help me to get to the NFL, I have no use of it.

Wait, I went to recreation classes for boating a few years back, did it
count?

>>About most folks, they certain should thank me for correcting distortions
>>like:
>

>Heh... this should be interesting. Want to take a poll and see just how many
>of those 'most folks' are going to thank you for 'correcting distortions'?

Sure, you have my full endorsement.

>Especially since you are unable to prove this so-called 'distortions'.

Well, there is just one little thing I can prove: in this argument, you
claimed that the Knicks claimed that they ran an illegal offense in the 1970
finals, but you have no way to furnish such a claim...

>No it was not. The two paragraphs referred to the two questions asked in
>the paragraph. 'That' refered to your second question, in which you ask
>about reading Knicks books. So, in this case, 'That' == 'Reading Knicks books'
>is the immediate reference/context used. The 'ass-kissing' statement was
>treated exactly for what it was worth... it was ignored.

How so? where did he claim that "THAT" == "Reading Knicks books' and ignore tha
ass-kissing?

>Easy. The two paragraphs effectively answer your two questions. See, a
>nice correlation there. You ask two questions, Judden gives two answers.
>Works nicely that way.

I ask two questions, then I made a comment. He responded immediately to the
comments. Sure, it works nicely...

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4r3f5a$m...@newserv.ksu.ksu.edu>,

Martin Shobe <kh...@unix.ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>We make footballs here. And to think I never knew.

Yes, and those footballs are especially useful on netnews. There are
two of them got kicked all the time: Sob and Udd...

>He he. This says an awful lot about your basketball knowledge, Lor. And none
>of it is good (from your point of view). When I was a kid, I played one-on-one
>in the a driveway that amounted to about a quarter of the half-court.

Sob, no wonder you can only play in the driveway. You aren't playing in
the NBA, are you?

But some idiots may think that was playing NBA ball in his driveway,
probably against his dog...

>Didn't
>stop me then. And if you were to actually watch a few games (instead of just
>looking at the box scores), you would find that clearouts are a major part of
>todays game.

Yes, you would find that clearouts on half of the court is against the
rule. But it's too much to expect you to know the rule.

>>of the rules are easily comprehensible. Whether they enforce it for superstar
>>is another matter.
>

>It's no surprise that Ed Lor is comfortable with a double standard.

It's no surprise that Sob is not comfortable with reality...

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4r920b$s...@cbs.ksu.ksu.edu>,

Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
> Are you saying I have no J?

Yep, J for judgement. Of course, you are welcome to interpret J as
"jumper" ...

>>Barnett = center? you care to cite where I stated Barnett as a center?
>
> I'll show you where you DIDN'T know he was a guard and was thought he
>was a center.

Well, so I didn't know that he was a guard, and I asked whether he was the
back-up center, but this is not that same as "stated Barnett as a center".

I can't wait to see what you are going to show...

>>-- The illegal offense rule existed in 1970
>
> What correction? You've corrected this?

Yep, that this is not a fact, but all you have is a claim with no
reference and substantiation...

>>-- The Knicks' 1-3-1 offense was illegal
>
> DITTO.

Ditto.

>>-- The Knicks admitted that they cheated with an illegal offense
>
> Nope. I proved it.

Dumbo, even if you proved it, that doesn't qualify as the Knicks'
own admission. If they had admitted it, you wouldn't have had to
prove it.

Are you really that stupid?

>>-- The 1972 runner-up had Willis Reed on it
>
> Strike 4

Yep, strike 4 for you...

>>-- Phil Jackson was on the 1970 championship team
>
> Strike 5. Funny thing in Spitz book: Jackson is on the photo that
> says the 1969-70 official team photograph. Naw! Jackson wasn't
> on the team. Couldn't be. Must have been his clone!

Funny thing, even in his own bio, he was not on the 1970 championship
team. He must be lying about his own credentials..

>>-- it's all the passers' fault in passes intended to Wilt in game 5 & 7...
>
> Strike 6.

good, one more strike for you...

>>See, you have polluted the net with enough distortions...
>
> Co'mon E, don't stop: I have a perfect game going here.

Yes, your are certainly perfect in getting caught on lies...

> E proves his Kindegarden reading again. If there was any question,
>the paragraph spells it out.

Well, udd, but I have NO question. I only saw that you associate the 'hobby'
with ass-kissing, the immediate context.

> E, we SAVED you from Fester. He was plugging away on you and we
>decided that some newbie cockroach wasn't going to pick on our kid net-brother.
>Only we can do that. So we proceeded to "erase" him.

udd, you sure are dreaming. When two grown-ups are fighting on the net,
new kid like you always want to be part of it, just to validate himself as
'being there', sort of like the MJ vs Bird shooting contest in the McDonald
commercial when a second fiddle like Barkley butt in: can I play?

[Air Judden]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>In <4qfqn9$6...@cbs.ksu.ksu.edu>, udd whined:
>> You mean you are going to argue at length with Martin about
>>grammar rules and you "forgot" a question mark? What a double-standard!
>What double standard? You mean you don't know what a typo is?

I hvae no idae.

We can't define what we say (without services), remember? since you
had no question mark, you stated that Barnett was a center. Heh heh.
Ed rules--gotta love em.

>OK, so you thought Phil Jackson was on that team too. Geez, I wonder how
>many minutes he played...

Willis didn't play any minutes in game 6. Was he not on the Knicks'
team that game?

>> I'm not going to prove an expert wrong. That's your field, Ed.
>udd, of course you aren't going to do that, because you have no ability
>to judge anything an 'expert' says...

I judged what Magic said about Kareem and I'm still awaiting your
response.

>> That's right Ed. When Michael scored 63 points against the Celtics
>>in 1986, that just wasn't dominating! Ainge ate him for lunch! With
>>no Wilt, the thing would have been a Knick sweep.
>udd, you are an idiot. How do you know it would have been a Knick sweep
>without Wilt? Hey, you can speculate, so can I. I speculate at least
>a 4-3 series, now what?

How about 4-1 in 1972...even WITH Lucas! And they still had your
first choice for back-up center (Barnett).
BTW, will you not respond to Michael? Did he not dominate because
the Bulls' lost?

>>With no Wilt, Phoenix would have beaten them in the first round.
>More udd speculation. With no Wilt, the Lakers would still have beaten
>Phoenix in the first round.

Phoenix took the lead in the series WITH Wilt. Then Wilt went on
a tear and lead them back. Doah! Ed flaunts his lack of knowledge about
1970....once again. How....suprising!

>>Oooops, Ed not know about Wilt
>>vs. Phoenix....Ed, better see if it in Stat Book. I wonder if Ed know
>>Wilt block 6 Connie Hawkins shots in one game?
>Yes, that's 1970, and you saw Wilt block 6 Hawkins shots. I wonder what
>constitute a block shot in 1970. Better see if that's in your imagination.
>I could have swore that block shots weren't recorded until 1973-74...

How about from "Foul! The Connie Hawkins story?" Naw, Hawk doesn't
know what a blocked shot is! Then Wilt repeats it (pretty sure) in the Wilt
book. 2 guys agreeing on the same thing? Naw! Can't believe 2 eyewittnes
agreeing testimonies! They never do that in a court of law, ed Ed?

>>>Wilt straight (he had 11 fouls in 198 minutes before the injury, that's
>>>2.7/48m). In game 7, Reed fouled more than usual (4 in 27 minutes, 7.1/48m)
>>>and they used Bowman for ***FIVE*** fouls.
>>
>> And when Wilt stepped up to the line, no doubt he said, "I can't hit
>>these free throws. Willis is in the game. I just can't shoot them when
>>Willis is around. He intimidates me. I wish Imhoff were here. I can shoot
>>them when he is around." Heh. Next....
>udd, is that something you can't argue? faking as Wilt's mind-reader
>isn't going to save your inability to face the facts...

This is demonstrating how absurd your arguement is.

>>>Right. Who were playing centers in the 2nd half? Stallworth and DeBusshere.
>>>Were they the starting centers?
>>
>> The Knicks played a 3 forward lineup. That means 2 guards and
>>3 forwards (in this case).
>Dumbo, a 3 forward lineup doesn't mean there is no center. It means using
>a forward playing the other team's center. As DeBusshere said in his book,
>he considered himself the fourth string and Stallworth the fifth string
>CENTER.

That's not the back-up center. The back-up center was Bowman, and
Wilt dominated him....doah!

Hey! Barnett was 11th string center! You are right! How silly of
me to argue with you!

>>Not that it would do any
>>good. If you want, I'll list the 3 forwards and 2 guards, just incase you
>>get confused in sports and think Dick Barnett was a rover or quarterback.
>Better not, since in your dismal mind, you may think that in a 3 forward
>lineup, the 3 Knicks forwards must be playing Erickson and Baylor, and
>no-one was playing Wilt...

They double and triple-teamed Wilt. Since Barnett fell back at
times, he was a center!!!!!
Since they laid off the guards, the Knicks didn't have any
guards in the game.

>>>> That was the first time a team concentrated on stopping Wilt and
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>the Lakers committed 17 turnovers in one half and Jerry West only took 2
>>>>shots and missed them both. There, happy?
>>>Dumbo, that's the first time a team concentrated on stopping Wilt?
>>>Remember this statement, and you'll see how dumb you've become. YOu even
>>>contradicted yourself...
>>
>> Ed, the English prof who forgets his punctuation marks, fails to
>>grasp what the word "and" means. Poor Ed missed class when the teacher
>>covered conjunctions.
>> See what I mean? Ed cannot read. No wonder he couldn't understand
>>what a hobby was.
>See how stupid you've become? can't argue the content of his stupid
>statement, better concentrate on English then...

I did argue the content. You snipped the content. You say you
don't do that. The first time had 4 or 5 conditions listed. You snipped
all but one. Since you don't snip, then you are incapable of reading.

>> Yep, he did zone and stayed toward the middle of the 1-3-1. It was
>>no secret Wilt didn't follow people outside that year (knee injury and
>>laziness).
> ^^^^^^^^
>Wilt was lazy? Geez, I wonder whether this laziness contributed to the loss..

^^^^^^^^^^

Contributed? Ed, you put SOLE blame on Wilt!!! Or do I need to
repost you accusation? Don't change your mind now, Ed. That would be
called "admitting defeat."

>> Only Ed could associate losing with a lousy perfomance by each and
>>every person on the team.
>Why not? for a player of his statue, his lousy performance includes "fail to
>take over the game", "fail to bail out his teammates", "fail to rise to
>the occasions", etc.

Jordan 63 points. Nuff said.

>All you can do is to make excuses for him, that it's enough for him to
>do just his job, anything else is the fault of the teammates....

Nope. you put the reason of the loss ONLY on Wilt. That is why I
have argued with you all along. It was not only Wilt's fault. I have
defended my point with flying colors.

Ed, I have put 3 new posts last week for you. I await a reply. I
go all the way back to your clueless statements that started all this, and
I systematically kill your clueless weeds at the roots!

>> Basketall 010: A pass goes from point A to point B. If a hand
>>gets between the line connecting A and B, the ball will deflect.
>Oh, dumbo, so a hand can get between to deflect the pass? so is the
>receiver supposed to guard against that? Afterall, it would cost his team
>a possession...

Oh Ed.... you put fuel on my fire. Note: I prove your Kareem-Wilt
double-standard, and you only reinforce it. OUCH!

(HINT: Go to my post "A firecracker for Ed Lor-yer" if you are
still out of it).

>> Funny, coulda swore I pointed out a statement from the video footage
>>of game 7 when they said Wilt missed a fingeroll because he was taking them
>>from farther out than he's used to, because of Reed's strenth.
>Funny, you were talking about the steals in game 5, how come all in
>a sudden, you change the context to Willis pushed him out of position
>in game 7. And funny, I guess a turnover is better than a shot attempt.
>More udd perception of the game...

nope. they picked off passes in game 5. They picked off dribbles
(when he tried to get around Reed early) in game 7. Only you are clueless.

>> Forcing a bad pass is even worse.
>What about forcing a bad pass? we are talking about whether the center
>has the responsibility to prevent the steal, one alternative is to step out
>to get the ball. Apparently you can't grasp this...

Ed. Stop it. You're killing yourself! Believe me. I will use
these statements once you try to justify Kareem!

>>Dave the Rave REPLACED DeBusschere after DeBusschere picked up his 5th foul
>>in the 4th quater. Was Stallworth 2-teaming from the bench?
>udd, I think a quarter consist of 12 minutes. DeBusschere was replaced by
>Stallworth at the 9-min mark of the 4th quarter. DeBusshere played 36 minutes,
>Stallworth 19. How many minutes they spent together on the court is left
>as an exercise. Of course, if you have trouble doing the arithmetic, let me
>know...

Show me proof of a double-team Ed.

>> Reedless team in game 7
>Reed was badly injured.

We cannot define what we mean, remember? A literal interpretation
of the first thing wrote is all that is allowed. Your rules.

>> Barnett a backup center
>Wow, you get any evidence that I claimed Barnett as a backup center.

No question mark. This was a statement. A literal interpretation
of the first thing wrote is all that is allowed. Your rules.

>> Phil Jackson wasn't a Knick in 1970
>That's from his bio. I think that has more credibilities than any picture...

Anxiously awaiting this quote....

>> It is better to make an ill-advised pass to the post rather than
>> shoot have a hall of fame guard take an open shot.
>It's better to have the ball intercepted than to have the ball a little
>out of position.

Ouch! Ed shoots himself in the foot for the 4th time on this!
Kareem spits on you.

Ed, let me make this reeeeeealy simple for you:

This argument stems from your analyis of Wilt on your thoughts of
Wilt's 100 points. I slam your assessment. My whole argument hinges on
proving you wrong. I successfully defend Wilt against your accusation, I
win.

I posted up 3 posts in which I go to the very core/root of your
statements and take my chainsaw to you. My first attack is that I proved
you knew nothing about the context of the 1970 games in question.

These continue this, and most importantly, they expose the double-
standard and your anti-Wilt bias. They show I am not a rear-end kisser and
that you ARE.

The names of the posts are:

Ed Lor-yer: Ouch! Doah! Ouch! Doah!
Ed Lor-yer: Kaw! Kaw! (should have been in the ouch! Doah! post)
A firecracker for Ed Lor-yer (this one will hurt!)

I wonder why they've been up a week+ without your responses...

If you don't respond to these (namely 1 and 3), you acknowledge my
victory. It is obvious I K.O.d you worse than Tyson did Spinx, but with
this, even YOU will acknowledge it! I will have met my goal: Defend Wilt.

Happy justifying!

udden

[Dave Meeks]

In article <4rv2db$c...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
>In article <4qrg8t$u...@uvmark.vmark.com>,
>Dave Meeks <da...@uvmark.vmark.com> wrote:
>>Ask yourself this Ed. If Lucent technologies, as a company, fails or has
>>a bad quarter, will it be all your fault?
>If I am the CEO of the company, sure. Are you really that naive?

Who's talking about CEO's.. Was Wilt the 'CEO'?? Heck, he wasn't even
the 'President'. It can even be argued that he wasn't even their #1 player,
especially with him missing the majority of the season.

Are you really that naive Ed?

>>Bottom line:
>> Wilt performed very well in the game, period.
>Bottom line:
> Wilt performed poorly in that game, period.

Bzzztt... Error. Does not compute. Ed, you have yet to show how Wilt
'performed poorly'. In fact, we don't even know for a fact that the Lakers
played exceptionally poor. The 'fact' is, they got beat by a team that
was better than them, had home court advantage against them, etc. The team
that was expected to win did just that. And, unless you can show how a guy
who goes for 20+pts, 20+rebs, 60+% FG% in the game while holding his
defensive assignment down had a 'poor game', you are blowing smoke.

If you want to argue that Wilt should have performed better, that's one
thing. But, you have no basis to say he had a 'bad' game...

>Irregardless of your ranting and raving for him, you will be very very hard
>pressed to find someone to agree that a player on a team routed had a
>very good game...

Not at all. Happens all the time. Examples?? Sure...

June 15th, 1994. Hakeem Olajuwon goes 14-20, grabs 8 rebounds, dishes out
3 assists, scores 32 total points, and has 5 blocked shots...

Yet his team still loses by 9... I'd call 32pts, 8rebs, 3assists, 5blocks
on 70% shooting (and 100% from the FT line) a 'very good game'. Yet his
team still got beat.

On April 20th, 1986, Michael Jordan scored the most points ever scored in
a playoff game, 63 pts... Yet his team still lost. He went out that
year and scored 43.7ppg, grabbed 6.3rpg, and dished out 5.7apg while shooting
it at 50.5% from the field, 87.2% from the line, and 100% from 3pt land.
He also had 1.3blocks/game and 2.3steals/game...

Yet his team not only lost the series, they got swept.

I'd say that even though his team got swept and blown out in 2 of those
three games (19pts in one game, 18pts in the other), that Michael had a
'very good series'...

>>But, whether he could do more does not diminish what he did do.
>Sure does. What he did do wasn't enough. What Reed did was. That's why
>Reed's performance(hitting the first 2 jumpers, pushing Wilt out of the low
>post) was a contributing factor; Wilt's 21 pts 24 reb weren't. In
>other words, a performance doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has to be placed
>in the proper context -- whether it contributed to the bottom line.

Then you are stupid.

I guess Elgin Baylor has never been much of a player then, since he never
once contributed to 'the bottom line', right?

But on the other hand, Stacey King... He contributed to 3 championships.

In your idiotic world, we should praise Stacey King but belittle and
criticize Elgin Baylor.

You need to wake up Ed, and realize that very few people in this world
prescribe to your idiotic way of thinking.

>>Sure it is an excuse/reason. In your idiotic mind, Wilt was supposed to
>>take every shot, grab every rebound, block every shot, make every pass (to
>>himself apparantly), etc... or he had a bad game.
>or in your idiotic mind, a player only has to do his job, regardless of
>whether it's enough to help the team, to meet your standard. As I say,
>you probably watch the game to find out who should be in the all-star game...

'regardless of whether it's enough to help the team'...

It seems you live in a binary world Ed, that's your problem...

Team Wins => Whatever contribution made, not matter how trivial, was positive
Team Loses => Whatever contribution made, irregardless of how well played,
is a negative or 'poor performance'

Well, you go on living in your binary world Ed... I'd suggest a good book
to help your feeling of being alone...

>>Wilt's 'perceived' role was not for you to decide.
>Really? how come West gave up that role for Wilt to tally 45 points in
>game 6?

How do you know that West 'gave up' that role?

>
>>>>>>...but when it comes down to it, Wilt dominated.
>>>>>Well, according to Holzman, that's not the reason...
>>>>You haven't shown Holzman say that Wilt wasn't dominating.
>>>Wow, there were a lot of things Holzman didn't say. Why should
>>>I show any quote from Holzman saying that Wilt was not dominating?
>>
>>Because you claim that 'according to Holzman...' Show us where Holzman
>>says this...
>I claimed that 'according to Holzman, that's not the reason'. Show us
>where I claimed that 'according to Holzman, Wilt was not dominating'.

Using your standard paradigm of argumentation, my previous statement was
specifically referring to 'Wilt dominating'. Your direct response was
'according to Holzman, that's not the reason...' What else could you
be referring to except 'Wilt dominating'. So, you try to imply that
'accoring to Holzman...' Wilt was not dominating...

>>Trying to get out of your lie Ed???
>Not before you can tell me what I lied about...

Simple. using the same logic that you always use, your comment could only
be referring to 'Wilt dominating', nothing else. Thus, you try to claim
this was not true, and even claim this to be 'according to Holzman'...

>>of how to play the game...
>Yes? forcing shots is usually a bad way? against an immobile defender?
>For a player who can rise to the occasion and take advantage of an injuried
>opponent, that's like daylight...

Forcing shots, irregardless of the state of the defender, is always a bad
thing. And, I'd say that a player who scores 20+pts and grabs 20+rebounds
is taking advantage pretty well.

>Of course, you wouldn't understand these finer points of the game, you can
>only follow the stats to determine whether a player is faulty or not. Good
>stats, then he's doing his job...

Well, Ed... how many years of actual playing experience do you have?

Let's see... I've played at various levels for.. hmm... about 23-24 years
now. I've coached the game at the lower levels, and been an assistant at
slightly higher levels.

And yourself???

>>So Ed, have you ever actually PLAYED basketball??
>Meek, have you ever really followed basketball? You know, this is the NBA,
>not your neighborhood pick-up games...

Immaterial. I take it from your lack of response that you have never
played the game, but only 'followed it'. Well, I've been 'following' the
game since the early 70s, as well as playing it since then as well. I come
from a family that was very into basketball, and my father was an excellent
ball player.

And you?

>>The NBA Guide DOES list Phil as a member of that team.
>Not in the stats. And as you admitted in the Baylor case, being in the
>picture wasn't enough. Better contradict yourself again.

Really? Please show where I 'admitted this'. This should be interesting.
I don't ever remember claiming anything the involved Baylor and his picture
in the NBA Guide...

>>Heheh.. you are hilarious.. 'Who cares what you, Martin, Judd, and all those
>>Knicks player, not to mention reporters, authors, sports references, etc..
>>all think. Who cares what other NBA sources also think... ED LOR thinks
>>it didn't matter'
>Yes, Meek, you get it right, as you later learned...

Good... so you admit that I 'get it right'. Nice admission that we were all
right to begin with...

>>But, do I think that certain things will assist players/teams in
>>such circumstances?
>Dumbo, if they don't need motivation to play in game 7 of the finals,
>then those "certain things that assist players/teams" are not reasons
>but theatrics. Because even without those intangible things to assist
>them, the players would still have played the way they played. That's

Prove it... Prove that those players would have played the same way without
the extra motivation. As such motivation is very often cited as the
factor that mattered the most, prove that all these cases are wrong...

>>it's a lie? Got any proof that all these people who felt this way are
>>in error?
>Well, from your own testimony, that players do not need motivation to
>play in game 7 of the finals. In other words, they wouldn't even need Reed's
>theatrical entrance to motivate them.
>
>I am glad that in this regard, you agree with me, albeit slowly...

Bzzzt.... Nice try, no soup for you...

A player needs no motivation to play in game 7 of the finals. This does
not mean that the extra motivation doesn't help.

I need no 'motivation' to do my job. I do my job very well, and I get
paid very well for it. If someone offers me additional motivation, say
a big bonus, will this make me work even harder? Yep, it sure will...

>>We have many, many sources saying that the emotional lift of such events
>>is a big help, often being cited as one of the main reasons, yet you
>>still cling to your belief that 'it doesn't matter'.
>Well, who cares about the many many sources? At least in this regard,
>you agreed that it didn't matter, since you agreed that no one would
>need motivation to play in game 7 of the finals. The event itself is
>enough motivation to demand the absolute best from the players.

Bzzt... No where did I say that the extra motivation didn't matter.
Getting someone to play, getting someone motivated to play well, and
getting that player to play with the best motivation possible are different
things.

The event itself is not necessarily enough to demand the absolute best from
the players.

>>Either provide some
>>proof that the beliefs of all these people are wrong, or shut up...
>Dumbo, if you want me to shut up, you should have rejected in the first
>place the premise that players don't need psychological boost to play
>in game 7 of the finals. As of now, it's too late for you to wimp out...

Nope.. You haven't shown that the EXTRA motivation wasn't helpful. You
need no motivation to eat. You do it irregardless of anyone motivating
you. But, if I offer you $1000 to eat, I bet you'd be more willing to
do it. Was the $1000 required to get you to eat? Not necessarily. But,
does it provide you with 'EXTRA' motivation? Of course.

>>Yes, the Knicks were the better team and were expected to
>>win and were playing at home, so the Lakers losing was no big surprise.
>>But, having Reed come on the court provided an emotional lift that inspired
>>the teammates to play even harder.
>Or playing in game 7 of the finals itself is enough of an emotional
>lift for the team. Remember, they don't need motivations. If that is
>something you don't even need, how could you even say that as the reason
>for their win?

See above, over and over again. Notice that I never said 'Reeds presence
made them decide to play'. They played the game irregardless of Reeds
presence. However, the emotional lift provided by Reed caused an EXTRA
motivation that caused them to try even harder.

Another example...

If someone has a knife in their hand, and tells you to push it away as hard
as you can, you may try to push it. You may even try to push it hard.

If that same person says 'I'll give you $1000 to push the knife away', you
will likely try very hard, as that $1000 now represents an EXTRA incentive
to try hard.

If that same person threatens you with that knife, trys to kill you with it,
and puts it at your throat, I'd guess you'd push as hard as you possibly
could, and the EXTRA motivation would allow you to push even harder than in
the 1st or 2nd example.

See, you don't NEED the $1000 or life threatening experience to push it away,
but they help.

I'd say a regular season game is like the first example. The playoffs/finals
are like the 2nd example, and the Reed emotional lift is more like the 3rd
example.

>>Sure you can. You can discount it in the same way you can the effect Reed
>>had (or Isiah, etc..) on his teammates.
>Then you contradict yourself: no motivation needed to play in game 7
>of the finals.

No contrandiction.

I need no motivation to expose your idiocy. If someone offered me $1000 to
do it, I'd be even more motivated. If someone said they would kill me if
I didn't, I'd be exceptionally motivated..

>
>>Being more motivated, pumped up, or excited,
>But dumbo, no motivation needed, how can it be more motivated? Meek, you
>really are clueless...

Well, if you can't figure this one out, you may want to think about the
real meaning of 'clueless'.

If the aforementioned example don't help, let me know...

By the way, what took so long... I posted this quite awhile ago...

[Dave Meeks]

In article <4rv2iq$c...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
>In <4qfqn9$6...@cbs.ksu.ksu.edu>, udd whined:

>>nerve of him to dispute you! (and the nerve of him to play Barnett at
>>guard. Dick would have been a better back-up center -- heh-- the senile
>>old man!) Next.
>OK, so you thought Phil Jackson was on that team too. Geez, I wonder how
>many minutes he played...

That's odd Ed... In the text you have decided to respond to, I see no
mention of Phil Jackson...

>>Remember, Walt is full of BS, and the pyschological factor both spoke of
>>is overrated. Ed knows.
>Exactly, udd, this is the first time you show a little knowledge about
>the NBA, especially how the players perceive game 7 of the finals...

Bwahahah.. this is hilarious Ed... So, you are claiming that Walt,
Wilt, Magic, Bird, etc... all those players that talk about these
psychological factors are lying to us? They are telling deliberate
untruths, when in REALITY, their perception was very different...

And by what magical means did you divine this information? Jedi Mind Trick??

>>Oooops, Ed not know about Wilt
>>vs. Phoenix....Ed, better see if it in Stat Book. I wonder if Ed know
>>Wilt block 6 Connie Hawkins shots in one game?
>Yes, that's 1970, and you saw Wilt block 6 Hawkins shots. I wonder what
>constitute a block shot in 1970. Better see if that's in your imagination.
>I could have swore that block shots weren't recorded until 1973-74...

Good then you don't swear much then. Whether or not the blocked shot
stat was recorded until 1973-74 does not mean that such information wasn't
kept or wasn't something that could be figured out.

>> Basketall 010: A pass goes from point A to point B. If a hand
>>gets between the line connecting A and B, the ball will deflect.
>Oh, dumbo, so a hand can get between to deflect the pass? so is the
>receiver supposed to guard against that? Afterall, it would cost his team
>a possession...

So, if I make a pass from 20 feet away, and someone 3 feet from the passer
deflects it (making that person 17 feet away from the guy who's supposed
to receive it), is it the receiver's fault for not getting the ball?

In football, if Troy Aikman tries to throw a pass to Michael Irvin, who's
wide open in the end zone, but the ball is deflected at the line of scrimmage,
is Michael Irvin now to blame because he didn't defend against it??

In baseball, if the coach calls a blind hit & run play, and the runner
takes off for 2nd base, and the hitter hits a line drive to the first baseman,
who then also tags the base for the double play, is it the runners fault?

In basketball, if Isiah Thomas passes the ball to Bill Laimbeer, who is wide
open for the basket, and Bill bobbles the ball and drops it out of bounds,
is it Isiah's fault?

Likewise, if Bill Laimbeer is open under the basket, and Isiah goes to pass
the ball to him, but John Stockton deflects the pass while guarding
Isiah, is it Bill Laimbeer's fault?

Finally, if Bill Laimbeer is under the basket, with good offensive position,
but being guarded by Robert Parish, and Isiah makes what looks like a good
pass, but Larry Bird leaves Dennis Rodman and deflects the ball before it
reaches Laimbeer, who's fault is it then?

>> You can't understand this, Ed.
>udd, stop talking about understanding. From all these articles, you don't
>even grasp the responsibility of a team game. You think a player is off
>the hook if he has done only his job, even though his team gets blown out...

As opposed to you, who thinks that a player who plays well but sees his
team lose deserves a 'large chunk of the blame'. You would probably be
the only person in the world that thought Michael Jordan deserved a
'large chunk of the blame' for letting his team get swept in the first
round of the playoffs in 85-86. A guy who scored 43.7ppg, with 6.3rpg, 5.7apg,
50.5% FG%, 2.3spg, and 1.3bpg had a 'bad series' in your mind. Based on your
logic, since he was by far the team's best player, he deserves the large
majority of the blame for that team getting swept, right?

>> Forcing a bad pass is even worse.
>What about forcing a bad pass? we are talking about whether the center
>has the responsibility to prevent the steal, one alternative is to step out
>to get the ball. Apparently you can't grasp this...

Obviously stepping to get the ball, on occasion, is the right thing to do.
However, if you have any clue about the game, you'd realize that this is
not always the thing to do, and often CAN'T be done to prevent the steal.

Look at the following diagram:

---------
| O |
| |R
| |3 W EB
| | 2D
---------
\ / 1 WF
\ / JW
----

In this diagram, O represents the basket, R is Reed, W is Wilt, D is
DeBusschere, WF is Walt Frazier, JW is Jerry West, and EB is Elgin Baylor.

If Jerry West has the ball, with Walt Frazier guarding him, if he sees
that Wilt has good low post position, he may try to pass down into him.

In this simple diagram, simplified so you may understand, the ball has at
least 3 places it can be deflected away or stolen.

At (1), Walt Frazier could deflect the pass and/or steal the ball at the
point of attack.

At (2), Dave DeBusschere (or the other players) could 'help' or cheat off
his man, knowing that they were looking to pass down into Wilt, and he
could try and knock away the pass well before it gets to Wilt.

And (3), Willis Reed, who would be playing behind Wilt trying to push him
off the box (not tall or mobile enough to be effective playing in front),
could reach around and punch the ball away as it reached Wilt.

There is no way that Wilt can prevent (1) or (2). Wilt's job, and the only
thing he could/should be doing is preventing (3) from occuring.
And even then, if the pass is made poorly, or the pass is made when the
defensive player is in good position to make the steal, it becomes more of
a shared responsibility. The passer is at fault for the bad pass, and the
post man needs to do whatever they can to prevent the turnover.

See... simple.. Wilt can really only prevent the steal/turnover in one of
those three places.

Now, once it reaches Wilt, that's another story. If Wilt has the ball, from
the reports we have read/seen, the team tended to sag down on him, and double
or even triple team him.

>> Wilt failed to dominate the backup center (a.k.a. Nate Bowman)
>backup center wasn't necessarily Nate Bowman...

Sure it was. A player who has to guard Wilt due to positional situaitons is
not considered a 'center'. What Judd refers to as the 3 forward/2guard lineup
is just that. DeBusschere may have had the primary task of guarding Wilt,
but that's a matchup issue. It does not make him a center. And, it does
not mean you would refer to him as a 'center'. In fact, look at your trusty
NBA Guide. See him listed as a Center? G/F, yet, but not center. He was
not listed as a center, was not announced or presented as a center, and will
not be recorded as the center position (unlike Magic, who was introduced
as the Center at the beginning of the game). He had the defensive assignment
in many cases, but that does not make him the center.

>
>> DeBusschere was a center
>DeBusschere played center in the 2nd half of game 5.

No he didn't. Not by any realistic definition of it. He GUARDED the
opposing center in the 2nd half of game 5. That's it. As mentioned
previously, a standard practice in basketball is to try to force switches
that expose mismatches. One that is often done in todays game is to try and
switch so the guard/center defensive assignments get mixed, so the center
is out on the wing guarding the quicker guard, and the small guard is
guarding the big center down low (also done with other positions). Even
though that 5'10" PG may be guarding the Center that trip down, or maybe
even on many trips due to circumstances, this does not make him a Center in
any way, shape, or form.

>> Phil Jackson wasn't a Knick in 1970
>That's from his bio. I think that has more credibilities than any picture...

Really, his bio said 'Phil Jackson wasn't a Knick in 1970'?

Which bio said that??

>> 21 pts and 24 rebounds is not a dominating performance
>any stats in a blowout (27 point half-time defcicit, 25 point 3rd
>quarter deficit) was dominating.

Cool.. now you agree with us... I don't know if I'd go quite as far as
'any stats in a blowout was dominating', but much better than your previous
assertion that is wasn't..

Nice to see you on our side...

>> An intercepted pass to the post is the fault of the post man
>An intercepted pass make the post man faultless...

As shown above, in 2 of the 3 common ways such a thing can occur, the
post man would indeed be faultless. And,

>1) playing 69 games was without his serivce for most of the season

- depends purely on interpretation. Don't know what 'serivce' is
though, but I'll assume you mean 'service'. We've shown over
and over that this could (and did) mean the performance Reed was
normally giving his team.

>2) Reed was a member of the 1972 runner-up

- He was, in fact, a member of that team. He was not a member of
the active roster on the 1972 playoff roster.

>3) I claimed that Dick Barnett was a backup center

- Based on your nitpicky method of trying to look at people's comments,
it could easily be argued.

>4) Phil Jackson was a member of the 1970 championship team

- indeterminate. Conflicting sources of information.

>5) a player had a dominating performance when the game was lost by half
> time

- Happens all the time.

>9) the 1-3-1 was illegal

- shown already

>10) there exist admission from Knicks players that they cheated with
> an illegal offense.

- shown through induction.

>> Ahhhhhhhh....one man is responsible for the outcome. Just like
>>Jordan failed to dominate against the Celtics with those 63 points.
>udd, Jordan helped his team to double OT. With Wilt's help, game 7
>was over by the 2nd quarter. Are you saying that the Lakers could have
>done much worse without Wilt? I see, the Lakers would have been down by 35
>without Wilt, rather than just down by 27 with Wilt...

What was that you said about 'bottom line' Ed? Whether your team loses by
13 pts, like Wilt's did, or 4pts, like the Bulls did should be immaterial
to you.

And, let's not forget the fact that at least Wilt's team didn't get swept.
Wilt's team went 7 games. Michael's 44ppg, 6rpg, 6apg, 2spg, 1bpg was
not very 'dominating', since his team got swept, right?

Then, why did Bird mention him being a god???

>> Oh yeah, forgot who I was dealing with. Wilt only had one quality
>>playoff series against Russell (1967). All of the others were just great
>>big flops. Wilt choked.
>Well, look at 1968 and 1969. Geez, Wilt was on the teams that blew a 2-0
>and a 3-1 lead. He might have great stats, did he know anything about
>finishing off the opponents?

Really? Which team was that in 1968?

In 1968, we have:

Boston 107 - LA 101 Boston 1-0
Boston 113 - LA 123 Tied 1-1
Boston 127 - LA 119 Boston 2-1
Boston 105 - LA 119 Tied 2-2
Boston 120 - LA 117 Boston 3-2
Boston 124 - LA 109 Boston wins 4-2

In 1969, the Lakers went down 0-2 to San Francisco, losing both games
at home, but came back and won 4-2, then took the finals 4-1. In the finals
the series was played exactly like expected, with the home team
winning each game up until the final game 7. In a series where there was
only 1 game decided by more than 9 pts, and the average margin of victory
was about 5.6ppg, it came down to game 7, as expected. Boston pulled out
a 2 pt victory.

In 1969-70, the Lakers were down 3-1 to the Suns, but came back to win
in 7 games. Again, seems like he knows how to fight back from adversity.
They swept the conf. finals. In the NBA Finals, the series went:

LA 112 - NY 124 NY 1-0
LA 105 - NY 103 Tied 1-1
LA 108 - NY 111 NY 2-1
LA 121 - NY 115 Tied 2-2
LA 100 - NY 107 NY 3-2
LA 135 - NY 113 Tied 3-3
LA 99 - NY 113 NY Wins 4-3.

Where was this blowing a 3-1 lead in 68 or 69???

>>2 of us.
>Well, then go ahead. I'll trust the fact that players get up psychologically
>for game 7 of the finals no matter what.

Which means, of course, you believe that those players who claimed the
effects this psychological boost provided were important are all lying, right?

[Dave Meeks]

In article <4s0mac$f...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
>In article <4r0ndt$m...@uvmark.vmark.com>,

>Dave Meeks <da...@uvmark.vmark.com> wrote:
>>Gotta love how Ed keeps harping on the qualifications of the Big Eight schools
>>from an academic standpoint. So Ed, just where did you go to school again?
>
>Geez, I don't even want to say, but since you force me. But please keep it
>to yourself...

Bwahahahah.. .Ed attempts humor... Not very good, but it shows imagination...

However, it still avoids the question. Ed likes to cast stones and criticize
others, but seems to fear rebuttal and avoids revealing his scholastic
backgrounds. Wonder why? I have no problem with the knowledge that I went
to one of the top rated engineering schools in the country, and got my
degree in one of the more difficult double majors.

What's the matter Ed, afraid that you will embarrass your self??

So, just how is life in Middletown, NJ??

>I went to Purdue, got a master in EECS, but since that degree is virtually

As a note, Purdue doesn't have a EECS degree. The official notation would
be CEE, for Computer and Electrical Engineering. Last I looked, they were
only rated in the top 6 or so schools in the nation for such a degree.

>useless. It could only get me a job in some software junkyard (V****) overseas
>(over Lake Ontario, you know). I decided to threw away that degree and got

Damn Ed.. if you want to try and be funny, at least try and figure out what
you are talking about.

This 'software junkyard', as it were, is the dominate player in its market,
by a large margin. They have offices around the world, including 'overseas'
in Canada. We have development branches in England, Australia, Germany, and
the US. And, this junkyard pays me very nicely, thank you very much...

Oh yeah, just so you know, the main office, where I work at, is located in
the Boston area.

>for a football scholarship in KSU. You know, I am not good enough for
>Nebraska or Oklahoma...

Obviously not the way you write... 'you decided to THREW away that degree
and GOT for a football scholarhip IN KSU.' Damn Ed, my 8 year old writes
better than that. Maybe you should try for that scholarship in football,
it might just be the only way you will get into a major university...

>>And no, we aren't interested in your Buck Rogers Day Camp... We want this
>>year, not last...
>I haven't gone to school for a long time, not since I couldn't make the KSU

The way you write, it isn't very surprising...

>How so? where did he claim that "THAT" == "Reading Knicks books' and ignore tha
>ass-kissing?

Where did the 'ass-kissing' even come into play? You just stick a sentence
amongst 3 others, two of which are asking questions, and then when he
responds in a clear fashion to address your two questions, you try to affix
his response to some meaningless 'ass-kissing' comment?

>>Easy. The two paragraphs effectively answer your two questions. See, a
>>nice correlation there. You ask two questions, Judden gives two answers.
>>Works nicely that way.
>I ask two questions, then I made a comment. He responded immediately to the
>comments. Sure, it works nicely...

You ask two questions, make a comment, and then make another comment.
He responds, very clearly, two the two questions asked and doesn't bother
even recognizing the 'ass-kissing' juvenile statement. The 'ass-kissing'
statement wasn't the first, wasn't the last, wasn't the most important,
wasn't the one asking for a response (via the questions), etc...

Only you (and from the response so far, it IS only you) could equate that
conversation as a response to the 'ass-kissing' portion...

Truly only you...

[Dave Meeks]

In article <4s0l9p$f...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
>In article <4r9u7u$2...@fox.ksu.ksu.edu>,

>
>But I won't let you off the hook. I'll keep pursuing you on your claimed

>You know, seeing children making lies in a lost course is really fun.

Man you are perverted... having fun watching children making lies while
they are lost on the course... Geesh... Have some sympathy for those
poor children.. Hopefully, that was a lost golf course, at least there the
grass is soft...

>>nothing he can say can change it.
>Sure can. You don't determine the facts.

And apparantly you do???

>Are there any net.police around here?

Yeah, we need to send them after those children on the lost course...

[Air Judden]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>I went to Purdue, got a master in EECS, but since that degree is virtually

>useless. It could only get me a job in some software junkyard (V****) overseas
>(over Lake Ontario, you know). I decided to threw away that degree and got

>for a football scholarship in KSU. You know, I am not good enough for
>Nebraska or Oklahoma...

Ed must have been on an island, or something.

Ed, for your information, KSU has handed the Sooners 3 consecutive
butt kickings. This year, the Cats handed the Sooners the worst
in their history 49-10 (previous worst was also by KSU).
For the 3rd straight year, the Cats finished the season ranked
higher than the Sooners and did better in the Big 8.
This year, the Cats turned out more all Big 8 players than the
Sooners.

Go read about yourself: www.ksu.edu

If you were not good enough for Okalahoma, you certainly weren't
good enough for KSU, so in the fine words of Ed Lor-yer: LIE!

>The degree in Purdue is really the low point in my life.

Worse than the butt-kicking you've taken from me? Man, I really
feel for you!
BTW, did Dave take your lunch money every day, and that's why you
don't like him?

Judden

[Air Judden]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>>>Barnett = center? you care to cite where I stated Barnett as a center?
>>
>> I'll show you where you DIDN'T know he was a guard and was thought he
>>was a center.

>Well, so I didn't know that he was a guard, and I asked whether he was the
>back-up center, but this is not that same as "stated Barnett as a center".

You don't know he was a guard, yet you act like you know what you
were talking about in the 1970 series. As I've proven over and over...you
do not.

>I can't wait to see what you are going to show...

Say no more...

"3) 1970 F, the Knicks had Willis Reed injured in game 5, yet the
Lakers were still blown out in games 5 & 7. Wilt, the supposed dominant
force, couldn't win the game single-handedly against a back up (was it
Dick Barnett)."

Since we use literal interpretations (Ed rules). Look at the last
4 words and the period. No question mark. It was not a question, it was
a statement. Heh heh. Next!

>>>-- The Knicks admitted that they cheated with an illegal offense
>>
>> Nope. I proved it.

>Dumbo, even if you proved it, that doesn't qualify as the Knicks'
>own admission. If they had admitted it, you wouldn't have had to
>prove it.

>Are you really that stupid?

Ed, you are the only one arguing with a proven point. What is next,
you are going to make me prove that they DIDN'T shoot on an 11 foot goal in
game 5? Only you go to the absurd.

>>>-- The 1972 runner-up had Willis Reed on it
>>
>> Strike 4

>Yep, strike 4 for you...

Most original comeback since "nope" and "what you say is what you are"
Ed, you are the master of the quick comeback!

>> E proves his Kindegarden reading again. If there was any question,
>>the paragraph spells it out.

>Well, udd, but I have NO question. I only saw that you associate the 'hobby'
>with ass-kissing, the immediate context.

Because you can't read and hold past thoughts in memory. Reading 2
paragraphs and putting them together? Ed, I bet you got slaughtered on those
English writing exercises. Must be all those drugs Lucent keeps injecting in
your head.

>> E, we SAVED you from Fester. He was plugging away on you and we
>>decided that some newbie cockroach wasn't going to pick on our kid net-brother.
>>Only we can do that. So we proceeded to "erase" him.

>udd, you sure are dreaming. When two grown-ups are fighting on the net,
>new kid like you always want to be part of it, just to validate himself as
>'being there', sort of like the MJ vs Bird shooting contest in the McDonald
>commercial when a second fiddle like Barkley butt in: can I play?

Sure Ed. Fester was just too scared of you and your 2 of 12 logic.
Ha! The boy was being battered on the Iavaroni/Paxson-Cartwright issue.
Between my pointing out these 2, and Dave pointing out the San Antoinio thing,
and Martin dropping the Drexler/Maxwell bomb on him, Fester dissolved.
It was almost as bad of a butt kicking as we've handed you.

Only Fester knew when to leave and lick his wounds.

Judden

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In <4r0msp$16...@uvmark.vmark.com>, Day Meek whined:

>No, YOU should be more careful. In no way could this reference be used to
>bind it to 'ass-kissing'. It wasn't the primary point of the paragraph, it
>wasn't the questions being asked, and it wasn't even the final line of the
>paragraph.

whose rule is it that a comment has to be always considered an answer to a
question asked?

You started a paragraph with "NO, YOU should be more careful". What question
did I ask you that you started with "NO"?

>Bzzt... Even if Judden wanted to be an 'ass-kisser', as it were, there
>would be no requirement for him to read Knicks books.

Sure would be, to find out how great the Knicks were. Afterall, losing to
a great opponent is always a great boost/no shame...

>Besides, since when
>was Wilt ever a New York Knick, so why would a Wilt 'ass-kisser' be required
>to read Knicks books?

Since when is a Wilt ass-kisser prohibited from reading books of other
teams?

>But, the 'ass-kisser' was just a comment buried within the entirety of the
>paragraph, and no one but you would look at his paragraph and think he was
>responding to that.

Wrong, the ass-kisser was a comment to summarize his professional
aspiration, and he responded that with a "hobby". No one but you three
Stooges would look at his "hobby" response as something else.

>Based on your comments, and standard English and net.posting rules, his
>response in this paragraph will either be bound to the questions

Dumbo, which standard net.posting rules stating that a response has to
be an answer to a question? did you follow that rule yourself?

See, what question did you respond to when you said

"NO, YOU should be more careful"?

>(as the
>questions were the thing inquiring for a response) or the final statement
>in the paragraph, not just a particular word/phrase/sentence within that
>paragraph you feel you can make a stupid point with.

Show me who stated this net.posting rule?

And the final statement in the paragraph? It's

"He certainly needs something like you to build his credentials".

This statement itself doesn't make sense if he responded with "This is
a hobby", but couple with the previous statement

"The way I see it, the job that best suits you is to be
Wilt's ass-kisser. He sure needs someone like you to build his
credentials..."

then it makes sense. Since these two statements tell how the two of
them are match made in heaven...

>Heh... how you got from 'ticked by this comment' to 'may not have a real job
>in the future' is remarkable. Just where do you pull this crap out of?

Easy, by observing losers like you on the net. You know, people who are
insecure about a certain aspect of their lives are particularly ticked
when questions of that aspect is raised. E.g. your company, your job, etc,
it's like a losing coach getting upset when he's second guessed...

>>To illustrate exactly how overcautious the Lakers were, Jerry West

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>took only two shots in the second half. And Chamberlain, with all

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>that height advantage, could score only four more points".

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>
>Very nice. Now, where does he claim that the 1-3-1 offense used by the
>Knicks was used for defensive purposes?

Idiot, look at how Spitz stated the effect of the 1-3-1 offense.

>He claims that it confused them
>and made them very overcautious, and this carried over onto the offensive
>end. Common thing that happens.

Well, it may be common in your ass. I think it's more common that the
Knicks' aggressive defense was the reason that stop the Lakers offense,
as it's accounted in several books...

>>-- anything besides reading Knicks books to argue here?
>>you answer "That's a hobby", it still doesn't makes sense.
>
>Sure does. You ask about he does anything but 'reading Knicks books to argue
>here', and he responsds that this is just a hobby.

Yes, I asked him what else he did besides reading Knicks books, and
he told me the reason of reading Knicks books. How does that answer
the question "what else he did"?

>In other words, for your simple
>mind, he reads Knicks books as a hobby.

for your screwed-up mind, that's not an answer to the question: what
else he did...

>In the second paragraph, he deals directly with your first question.

I couldn't care less about his second paragraph. The "that's a hobby"
part didn't answer either question:

1) what work does he do?
2) anything besides reading Knicks book?

>But you lie on that issue. 'ass-kissing' was in no way the 'immediate
>context'.

It is, the two statements was about his ass-kissing and how bad Wilt
needed it...

>Your paragraph consisted of two questions.

Lie. My paragraph consisted to more comments, about ass-kissing...

>His response consisted of
>two paragraphs, each dealing with one of those questions.

His response was immediately towards the comments, about ass-kissing...

>Your second question deal with his reading Knicks books to argue here.

Lie. My second question:

"anything besides reading Knicks books to argue here?"

>His first paragraph dealt with the fact that reading Knicks books was just
>a hobby.
His first comment immediately follows the comments about ass-kissing.

>Pretty simple...
pretty dishonest on your part...

>What you've done is similar to the following example:

Dumbo, if you don't know how to answer questions, don't assume that
I am as ignorant as you are...

See how I answer questions:

>'Ed, where do you work?

Lucent.

>Are you even from this country?

Yep

>Just wondering, because you seem to be lying all the time.

Well, what you seemed like is not the truth, while it's a fact that
you put up lies like:

1) Floyd Goodrish supported you
2) 4-1 != 4-1
3) I flamed people like crazy in r.s.f.p
4) the Knicks admitted that their offense was illegal ...

>You sure need someone to help you with this.'

See, Meek, if you want to learn how to answer questions, just ask...

>In your example, in such a situation, your 'Yes I am' must be bound
>to you being an liar, and we could then use that as admission that you
>always lie.

But Meek, I don't answer questions your dumb way. So your example is
shot...

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4s1epi$9...@cbs.ksu.ksu.edu>,

Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
> We can't define what we say (without services), remember?

Dumbo, "service" has a standard meaning in sports. Check out the record books
in baseball and football and see what "service" means. Are you saying that
you want to wimp out "service" as a typo?

>since you
> had no question mark, you stated that Barnett was a center.

Really? but I didn't put a period there either. How then did I state
"Barnett was a center" AS A STATEMENT?

>Heh heh. Ed rules--gotta love em.

Well, no matter what rule it is, you still can't find one to claim
"was it Dick Barnett" a statement...

> Willis didn't play any minutes in game 6. Was he not on the Knicks'
>team that game?

Well, since you asked, the answer is "NO". In that game, the Knicks
had these players: Barnett, Bowman, Bradley, DeBusschere, Frazier,
Hosket, Riordan, Russell, Stallworth, Warren. Check out the boxscore.

Now answer it, how many minutes did Phil Jackson play in 1970?

> I judged what Magic said about Kareem and I'm still awaiting your
>response.

In which do-or-die playoff game was Kareem in a situation that his
teammates feeds to him (not too tough to handle) kept getting stolen?
You'll get no response from me until you can identify such a situation.

>>>With no Wilt, the thing would have been a Knick sweep.
>>udd, you are an idiot. How do you know it would have been a Knick sweep
>>without Wilt? Hey, you can speculate, so can I. I speculate at least
>>a 4-3 series, now what?
>
> How about 4-1 in 1972...even WITH Lucas!

udd, you predict a Knick sweep without Wilt. What about 4-1 in 1972?
Were the Lakers without Wilt in 1972? and who swept whom in 1972?
Go ahead, speculate again, but you have no monopoly on speculations...

>And they still had your
>first choice for back-up center (Barnett).

Really? when did I state that Barnett was a back-up center? you care to
show the **statement**?

> BTW, will you not respond to Michael? Did he not dominate because
>the Bulls' lost?

What about Michael? Did his team get blown out? Ask me again about a
player whose team got blown out. Let me give you a couple samples:

1985 Memorial Day Massacre or game 3
1986 game 2 or 6
1987 game 2 or 5
1991 game 2 or 4
1992 game 1
etc.

>>>With no Wilt, Phoenix would have beaten them in the first round.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>More udd speculation. With no Wilt, the Lakers would still have beaten

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>Phoenix in the first round.
>
> Phoenix took the lead in the series WITH Wilt. Then Wilt went on
>a tear and lead them back. Doah! Ed flaunts his lack of knowledge about
>1970....once again. How....suprising!

udd, I just can't imagine how hypocritical you are. You mean only you
can speculate and I can't? Go home and play with Martin. Your rule doesn't
apply here...

>>I could have swore that block shots weren't recorded until 1973-74...
>
> How about from "Foul! The Connie Hawkins story?"

What about it?

>Naw, Hawk doesn't know what a blocked shot is!

Probably not, since it's not scored officially as a block shot.

>Then Wilt repeats it (pretty sure) in the Wilt book. 2 guys agreeing
>on the same thing?

Oh, now you need 2 guys agreeing on the same thing? Hey, where is the
other guy agreeing on the illegal offense? I am still waiting...

>>udd, is that something you can't argue? faking as Wilt's mind-reader
>>isn't going to save your inability to face the facts...
>
> This is demonstrating how absurd your arguement is.

this also demonstrates that my argument is valid, since you can only
use sarcasm to side-step it...

> That's not the back-up center.

You mean a fourth-string center is not a back-up center? You know what
a back-up means?

> Hey! Barnett was 11th string center! You are right! How silly of
>me to argue with you!

At least you get one count right -- you are silly alright.

>>Better not, since in your dismal mind, you may think that in a 3 forward
>>lineup, the 3 Knicks forwards must be playing Erickson and Baylor, and
>>no-one was playing Wilt...
>
> They double and triple-teamed Wilt. Since Barnett fell back at
>times, he was a center!!!!!

more nonsense. Does it mean you can't argue Debusshere's role as a center
in the 2nd half?

Good, udd, more side-stepping of the issue...

>>>>> That was the first time a team concentrated on stopping Wilt and
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> ....

> I did argue the content. You snipped the content.

Of course, because even the first conjunct of the content is false...

>The first time had 4 or 5 conditions listed. You snipped all but one.

When the first condition in a conjunction is false, you still want me to look
at the remaining ones? udd, did you fail that compiler class last semester?
are you repeating it in the summer?

You name should be changed to "Fudd". Yep, the big "F" is tailor-made
for you...

>>Wilt was lazy? Geez, I wonder whether this laziness contributed to the loss..
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Contributed? Ed, you put SOLE blame on Wilt!!! Or do I need to
>repost you accusation?

Yep, you need to. I want to see where I put the SOLE blame on Wilt. You
have a full-time job ahead of you: cite the quotes...

>Don't change your mind now, Ed. That would be called "admitting defeat."

Fudd, I don't have to change my mind. You, on the other hand, may have
a hard time to decide on a strawman as your opponent...

>>Why not? for a player of his statue, his lousy performance includes "fail to
>>take over the game", "fail to bail out his teammates", "fail to rise to
>>the occasions", etc.
>
> Jordan 63 points. Nuff said.

Jordan's team didn't get blown out. Nuff said...

> Nope. you put the reason of the loss ONLY on Wilt.

Care to cite it?

>That is why I have argued with you all along.

Nope, you have argued with me all along because you are smarting on the
Oscar/Magic war. Yet you are still getting nowhere on the Wilt thread,
instead, you put yourself in a hole by using more bogus arguments...

> Ed, I have put 3 new posts last week for you. I await a reply. I

You'll get your reply. Just be patient. Hey, you are not the only patient
that needs therapy here. I have to take care of your fellow Stooges too...

> Oh Ed.... you put fuel on my fire. Note: I prove your Kareem-Wilt
>double-standard, and you only reinforce it.

Proof? not until you can identify a game that Kareem was slapped silly
with such turnovers (not too tough for him to handle). I can't wait...

> nope. they picked off passes in game 5. They picked off dribbles
>(when he tried to get around Reed early) in game 7.

^^
just for the record, who's this "he" you are talking about here? Be
careful about your confession here...

> Ed. Stop it. You're killing yourself! Believe me. I will use
>these statements once you try to justify Kareem!

Go ahead and use it. I am still waiting for you to show me the situation
that Kareem is hurting his team for letting his defenders steal the ball...

and Fudd, even if (big IF) Kareem is no better than Wilt in this aspect of the
game, you are still clueless why I choose Kareem over Wilt, aren't you?

> Show me proof of a double-team Ed.

Your own words acknowledging the double-team. In
<juddstud.832046889@gandalf>:

>2) In two crucial games in the finals, Wilt who couldn't beat a double
>team of DeBusschere and Stallworth, and couldn't beat the immobile Reed,
>yet you have nerve to rant and rave for his greatness constantly. You should be ashame of yourself.

Double to triple team. Ed, you're an idiot. You blame a teams'
loss on one guy who doesn't dominate multiple defenders when his teammates

can't hit open shots. Learn some basketball. Immobile Reed was
also a strong Reed.

I don't think I need proof when you acknowledged the double team of
DeBusschere and Stallworth...

>>> Reedless team in game 7
>>Reed was badly injured.
>
> We cannot define what we mean, remember? A literal interpretation
>of the first thing wrote is all that is allowed. Your rules.

Well, is that a confession that you screwed up in "without his service
in 1973"? No problem, so I'll take your confession.

Then let's see:

1) if we take the words literally,
you screwed up in 1973

2) if we don't take the words literally,
you still have no proof that the Knicks were without his service. You
used Bradley's testimony. I use Reed's own testimony to counter. Of course,
you apparently haven't read his book on his comeback season.

In other words, Fudd, whether you want to take the words literally
or not, you are still cooked...

> No question mark. This was a statement.

No period either, then it was not a statement.

> Ouch! Ed shoots himself in the foot for the 4th time on this!
> Kareem spits on you.

Kareem is still waiting for the do-or-die playoff game that you spit on
him.

> This argument stems from your analyis of Wilt on your thoughts of
>Wilt's 100 points. I slam your assessment. My whole argument hinges on
>proving you wrong. I successfully defend Wilt against your accusation,

Dumbo, you care to bring back what I said about Wilt in his 100 points?
That he's a playoff choker, one that should have had more rings than just
2. And you successfully defended Wilt? did you say anything about his
choking in 1965? 1968? 1969?

>I win.
You are so anxious of winning that you have to declare yourself some
phantom victory so many times. I wonder whether that's a reflection of
the losses in real life....

> I posted up 3 posts in which I go to the very core/root of your
>statements and take my chainsaw to you. My first attack is that I proved
>you knew nothing about the context of the 1970 games in question.

You in turn proved that you knew nothing about the 1970 games, especially
the facts, like

1) the existence of an illegal offense
2) the inclusion of Phil Jackson on the championship team
3) Wilt's big share of fault as testified by Holzman/DeBusschere

not to mention your distortions on subsequent seasons (72 and 73).

> The names of the posts are:
>
> Ed Lor-yer: Ouch! Doah! Ouch! Doah!

Nope, I didn't see this post. Better repost it.

> If you don't respond to these (namely 1 and 3), you acknowledge my
>victory. It is obvious I K.O.d you worse than Tyson did Spinx, but with
>this, even YOU will acknowledge it! I will have met my goal: Defend Wilt.

In turn, you have defended Wilt with more contradictions, distortions and hot
air. I hope that Wilt is not upset in your inepitute ass-kissing...

Oh, BTW, I slapped you silly on your rant and rave on Kareem in the
"Greatest player ever" thread, and Boston's injury excuse in the "Water
down" thread. I noticed that you didn't respond. Is it because it fully
exposed your hypocrisy again?

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4rveb8$3...@newserv.ksu.ksu.edu>,

Martin Shobe <kh...@unix.ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>Say Ed, it's sooo nice to see you back. For a second I thought you were wimping
>out. I mean, first you are telling jokes, and then you don't respond for a long
>time.

Wow, Sob, what's your problem? if you can respond to an article a month
after it's posted, what's a few days?

>Aren't these your idea of losing an arguement?

If it is, then your arguments are long lost. See, you have no guts to
to follow up on our own exchanges. Geez, there is a drawback on butting
into other's argument, like not even knowing the context...

>>Dumbo, what's outrageous? His FT attempts were more after Willis
>>was injured. Willis and Bowman committed many more fouls than before Wilis
>>was injured. What more do you want?
>
>You care to post the numbers?

Already did, in <4qlc07$2...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>.

>No substance? Let's see, quotes by the players, analysis of what happened.

Really? so only quotes by the players count? how about quotes by the coach?
What if Holzman "credited" Wilt for the Knicks' triumph? What about
quotes by DeBusschere?

>Yep, no substance.
Yep, when you use carefully selected substance to paint your picture.
That's selective journalism. It's not lying by putting up false information,
but lying by deliberately not revealing the whole picture...

>>Exactly, udd, this is the first time you show a little knowledge about
>>the NBA, especially how the players perceive game 7 of the finals...
>
>Yeah, all those players, coaches, etc. are wrong.

Yep, I've never seen other players who claimed to need extra motivation to
play in an NBA final game 7, or a WS game 7, or a Super Bowl, or a World
Cup final, or an Olympic Gold Medal game, etc.

>The people who were involved disagree with you, Ed. They all agree
>that the psychological factor was a major part of that game.

Well, that doesn't contradict what I said. I said that they don't need
extra motivation to play in a game 7/Super Bowl/Gold Medal game, etc.
The event itself should pump the players up sufficiently...

>>I speculate at least a 4-3 series, now what?
>
>Why? Who will slow down Willis Reed? Who will contain the other Knicks when
>they drive? Who will grab the 20+ rebounds?

You mean grab the 20+ rebounds in a blowout loss?

>Rick Roberson certainly wasn't up to the task.

Dumbo, when he said "without Wilt", I don't think he meant the Lakers
playing 4 vs 5, or was that what he really meant?

Who did they gave up to get Wilt? Darrell Imhoff and Archie Clark. And
they extended the Celtics to 6 games in the finals with both.

>>>With no Wilt, Phoenix would have beaten them in the first round.
>>More udd speculation. With no Wilt, the Lakers would still have beaten
>>Phoenix in the first round.
>
>They might have.

So they might still have beatn Phoenix. That's enough. In other words,
his speculation didn't get him anywhere...

>That would be altering the flight path of a ball when the opposing player is
>shooting.

And how do you know the exact # of blocks when it wasn't officially
scored?

>So blocks didn't exist then? Hmmm. You know I've heard an awful lot about some
>Russell fellow blocking a few shots, guess he must not have.

Right, a few shots. Can you say the exact number? when it wasn't scored
officially, how do you know exactly the # of blocks -- 6?

>He didn't say they left him unguarded. You still confused, Ed.

Oh, so they didn't left him unguarded? then what make Judd say that
DeBusschere wasn't a center on the court during that half?

>>>If you saw the video footage of game 7, you'd see that Willis
>>>hit 2 wide open shots. But you don't remember it, since they were Reedless.
>>Wow, udd, did Willis played the '1' in the 1-3-1? you got confused again...
>
>Look at the game number, Ed. Judd says that this is game 7. They played the
>1-3-1 in game 5. You got yourself confused, still.

Look which game we were talking about with the original quotes. Sob,
if you don't know the context, better do some checking first...

====================================================================
>> Wilt didn't defend him. He wouldn't follow DeBusschere out. Next.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Then who did Wilt defend? a zone? DeBusshere is the last '1' in the 1-3-1,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>designated to draw Wilt out of the low post. Mudd, you ought to learn
>more about the game...

Yep, he did zone and stayed toward the middle of the 1-3-1. It was

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

no secret Wilt didn't follow people outside that year (knee injury and

laziness). If you saw the video footage of game 7, you'd see that Willis
====================================================================

See, this is the stupidity of butting into other people's argument. Worse
yet, you have NO clue on the context of the argument...

>> so is the receiver supposed to guard against that?
>
>Not really.

Learn more about the game. It's apparent you know nothing about it...

>The receiver needs to run his part of the offense, it is the
>passers responsibility to make sure the passes don't get intercepted. (There

It's also the receiver's responsibility to make sure the passes don't
get intercepted. by going to the ball if necessary. Unless in your feeble
mind, a turnover is better than an out-of-position possession...

>>Well, for Wilt, probably not, because if the hand gets in front of him
>>to deflect the pass, then he's off the hook...
>
>Yep.

So you are saying that Wilt shouldn't do anything to prevent that. Well,
then he isn't a team player...

>Apparently you can't grasp the fact that this isn't a reasonable alternative.
>First of all, stepping out probably wouldn't have prevented steals. The players
>making the steals are already between Wilt and the ball.

Why is that? If Wilt stepped out as quick as his defender, how can his
defender be "already between Wilt and the ball"? Are you saying that
Wilt is that physically inept?

>In order to prevent
>the steals, Wilt would have to go *through* the defenders. Can you say "foul"?

I can say Wilt going agressively for the ball even before the defender
is between him and the ball. Can you say aggressively step up?

>And, guess what, Ed. That is a turnover, too.

guess what? Sob, that's 'prevent a turnoer'...

>Secondly, he is giving up position.

Which is not bad as compared to a turnover.

>If he has to do this, the pass should never have been made.

Wow, you mean Wilt has a very limited effective range? Geez, that doesn't
look like a player ranted and raved as the most dominant...

>>> We are talking about gameplans.
>>Dumbo, we were talking about psychological boost, now you have to wimp out
>>to gameplans?
>
>Looks liked you missed a context switch, Ed. Funny how often those get by you.

Well, when he can't argue the cases where psychological boost is not
a factor, better dodge this context. This indeed, is a gameplan to argue...

>> >2) In two crucial games in the finals, Wilt who couldn't beat a double
>> >team of DeBusschere and Stallworth, and couldn't beat the immobile Reed,
>> >yet you have nerve to rant and rave for his greatness constantly. You should be ashame of yourself.
>>
>> Double to triple team. Ed, you're an idiot. You blame a teams' loss

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> on one guy who doesn't dominate multiple defenders when his teammates can't
>> hit open shots. Learn some basketball.
>
>>Wow, it's your own words, an acknowledgemnet of double team by DeBusshere
>>and Stallworth. Udd, better keep track of what you wrote...
>
>Ed? Ed? Hello. Those are your words claiming that Wilt couldn't beat a double
>team of DeBusschere and Stallworth.

"Double to triple team". These aren't my own words. That's Judd's words.

>>> Reedless team in game 7
>>Reed was badly injured.
>
>Wilt wasn't exactly 100% either.

Really? where is it accounted?

>>> Phil Jackson wasn't a Knick in 1970
>>That's from his bio. I think that has more credibilities than any picture...
>
>Could you cite this, please.

I already did in <4q471h$k...@nntpa.cb.att.com>.

>>> Willis Reed wasn't a Knick in 1972
>>more imagination. Did you mention Knick or runner-up?
>
>Yes.

yes?? what's the answer?

>>> 21 pts and 24 rebounds is not a dominating performance
>>any stats in a blowout (27 point half-time defcicit, 25 point 3rd
>>quarter deficit) was dominating.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>
>Oh good. You do agree Wilt dominated. Now that that is settled....

I take it back. I meant to say "was not dominating".

>>> An intercepted pass to the post is the fault of the post man
>>An intercepted pass make the post man faultless...
>
>Nobody has said that. (Except you when trying to make straw-men.)

Nobody? so he was at fault too, probably a lot too (since the passes weren't
too tough to handle). What are you whining about then? and you even have
nerve to say

"The receiver needs to run his part of the offense, it is the
passers responsibility to make sure the passes don't get intercepted."

Are you admitting as a nobody?

>>1) playing 69 games was without his serivce for most of the season
>
>No screw up here. There are reasonable definitions of without his services that
>would make this true.

Where are these reasonable definitions? in other sports, sevice means
playing...

>>2) Reed was a member of the 1972 runner-up
>
>No screw up here. He was a member of that team.

He wasn't even eligible to play in the playoffs, so he wasn't a member
of the team that achieved runner-up...

>>3) I claimed that Dick Barnett was a backup center
>
>It's more like you didn't know that he wasn't,

So I didn't know that he wasn't. What's the problem here?

>and you still claim to know more
>about what went on than the people who were there.

Well, that's another matter. Not knowing Dick Barnett's position doesn't mean
not knowing that game 7 of the finals is enough of motivation for any
athletes...

>>4) Phil Jackson was a member of the 1970 championship team
>
>No screw up here, either.

There are documented evidence that he wasn't. So a definite screw-up
here on your part...

>>5) a player had a dominating performance when the game was lost by half
>> time
>
>Yep. It's happened before, it will happen again.

Well, such as? And who shared the opinion of you three Stooges
that his performance in game 7 was dominating?

>>6) an intercepted pass is better than having the ball slightly out of
>> position
>
>Your screwed up here. The claim is that the pass should never have been made at
>all.

And why is that? was the defender between Wilt and the passer when the
ball was passed? If not, why should the passes never have been made?
you mean the Laker guards should never have passed to Wilt even
DeBusshere/Stallworth was playing behind Wilt?

>>7) a player who can't help out his teammates should not be blamed
>
>Depends on what sort and how much. Nobody has claimed that Wilt was blameless.
>Just that most of the blaim should fall on his teammates.

Well, his teammates weren't playing an immobile defender in game 7,
or a forward giving 7 inches playing center in game 5. He teammates
didn't have opportunities of such mismatches. Wilt did...

>>8) a player who can't take advantage of an injured opponent should not
>> be blamed
>
>Last time I checked, outscoring your man by 16+ and outrebounding him by 18+ was
>taking advantage of someone.

the last I checked, Willis wasn't there to carry the offense. He couldn't
move. His main function was to defend Wilt. So when the game was out
of reach at half time (by 27 points), how many did Wilt outscore Reed
by that time?

>>9) the 1-3-1 was illegal
>
>No screw-up here.

No evidence here that it's illegal.

>>10) there exist admission from Knicks players that they cheated with
>> an illegal offense.
>
>No screw-up here.

Then show the admissions. You particularly claimed that the Knicks
admitted such a rule. Where did the Knicks admitted the existence of
such a rule?

>>udd, Jordan helped his team to double OT. With Wilt's help, game 7
>>was over by the 2nd quarter. Are you saying that the Lakers could have
>>done much worse without Wilt?
>
>Yes. He has said that.

Well, no team has ever rallied from a 27-point half-time deficit, or a
25-point 3rd quarter deficit, so how much worse can the Lakers get?

>> I see, the Lakers would have been down by 35
>>without Wilt, rather than just down by 27 with Wilt...
>
>Probably.

But there is no difference to the outcome. Down by 27 or 35 by half-
time is still a kiss of death...

>And that's assuming they manage to get to that game at all.

>>And you dare compare Jordan to Wilt?
>
>Both lost. The end result is the same.

The contributions to the game weren't. One contributed to double OT, one
contributed to game-over by half time.

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4s5ntv$m...@uvmark.vmark.com>,

Dave Meeks <da...@uvmark.vmark.com> wrote:
>Who's talking about CEO's.. Was Wilt the 'CEO'??

Wilt was the key player on the team, the chief executive player on court...

>Heck, he wasn't even
>the 'President'. It can even be argued that he wasn't even their #1 player,
>especially with him missing the majority of the season.

Well, you can argue it. He was the player the Knicks destined to stop,
in other words, I can easily argue that he was their #1 player..

>Are you really that naive Ed?

Not as naive as you are, by comparing my role on Lucent to Wilt's role
on the Laker squad...

>Bzzztt... Error. Does not compute. Ed, you have yet to show how Wilt
>'performed poorly'.

Yep, as the key player on a team that got blown out. How do they treat
the key player (CEO, president) of a corporation that goes bankrupt?

>In fact, we don't even know for a fact that the Lakers
>played exceptionally poor.

Well, you mean a 27 point deficit is not a measure of exceptionally poor?
Meek, don't spout your low standard on the net...

>The 'fact' is, they got beat by a team that
>was better than them, had home court advantage against them, etc.

Dumbo, just a year ago, they got beaten by a team that were supposed to
be over the hill, supposed to be inferior, without the HCA, etc.

>The team that was expected to win did just that.

Not to have the game over by the 2nd quarter. Of the final games 7
since the Celtics dynasty, how many of them were over for the road team
by the 2nd quarter? ***ONE***

Let's see...

1960 was a 2-OT game
1962 was an OT game,
1965 was a 2-point game,
1969 was a 3-point game
1974 was a rout by the road team
1978 was a 6-point game
1984 was a 3-point game in the last minute
1988 was a nail-biter
1994 was a 6 point game

There has never been a road team so unprepared to play a final game 7.
And Wilt was their key player...

So Meek, your excuses (HCA, superior team) don't wash...

>And, unless you can show how a guy
>who goes for 20+pts, 20+rebs, 60+% FG% in the game while holding his
>defensive assignment down had a 'poor game', you are blowing smoke.

Sure, he was the key of a squad that got blown out by the 2nd quarter.
There isn't even any contingencies ("unless") in his poor performance...

>If you want to argue that Wilt should have performed better, that's one
>thing. But, you have no basis to say he had a 'bad' game...

Sure do. Being the key player on a team that got blown out, by failing
to take advantage on a hugh mismatch. You know what happened to Bob
Pettit when he had such an advantage in 1958 game 6?

>>Irregardless of your ranting and raving for him, you will be very very hard
>>pressed to find someone to agree that a player on a team routed had a

^

>>very good game...
>
>Not at all. Happens all the time. Examples?? Sure...
>
>June 15th, 1994. Hakeem Olajuwon goes 14-20, grabs 8 rebounds, dishes out
>3 assists, scores 32 total points, and has 5 blocked shots...
>
>Yet his team still loses by 9... I'd call 32pts, 8rebs, 3assists, 5blocks
>on 70% shooting (and 100% from the FT line) a 'very good game'. Yet his
>team still got beat.

I wouldn't say a team loses by 9 a rout, especially when his team was
still winning in the 4th quarter.

>On April 20th, 1986, Michael Jordan scored the most points ever scored in
>a playoff game, 63 pts... Yet his team still lost.

Another dumb example. Was his team routed? Double OT!!!

So Meek, better find the proper qualifications (game being a rout) before
you pout...

>I'd say that even though his team got swept and blown out in 2 of those
>three games (19pts in one game, 18pts in the other), that Michael had a
>'very good series'...

I wouldn't say he had a very good series. MJ's legacy then, if any, would be
only in game 2 because he broke the record and that game was a classic.

Has anyone made a case for MJ for being dominant in game 1? MJ certainly
had more fame in other series (1989 vs Cleveland and NY, 1992 vs Portland,
1991 vs Lakers, etc) than in a series being swept.

>>other words, a performance doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has to be placed
>>in the proper context -- whether it contributed to the bottom line.
>
>Then you are stupid.

Wow, Meek, you are stupid beyond belief. Next.

>I guess Elgin Baylor has never been much of a player then, since he never
>once contributed to 'the bottom line', right?

Well, Elgin contributed to many series wins that led to 8 final appearances.
And Wilt was no slouch either, except with Wilt's talent, I think he
should be much more successful than only 2 rings...

>In your idiotic world, we should praise Stacey King but belittle and
>criticize Elgin Baylor.

In your idiotic world, you always have to resort to compare spot players
with franchise players. How come you never have the nerve to compare
franchise players vs franchise players? Is it because it will blow
your argument out of water?

>You need to wake up Ed, and realize that very few people in this world
>prescribe to your idiotic way of thinking.

You need to smell the coffee, Meek, lots of people prescribe to my way
of thinking, contribution to the bottom line, especially the leader of
a team. That's why the CEO gets the heat when the corporation is not
doing well.

>It seems you live in a binary world Ed, that's your problem...

Meek, if you refuse to accept reality, that's not my problem...

>Team Wins => Whatever contribution made, not matter how trivial, was positive
>Team Loses => Whatever contribution made, irregardless of how well played,
> is a negative or 'poor performance'

If you modify the requiremnets for the leader a little bit, you'll see the
lights. You know what a leader means, don't you?

>How do you know that West 'gave up' that role?

According to DeBusschere, Wilt wanted the ball and the game. That's why
he got 34 chances (FGA + FTA/2), West only got 26.5 chances...

>Using your standard paradigm of argumentation, my previous statement was
>specifically referring to 'Wilt dominating'. Your direct response was
>'according to Holzman, that's not the reason...' What else could you
>be referring to except 'Wilt dominating'.

A lot. Let's see what you said:

> Wilt had 21 points in these conditions and 24 rebounds. He held his
>couterpart to 4 pts and 3 rebounds and you claim he didn't dominate. You've
>tried to justify it every which way but loose, but when it comes down to

>it, Wilt dominated.
Well, according to Holzman, that's not the reason...

That's not "the reason" of what?

>So, you try to imply that
>'accoring to Holzman...' Wilt was not dominating...

Save your implication for lunch, unless you can bind "the reason" to
"Wilt's domination". I don't see how...

>Simple. using the same logic that you always use, your comment could only
>be referring to 'Wilt dominating', nothing else.

My comment has "the reason". Bind "the reason" first. How you can
bind "the reason" to "Wilt's domination" is beyond me...

>Forcing shots, irregardless of the state of the defender, is always a bad
>thing. And, I'd say that a player who scores 20+pts and grabs 20+rebounds
>is taking advantage pretty well.

I'd say you are pretty stupid, since 21 points vs a hobble opponent is
hardly enough, especially he just scored 45 in the previous game...

>Let's see... I've played at various levels for.. hmm... about 23-24 years
>now. I've coached the game at the lower levels, and been an assistant at
>slightly higher levels.

And I guess your teams got blown out a lot, that's why you only count
stats...

>Immaterial. I take it from your lack of response that you have never
>played the game, but only 'followed it'.

Immaterial, whether I played the game or not doesn't stop me from
following the game with logic and reality. That's why I didn't
response. So what if you had played the game, at amateur level, you
still don't know the essense of a pro game, like a business, play with only
one objective -- to win.

>Really? Please show where I 'admitted this'. This should be interesting.
>I don't ever remember claiming anything the involved Baylor and his picture
>in the NBA Guide...

Your admission:

==================================================================
Message-ID: <1994Aug18.1...@vmark.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 14:15:07 GMT

Just remember a couple of things...
1) a number of 'all-time greats' have never won a championship.
Names such as :
Elgin Baylor - Lakers
==================================================================

From your own admission, Baylor was not on a championship team, so that
refutes your connotation of appearing in the picture -- being a member
of the champions...

>Good... so you admit that I 'get it right'. Nice admission that we were all
>right to begin with...

Good, so you admitted 'ED LOR thinks it didn't matter' counts....

And what was "it" that we were talking about?

"But then who care what you and the other Knicks think? Do you think that
an NBA player need motiviation liek that to play in game 7?"

Right, "it" refers to "extra motivation in game 7".

>Prove it... Prove that those players would have played the same way without
>the extra motivation. As such motivation is very often cited as the
>factor that mattered the most, prove that all these cases are wrong...

I don't have to prove it. From your own admission, you already conceded
that point:

Do I think anyone needs motivation to play in game 7 of the NBA Finals?
No.

>A player needs no motivation to play in game 7 of the finals. This does
>not mean that the extra motivation doesn't help.

Of course it does. What's a need? means without it you can't achieve your
objective. I need a library to finish a program. I need money to live a
comfortable life. I need water to survive...

If you doesn't need X, it means you've already got all the X you need.
provided that you want to achieve that objective.

Say, in 1986 ECF game 4, Boston was leading 108-98. Bird drilled a
3-pointer at the buzzer. Did they need those points for that game? no,
so did those extra 3 points help at all? No.

>I need no 'motivation' to do my job. I do my job very well, and I get
>paid very well for it. If someone offers me additional motivation, say
>a big bonus, will this make me work even harder? Yep, it sure will...

Dumbo, then you are using a wrong example. You need motivation to do
a better job, it means you are not that motivated at the first place.
Would an NBA player need the motivation like you do to play better
in game 7 of the finals? Nope.

>Bzzt... No where did I say that the extra motivation didn't matter.

You said "no motivation needed", so they have already had sufficient
motivations that the extra motivations is not going make any difference.

>The event itself is not necessarily enough to demand the absolute best from
>the players.

Of course it is.

>Nope.. You haven't shown that the EXTRA motivation wasn't helpful.

I don't have to. You concurred that "no motivation needed".

>You
>need no motivation to eat. You do it irregardless of anyone motivating
>you. But, if I offer you $1000 to eat, I bet you'd be more willing to
>do it. Was the $1000 required to get you to eat? Not necessarily. But,
>does it provide you with 'EXTRA' motivation? Of course.

Speak for yourself. You mean if no one offers me $1000, then I'll be less
willing to eat? for my own subsistence? Meek, you may not like your life,
but don't speak for me...

>See above, over and over again.

where you had nothing...

>Notice that I never said 'Reeds presence made them decide to play'.
>They played the game irregardless of Reeds presence.

More than that. They are pumped up for the game no matter what? Remember,
they need no motivations...

> [ more moronic examples ]
Save your examples for lunch. YOu just proved a point with your examples,
you don't know what you are talking about. YOu don't even know what a
need is...

>I need no motivation to expose your idiocy. If someone offered me $1000 to
>do it, I'd be even more motivated. If someone said they would kill me if
>I didn't, I'd be exceptionally motivated..

Well, so maybe you are not really motivated. Maybe you really need a life-
threatening experience to do a better job. As of now, your contradiction
get exposed and you keep yapping with extra motivations....

>Well, if you can't figure this one out, you may want to think about the
>real meaning of 'clueless'.

Yes, I know the real meaning (not a literal one but an interpreted one):

clueless: Dave Meek

>If the aforementioned example don't help, let me know...

Of course they didn't help, but which your limited brain, letting you
know or not doesn't make any difference. I.e. no motivation to let you
know...

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4s97kv$j...@abc.ksu.ksu.edu>,

Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
> Ed must have been on an island, or something.
>
> Ed, for your information, KSU has handed the Sooners 3 consecutive
> butt kickings. This year, the Cats handed the Sooners the worst
> in their history 49-10 (previous worst was also by KSU).

Wow, Fudd, you don't assume that I am a college age kid like you are,
do you?

> For the 3rd straight year, the Cats finished the season ranked
> higher than the Sooners and did better in the Big 8.
> This year, the Cats turned out more all Big 8 players than the
> Sooners.

Well, the time followed Big 8 football, the Cats were merely pussies.
It's a dump for who couldn't get into Nebraska/Oklahoma...

> Go read about yourself: www.ksu.edu

Go read yourself some KSU inglorious football history. What's their
record vs the Sooners in the 80s?

> If you were not good enough for Okalahoma, you certainly weren't
> good enough for KSU, so in the fine words of Ed Lor-yer: LIE!

More Fuddlogic. If Oklahoma were better, how did this logic wash?

> Worse than the butt-kicking you've taken from me? Man, I really
> feel for you!

Nope, at least I learned something from Purdue: how to whip a KSU
WildPussies in an argument...

> BTW, did Dave take your lunch money every day, and that's why you
> don't like him?

Did Martin kiss you everyday? why was he trying to protect you in this
argument? I mean, he even wimped out on our own exchange, yet he butt in
to try to help you. Does he play the protector's role in your relationship?

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4s635u$d...@uvmark.vmark.com>,

Dave Meeks <da...@uvmark.vmark.com> wrote:
>However, it still avoids the question. Ed likes to cast stones and criticize
>others, but seems to fear rebuttal and avoids revealing his scholastic
>backgrounds. Wonder why?

Because scholastic backgrounds is no concern in this newsgroup here. It didn't
stop me from bashing your arguments or you as a moron. Actually, had you
been on the net long enough, you should have known. I've posted from my school
account for years before I joined Bell Labs...

>What's the matter Ed, afraid that you will embarrass your self??
Meek, save your provoking for lunch. Not knowing where I went to school
revealed one thing -- you are ignorant. How many years did you say you were
on the net?

>So, just how is life in Middletown, NJ??

Not bad, at least better than that dirty Boston...

>As a note, Purdue doesn't have a EECS degree. The official notation would
>be CEE, for Computer and Electrical Engineering. Last I looked, they were
>only rated in the top 6 or so schools in the nation for such a degree.

Well, you know, some of the people in my school put a lot of stock in such a
degree, probably because that's the only thing they can hang on in their life.
It doesn't mean they didn't earn their degree, but most likely it means they
didn't achieve anything after the degree. You know, I still know people who,
10+ years after graduating from high school, still brag how great their high
school were...

Meek, hang on the degree, you'll still need it when you look for a job. Does
your resume looks like this:

Work Experience: experience in Internet, but only limited to
fertilizing netnews
...

Education: CEE, Purdue...

>This 'software junkyard', as it were, is the dominate player in its market,

Yes, are you talking about the market of posting news? that one who claimed
'doing a good job' in his company didn't even realize his post had a time-
stamp on it, that he denied posting at 3 a.m. in the morning? I guess life in
New Jersey is more interesting than life in Boston...

>Obviously not the way you write... 'you decided to THREW away that degree
>and GOT for a football scholarhip IN KSU.' Damn Ed, my 8 year old writes
>better than that.

No, I don't want your 8 year old to entertain me. Your English, like

If the aforementioned example don't help, let me know...

^^^

is adequate to communicate with me. Besides, I don't want to be guilty
of child abuse. I don't mind abusing a man-child, though...

>The way you write, it isn't very surprising...

The way I write, like ignoring grammar, is certainly a Purdue trait...

>Where did the 'ass-kissing' even come into play? You just stick a sentence
>amongst 3 others, two of which are asking questions, and then when he
>responds in a clear fashion to address your two questions, you try to affix
>his response to some meaningless 'ass-kissing' comment?

Sure, is that a fact that he "responds in clear fashion to address" my
two questions? Are all your responses to me responses to questions?

>You ask two questions, make a comment, and then make another comment.
>He responds, very clearly,

Maybe it's clear to your brain of fertilizers. It's not clear to me.
I asked what else he did besides reading Knicks books. "It's a hobby"
didn't answer "what else he did". It only tried to justify why he read
Knicks books. So it's not even a response of the question.

>two the two questions asked and doesn't bother
>even recognizing the 'ass-kissing' juvenile statement. The 'ass-kissing'
>statement wasn't the first, wasn't the last, wasn't the most important,
>wasn't the one asking for a response (via the questions), etc...

Dumbo, in lots of your response to me, you didn't respond to me via
my questions. So why does it have to be all in a sudden?

>Only you (and from the response so far, it IS only you) could equate that
>conversation as a response to the 'ass-kissing' portion...

Of course it's only me. It's only me vs 3 idiots in this thread. I can
also say that only the 3 idiots could equate a non-response to a
question I asked.

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4s5s69$12...@uvmark.vmark.com>,

Dave Meeks <da...@uvmark.vmark.com> wrote:
>That's odd Ed... In the text you have decided to respond to, I see no
>mention of Phil Jackson...

Not only that, in the 1970 Knicks season stats in the NBA guide, I see no
mention of Phil Jackson either.

>Bwahahah.. this is hilarious Ed... So, you are claiming that Walt,
>Wilt, Magic, Bird, etc... all those players that talk about these
>psychological factors are lying to us?

Wait, you care to show me where Bird and Magic talk about a need of
extra psychological boost in game 7 of the finals? Before you do that,
I don't have to worry about your stupid assumption...

>They are telling deliberate untruths,

what untruths from Magic/Bird? like they need extra motivation to play
a final game 7?

Meek, you sure are great in digging holes for yourself...

> [ Wilt had 4 block shots vs Hawkins ]

>Good then you don't swear much then. Whether or not the blocked shot
>stat was recorded until 1973-74 does not mean that such information wasn't
>kept or wasn't something that could be figured out.

It sure does. If it's not scored officially, how do you know there are
exactly 6 blocks?

>So, if I make a pass from 20 feet away, and someone 3 feet from the passer
>deflects it (making that person 17 feet away from the guy who's supposed
>to receive it), is it the receiver's fault for not getting the ball?

Talk to me again if that's the case. The way Holzman saw it, these are
passes not too tough for Wilt to handle. So there goes your assumption,
again...

>In basketball, if Isiah Thomas passes the ball to Bill Laimbeer, who is wide
>open for the basket, and Bill bobbles the ball and drops it out of bounds,
>is it Isiah's fault?

Well, you are getting close. I would consider this as "passes not too
tough for the receiver to handle"...

>Likewise, if Bill Laimbeer is open under the basket, and Isiah goes to pass
>the ball to him, but John Stockton deflects the pass while guarding
>Isiah, is it Bill Laimbeer's fault?

But I wouldn't call this "passes not too tough for the receiver to handle".

>Finally, if Bill Laimbeer is under the basket, with good offensive position,
>but being guarded by Robert Parish, and Isiah makes what looks like a good
>pass, but Larry Bird leaves Dennis Rodman and deflects the ball before it
>reaches Laimbeer, who's fault is it then?

Both, but I wouldn't classify this as "passes not too tough to handle"
either...

So, Meek, after that many examples, are you able to deflect the blame
for Wilt? Not a chance...

>As opposed to you, who thinks that a player who plays well but sees his
>team lose deserves a 'large chunk of the blame'.

For a player who's the leader of the team, the one the team counts on?
sure.

>You would probably be
>the only person in the world that thought Michael Jordan deserved a
>'large chunk of the blame' for letting his team get swept in the first
>round of the playoffs in 85-86.

Yep, but MJ's team wasn't given that much of a chance to begin with,
against one of the most dominant team in the past 2 decades, unlike
Wilt team with 2 other HOFer...

>Based on your logic, since he was by far the team's best player, he
>deserves the large majority of the blame for that team getting swept,
>right?

Right, except that Jordan right himself more than enough in his career
that his failure against Boston in 1986 was just an aberration. Was Wilt
able to do the same?

>In this simple diagram, simplified so you may understand, the ball has at
>least 3 places it can be deflected away or stolen.

Dumbo, the game that we argue the most on the Knicks stealing the ball
was the 2nd half of game 5, when the Knicks stole the ball upteem times....

In this context, Reed wasn't here. The guy particularly gave Wilt trouble
was Stallworth, who guarded Wilt but had the speed to go around him and
steal the ball.

>See... simple.. Wilt can really only prevent the steal/turnover in one of
>those three places.

Yes, pretty simple, if the steals occurred in scenarios (1) and (2), I
don't think Holzman would classify it as "passes not to tough for him
(Wilt) to handle"...

>Now, once it reaches Wilt, that's another story.

Another story? have you even seen excuses made by Jordan or Bird that
"I struggled because they triple-team me"?

>Sure it was. A player who has to guard Wilt due to positional situaitons is
>not considered a 'center'.

Why not?

>What Judd refers to as the 3 forward/2guard lineup is just that.

A 3 forward 2 guard line up doesn't mean that the forward playing role
of center wasn't considered the center, AT THAT MOMENT ON THE COURT.
Did the Lakers play a 3 guard 2 forward line-up in 1980 game 6?

>DeBusschere may have had the primary task of guarding Wilt,
>but that's a matchup issue. It does not make him a center.

It doesn't make him a center for the team long-term, but certainly made him a
center in those particular minutes.

>And, it does
>not mean you would refer to him as a 'center'. In fact, look at your trusty
>NBA Guide. See him listed as a Center?

He doesn't have to be listed as Center for the season to play center
for half a game. Magic wasn't listed as center in the NBA guide either...

>He had the defensive assignment
>in many cases, but that does not make him the center.

It made him the center in those assignments.

>No he didn't. Not by any realistic definition of it. He GUARDED the
>opposing center in the 2nd half of game 5.

And he drew the opposing center in offense. What more realistic definition
do you want? As a matter of fact, in his book, he claimed himself as
fourth string and Stallworth as fifth string...

>That's it.
That's enough.

> [ defensive switches during a play ]
In a defensive switch for one particular play, I wouldn't. For one whole
half that you play the opposing center on both ends, I sure would...

>>> Phil Jackson wasn't a Knick in 1970
>>That's from his bio. I think that has more credibilities than any picture...
>
>Really, his bio said 'Phil Jackson wasn't a Knick in 1970'?
>
>Which bio said that??

Look at the career profile in the Basketball Encyclopedia:

68-69NY 70XJ 71-73NY 79-80 NJ

You don't think XJ means Knicks, do you?

>>any stats in a blowout (27 point half-time defcicit, 25 point 3rd
>>quarter deficit) was dominating.
>
>Cool.. now you agree with us...

Nope, I mean to say "was not dominating".

>As shown above, in 2 of the 3 common ways such a thing can occur, the
>post man would indeed be faultless. And,

1) that's not what Holzman said: "pick off passes not too tough for him
to handle".

2) you are really stretching. Even if (big IF) the passes were not getting
anywhere near him when intercepted, but his team was not getting anywhere
with such a game plan, how did he help his team to get out of this
doldrums? You mean he, as the leader of the team, could do nothing but
keep seeing the passes got picked off?

Meek, your problem is that in a job not done, your only resolve is to
see whether it's your fault (if not, you are home free). You've never had
the mindset of taking lots of responsibility of seeing a job get done...

>>1) playing 69 games was without his serivce for most of the season
>
> - depends purely on interpretation. Don't know what 'serivce' is
> though, but I'll assume you mean 'service'. We've shown over
> and over that this could (and did) mean the performance Reed was
> normally giving his team.

That's not how sports people defined service...

>>2) Reed was a member of the 1972 runner-up
>
> - He was, in fact, a member of that team. He was not a member of
> the active roster on the 1972 playoff roster.

As you said, a team is always transient. The runner-up is a particular
subset of the whole team. So being on the team != being on that subset.

>>3) I claimed that Dick Barnett was a backup center
>
> - Based on your nitpicky method of trying to look at people's comments,
> it could easily be argued.

Then go ahead an argue it.

>>4) Phil Jackson was a member of the 1970 championship team
>
> - indeterminate. Conflicting sources of information.

Where? Cite the source that conflict the fact that he wasn't a member
of the champions.

Remember, the picture isn't going to save you...

>>5) a player had a dominating performance when the game was lost by half
>> time
>
> - Happens all the time.

Yet you still haven't been able to cite one...

>>9) the 1-3-1 was illegal
>
> - shown already

by what?

>>10) there exist admission from Knicks players that they cheated with
>> an illegal offense.
>
> - shown through induction.

Induction? how did you induce that the Knicks admitted the offense as
illegal? Without such admission, even the Knicks admitted that they
ran the 1-3-1, you still have no testimonies from them commenting on the
illegalities of the offense...

>What was that you said about 'bottom line' Ed?

What did I say about it?

>Whether your team loses by
>13 pts, like Wilt's did, or 4pts, like the Bulls did should be immaterial
>to you.

Sure was material to me. Without Jordan's 63 points, the Bulls would
very to be blown out, instead of making that game a 2-OT affair. With
or without Wilt's points, the Lakers were still blown out.

I.e. Jordan put his team in a position to win, even if it didn't mean
much; Wilt didn't.

>And, let's not forget the fact that at least Wilt's team didn't get swept.
>Wilt's team went 7 games. Michael's 44ppg, 6rpg, 6apg, 2spg, 1bpg was
>not very 'dominating', since his team got swept, right?

Dumbo, I was bashing Wilt on games 5 and 7, two games the Lakers should
have had. MJ's team was swept? so what? were they expect to beat the
1986 Celtics?

>Then, why did Bird mention him being a god???

Because he made that game a classic. Did Wilt? he made that game a classic,
for the other team...

>Really? Which team was that in 1968?

The Philadelphia 76ers, blew the 3-1 lead against the Celtics.

>In 1969, the Lakers went down 0-2 to San Francisco, losing both games
>at home, but came back and won 4-2, then took the finals 4-1. In the finals
>the series was played exactly like expected, with the home team
>winning each game up until the final game 7.

Expected by whom? not the Lakers. They had brought their champaign to
Boston to expect a 4-game sweep. As it turned out, they had to come back
2-2. You mean Wilt wasn't at fault for any of the road losses?

>In a series where there was
>only 1 game decided by more than 9 pts, and the average margin of victory
>was about 5.6ppg, it came down to game 7, as expected. Boston pulled out
>a 2 pt victory.

How come it's always Boston pulled out a close victory? Never heard that
Wilt pulled out a 2 point victory in a deciding game against Boston. I
wonder why? Is it because Boston was toying with him? Geez, when you keep
losing those close games, I would say it's more than bad luck...

>Where was this blowing a 3-1 lead in 68 or 69???

Are you really that stupid? He, as the key 76ers and the defending
champs in 1968, blew the 3-1 lead in the ECF.

>Which means, of course, you believe that those players who claimed the
>effects this psychological boost provided were important are all lying, right?

Right. I would believe the event itself is big enough a motivation. I mean,
look at all those finals game 7/SB/WS game 7, the players are super charged.
Why do you think that only in this particular 1970 game 7, only Reed's
appearance was the lone motivation factor...

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4s98c8$j...@abc.ksu.ksu.edu>,

Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
> You don't know he was a guard, yet you act like you know what you
>were talking about in the 1970 series.

Well, at least I know more than you do...

>As I've proven over and over...you do not.

As you've proven over and over, the more you TRIED to prove, the more you
screwed up...

>"3) 1970 F, the Knicks had Willis Reed injured in game 5, yet the
>Lakers were still blown out in games 5 & 7. Wilt, the supposed dominant
>force, couldn't win the game single-handedly against a back up (was it
>Dick Barnett)."
>
> Since we use literal interpretations (Ed rules). Look at the last
>4 words and the period. No question mark. It was not a question, it was
>a statement. Heh heh. Next!

Fudd, look at the last 4 words, there is no period either. Now you can
view that a statement is beyond me. Something doesn't have a question mark
must be a statement, but that statement doesn't have to have a period...

Fuddrules...

Of course, your moronic mindset is beyond me...

> Ed, you are the only one arguing with a proven point.

So what? I am the only one smart enough to know that you are blowing
smoke, like the Knicks admitted that they cheated (i.e. to admit that
they cheated, they must have realized that their offense was a violation of
the rule). Now you have NO evidence whatsoever of such realization. No
matter how you want to dodge it...

>What is next,
If I were you, I would have worried about where to get the testimonies
from the Knicks that admtitted that the offense was illegal...

Before that, the "next" thing is moot...

> Because you can't read and hold past thoughts in memory.

Or you can't write and tried to wimp out of a mistake you wrote?

>Reading 2 paragraphs and putting them together?

or writing something that's a response to an immediate context?

> Sure Ed. Fester was just too scared of you and your 2 of 12 logic.

Well, I don't know about Fester, but some dope is certainly scared of me,
like how to come up with testimonies from the Knicks that they acknowledge
their offense was illegal, not to mention the Oscar vs Magic thread...

> Only Fester knew when to leave and lick his wounds.

Sure, becasue he has to lick his wounds. You mean I should give it up
when I have you on the ropes? Geez, you sure are dreaming...

[Brian Saunders]

In article <4se9d8$14...@uvmark.vmark.com>, da...@uvmark.vmark.com (Dave
Meeks) wrote:

>Otherwise, shut up...

You know there is something right in the world when you see a good old
Meeks/Lor thread going. :^)

--
Brian Saunders
saun...@castor.che.wisc.edu

[Dave Meeks]

In article <4saose$2...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
>In article <4s5ntv$m...@uvmark.vmark.com>,
>Dave Meeks <da...@uvmark.vmark.com> wrote:
>>Who's talking about CEO's.. Was Wilt the 'CEO'??
>Wilt was the key player on the team, the chief executive player on court...

Really? The 'key' player on the team??

Wilt Chamberlain played 12 regular season games...

Wilt doesn't appear in any of the top 10 lists in any statistical category.
Wilt didn't make any AllNBA team. Wilt didn't make any AllStar teams...

Jerry West, on the other hand, played in 74 games, led the league in scoring,
was 4th in assists, and was 1st Team AllNBA and 1st Team AllDefensive...

Wilt was NOT, I repeat, NOT the 'key' player on the team that year... This
was, pure and simple, Jerry West's team...

>
>>Heck, he wasn't even
>>the 'President'. It can even be argued that he wasn't even their #1 player,
>>especially with him missing the majority of the season.
>Well, you can argue it. He was the player the Knicks destined to stop,
>in other words, I can easily argue that he was their #1 player..

You can argue all you want. I guarantee the Knicks also did everything they
could to stop the league's leading scorer and 4th leading assist man... the
man who was averaging 31.2ppg in the playoffs, more than anyone except
Lew Alcindor (Kareem) and was leading the league in assists during the
playoffs.

In the regular season, there is no question who was the #1 player. I'd say
a guy who was #2 in scoring and #1 in assists in the playoffs holds a very
strong argument to being the #1 guy on his team as well. Who took the
overwhelming majority of shots for the Lakers? Jerry West. Who controlled
the ball? Jerry West. Who was the 1st Team AllDefensive guard on the
Lakers? Jerry West...

I don't think you can 'easily' argue that he was their #1 player.. Feel
free to try if you like...

>>Bzzztt... Error. Does not compute. Ed, you have yet to show how Wilt
>>'performed poorly'.
>Yep, as the key player on a team that got blown out. How do they treat
>the key player (CEO, president) of a corporation that goes bankrupt?

Non sensical argument. Not an equivalent situation.

>>In fact, we don't even know for a fact that the Lakers
>>played exceptionally poor.
>Well, you mean a 27 point deficit is not a measure of exceptionally poor?
>Meek, don't spout your low standard on the net...

27 point margin? Final margin was 14points. Who cares about any score during
the middle of the game. All the matters is the final outcome.

A loss is a loss. The Lakers don't lose draft picks because they lost by
14pts in the final game. By point of comparison, the next season, the
Bullets lost by 12pts in the final game. In the following year, the Knicks
lost to Wilt and the Lakers by 14pts in the final game (wow... I guess
the Knicks got blown out as well...)

The next 2 years:
72-73: Knicks win by 9
73-74: Boston beats Kareem by 15 (oooo.. there goes the Kareem argument...
last I looked, 15 > 14)

Losing by 14pts was not that amazing a situation. When in successive years,
it goes 14, 12, 14, 9, 15 it doesn't look all that uncommon...

>>The 'fact' is, they got beat by a team that
>>was better than them, had home court advantage against them, etc.
>Dumbo, just a year ago, they got beaten by a team that were supposed to
>be over the hill, supposed to be inferior, without the HCA, etc.

Well, that over the hill gang was also the dominant team of all time.
And, the series was very close. Sam Jones hitting the buzzer beater in
the fourth game, etc...

And, Wilt went out with an injury in the fourth period, allowing the Cs to
win by 2 points.

>
>>On April 20th, 1986, Michael Jordan scored the most points ever scored in
>>a playoff game, 63 pts... Yet his team still lost.
>Another dumb example. Was his team routed? Double OT!!!
>
>So Meek, better find the proper qualifications (game being a rout) before
>you pout...

Why? Who cares? A loss is a loss? Was MJ, with his incredible stats, even
able to win ONE GAME? No, HIS team got swept.

>>I'd say that even though his team got swept and blown out in 2 of those
>>three games (19pts in one game, 18pts in the other), that Michael had a
>>'very good series'...
>I wouldn't say he had a very good series. MJ's legacy then, if any, would be
>only in game 2 because he broke the record and that game was a classic.

That's because you are an idiot. His entire series was phenomenal. However,
he was facing a powerhouse of a team, and despite his amazing efforts, his
team just wasn't good enoug...

Perfect example of 'it was the other guys faults'..

>Has anyone made a case for MJ for being dominant in game 1? MJ certainly
>had more fame in other series (1989 vs Cleveland and NY, 1992 vs Portland,
>1991 vs Lakers, etc) than in a series being swept.

Yes... In fact, after the series was over, MJ was hailed as a 'superstar'.
In game one, he scored 49pts... Game two he put up 63pts.

>>>other words, a performance doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has to be placed
>>>in the proper context -- whether it contributed to the bottom line.
>>
>>Then you are stupid.
>Wow, Meek, you are stupid beyond belief. Next.

Well, I like what you say on the line 'whether it contributed to the
bottom line'...

Why does that standard differ from MJ to Wilt?

Both contributed very well to a LOSS. Bottom line, whether double OT or
14pt loss, both were a LOSS...

Period.

>
>>I guess Elgin Baylor has never been much of a player then, since he never
>>once contributed to 'the bottom line', right?
>Well, Elgin contributed to many series wins that led to 8 final appearances.
>And Wilt was no slouch either, except with Wilt's talent, I think he
>should be much more successful than only 2 rings...

Funny, being that Elgin is also considered very talented, and played with
WIlt for a good part of his career... funny that he couldn't get a ring,
and only AFTER he left the Lakers did they win it all..

>with franchise players. How come you never have the nerve to compare
>franchise players vs franchise players? Is it because it will blow
>your argument out of water?

What was Wilt vs Michael?? Geesh..

>>You need to wake up Ed, and realize that very few people in this world
>>prescribe to your idiotic way of thinking.
>You need to smell the coffee, Meek, lots of people prescribe to my way
>of thinking, contribution to the bottom line, especially the leader of

Really? Name them...

I can name many sources that list Wilt as the most dominant center/player of
all time. I can list many people on the net. I can name more people than
you that think his 20+pt, 20+reb performance in Game 7 was 'dominating'...

>If you modify the requiremnets for the leader a little bit, you'll see the
>lights. You know what a leader means, don't you?

Really? So why not apply those criteria equally to Jordan?

>>How do you know that West 'gave up' that role?
>According to DeBusschere, Wilt wanted the ball and the game. That's why
>he got 34 chances (FGA + FTA/2), West only got 26.5 chances...

Again, how do you know he 'gave up' that role. It's not like Wilt was normally
leading the team in FGAs... Jerry West may not have allowed Wilt to take
the mantle of team scoring leader from him... after all, West WAS the leading
scorer inthe regular season and the 2nd leading scorer in the playoffs...

>>Using your standard paradigm of argumentation, my previous statement was
>>specifically referring to 'Wilt dominating'. Your direct response was
>>'according to Holzman, that's not the reason...' What else could you
>>be referring to except 'Wilt dominating'.
>A lot. Let's see what you said:
>
> > Wilt had 21 points in these conditions and 24 rebounds. He held his
> >couterpart to 4 pts and 3 rebounds and you claim he didn't dominate. You've
> >tried to justify it every which way but loose, but when it comes down to
> >it, Wilt dominated.
> Well, according to Holzman, that's not the reason...
>
>That's not "the reason" of what?
>
>>So, you try to imply that
>>'accoring to Holzman...' Wilt was not dominating...
>Save your implication for lunch, unless you can bind "the reason" to
>"Wilt's domination". I don't see how...

Simple.. It was your direct response after this statement. Come on Ed...
be consistent. Remember the Judden 'ass-kisser'? This was exactly your
argument then...

And you don't have any 'questions' to help you.

>
>>Simple. using the same logic that you always use, your comment could only
>>be referring to 'Wilt dominating', nothing else.
>My comment has "the reason". Bind "the reason" first. How you can
>bind "the reason" to "Wilt's domination" is beyond me...

Probably true, for an idiot like you.. But then, I'd imagine trying to tie
your shoes might be beyond you...

The entire paragraph was about how Wilt dominated. You responded that
'according to Holzman, that's not the reason'. The primary point of
the article was Wilt dominating, and you claim that Holzman states that
that was not the reason...

Face it Ed, your toasted by your own previous big discussion with Judden...

>>Forcing shots, irregardless of the state of the defender, is always a bad
>>thing. And, I'd say that a player who scores 20+pts and grabs 20+rebounds
>>is taking advantage pretty well.
>I'd say you are pretty stupid, since 21 points vs a hobble opponent is
>hardly enough, especially he just scored 45 in the previous game...

Really? He scored 21 points vs a hobbled NBA MVP in the previous game?

And Ed... if you are going to call someone stupid, you may want to take some
basic English classes. Having to constantly fill in words/letters/meaning
into your poor command of the English language, especially when you have
the nerve to call me stupid, is pretty pathetic...

My 8 year old daughter read the above sentence and found a couple of your
mistakes...

What does that make you? About 7?

>
>>Let's see... I've played at various levels for.. hmm... about 23-24 years
>>now. I've coached the game at the lower levels, and been an assistant at
>>slightly higher levels.
>And I guess your teams got blown out a lot, that's why you only count
>stats...

Sometimes they did, but not often. And, unless you can prove, with appropriate
references of course, that I 'only count stats', I'm sure you will admit your
lie, right?

>>Immaterial. I take it from your lack of response that you have never
>>played the game, but only 'followed it'.
>Immaterial, whether I played the game or not doesn't stop me from
>following the game with logic and reality. That's why I didn't
>response. So what if you had played the game, at amateur level, you
>still don't know the essense of a pro game, like a business, play with only
>one objective -- to win.

Heh.. you obviously don't follow the pro game Ed. If you did, you'd realize
that the 'primary objective' is, with most players, to make money. In that
sense, it is just like the business you refer to. And, if you know anything
about business, you will realize this concept extends their as well. Being
a 'winner' in the business world can mean many things, but ultimately, they
are irrelevant. The only true goal in the business world is to make money.
Sometimes, you can end up losing, but still making money, which makes you a
winner.

And, based on your response, it seems terribly apparant that you've not played
this game very much. My guess is you are from a foreign country, have been
watching the game for the last 8-10 years, and figure yourself a student of
the game.

Well, take a free hint. Go out, play the game for a few years. Even at a
rudimentary 'amateur' level, you will be amazed at the things you will learn.
Things that no book will teach you.

You can pretend to follow the game with logic and reality, but your limited
appreciation and comprehension of logic (as well as English) and your
distorted view of 'reality' expose you for the fool you truly are.

I'm starting to finally figure out why you are such a moron... You simply
don't have the skills to play the game, don't have the knowledge to argue
effectively, and fear reprisals to the point that you ask others what they are
about but hide behind your shadow of manhood, refusing to address similar
questions.

Hide Young Ed, Hide... The Evil Monster of Reality Cometh...

>From your own admission, Baylor was not on a championship team, so that
>refutes your connotation of appearing in the picture -- being a member
>of the champions...

Damn Ed... using the same technique you so vehemently argued against earlier
in the 'admissions of Knicks players'.

I guess you are at least consistent in your inconsistency..

>>Good... so you admit that I 'get it right'. Nice admission that we were all
>>right to begin with...
>Good, so you admitted 'ED LOR thinks it didn't matter' counts....
>
>And what was "it" that we were talking about?
>
> "But then who care what you and the other Knicks think? Do you think that
> an NBA player need motiviation liek that to play in game 7?"
>
>Right, "it" refers to "extra motivation in game 7".

What?? You are fading out Ed... Please try a little harder, this time in
an understandable form...

>
>>Prove it... Prove that those players would have played the same way without
>>the extra motivation. As such motivation is very often cited as the
>>factor that mattered the most, prove that all these cases are wrong...
>I don't have to prove it. From your own admission, you already conceded
>that point:
>
> Do I think anyone needs motivation to play in game 7 of the NBA Finals?
> No.

Bzzzt.... 'needs motivation to play' != 'EXTRA motivation helps'

My 'admission' that players don't need to be motivated to play is irrelevant.
We are discussing whether or not the effect of this EXTRA motivation somehow
improves their abilities, drive, motivation, or intensity.

By the multiple (literally hundreds) of cases that make such claims, I'd
say you are alone in your beliefs Ed.

We have multiple confessions of this effect and the positive effect players
got out of it. We have seen multiple references of reports of situations
where this 'extra motivation' was an important and often decisive factor.

This 'fact' has been referenced by many, many sources yet you choose to refute
it.

This is clearly a case of the ball being in your court...

>
>>A player needs no motivation to play in game 7 of the finals. This does
>>not mean that the extra motivation doesn't help.
>Of course it does. What's a need? means without it you can't achieve your
>objective. I need a library to finish a program. I need money to live a
>comfortable life. I need water to survive...

Yep...

You 'need money to live a comfortable life'. Your 'need' is satisfied with
some small amount, presumably what you currently make (minimum wage?).
You don't 'need' anything more than what you currently have. But, if someone
offerred you a million dollars, would that be considered an 'extra amount'?

Well, maybe not in your world...

>If you doesn't need X, it means you've already got all the X you need.
>provided that you want to achieve that objective.

'If you doesn't' Try English Ed... It's a wonderful language when used
properly...

In this example, to help clarify things, I feel the need to resort to 'Daddy
mode'. It is a mode I sometimes have to get into to properly explain things
to my 3 year old. I hope this won't be above your head.

Daddy Mode On

There, there Eddie... Don't worry, Daddy will explain it to you. It is really
simple. If you don't need X... What's X?? Don't worry, I'll explain X in
a minute. Ok, if you don't need X, it may mean you already have enough of
it to do what ever you want. What do you want? I don't know... you know,
maybe you want to be a good boy, because you want an ice cream. You know
that if you are a good boy that I'll buy you an ice cream. If you think you
have been a good boy already, you already have your 'X'. See, in this case,
'X' is your being good. So, you don't need to be good, because you have
already been good enough to get your ice cream. But, now listen closely
Eddie. No, I DIDN'T say you could have an ice cream yet, now sit still...

Ok, so now you understant that you don't need to be good to get the ice cream,
because you were already good. But, if you want to go to Chucky Cheese AND
get an ice cream, you have to be extra special good. See, just being a little
good isn't good enough.

Understand? Good, now go be a good little boy...

Daddy Mode Off

See, it's simple Ed.. Playing in the NBA, irregardless of whether it is
the NBA Finals or not, is enough to get the players to play. They are
PROFESSIONAL athletes, and as such, have an obligation to play. Being that
it is the NBA Finals, pride and ego should help motivate them to play well.

However, while all this should be enough to get the players to play, and to
play hard, this does not mean that there aren't things that could make them
play even harder. Extra motivation might be a big contract bonus if they
play well, that ring/history of winning, their dying mothers last wishes,
etc... Many things exist that may give the player that slight amount of
extra motivation.

See, really simple.. Everyone (but you) seems to acknowledge this effect..
If you truly want to discount it as a lie, then provide some proof, or as
they say...

Shut up...

>>I need no 'motivation' to do my job. I do my job very well, and I get
>>paid very well for it. If someone offers me additional motivation, say
>>a big bonus, will this make me work even harder? Yep, it sure will...
>Dumbo, then you are using a wrong example. You need motivation to do
>a better job, it means you are not that motivated at the first place.
>Would an NBA player need the motivation like you do to play better
>in game 7 of the finals? Nope.

Funny, being that so many of them claim to have this happen. I guess we
are all just a bunch of liars, right?

Take a poll Ed... Ask people who do their jobs very well if they work 80-100
hour weeks on a regular basis. Ask them if they would, just for the heck
of it. Then, ask them if they would if you would give them a million dollar
bonus to do so.

Then count how many people would do it...

>
>>Bzzt... No where did I say that the extra motivation didn't matter.
>You said "no motivation needed", so they have already had sufficient
>motivations that the extra motivations is not going make any difference.

Bzzzt... wrong. See previous examples...

Or, provide evidence that me and all the hundreds of others who have claimed
such response are not telling the truth...

>>Nope.. You haven't shown that the EXTRA motivation wasn't helpful.
>I don't have to. You concurred that "no motivation needed".

'no motivation needed' TO PLAY.

Extra motivation can be given that will cause them to try even harder.

>>See above, over and over again.
>where you had nothing...

...except hundreds of other people agreeing with me...

>>Notice that I never said 'Reeds presence made them decide to play'.
>>They played the game irregardless of Reeds presence.
>More than that. They are pumped up for the game no matter what? Remember,
>they need no motivations...

...to play... multiple references from the players, media, experts, etc...
attest to the influence and motivating factor Reed's presense provided.

>threatening experience to do a better job. As of now, your contradiction
>get exposed and you keep yapping with extra motivations....

Yeah.. along with a huge number of players, media, experts, etc.. who all
agree with me...

As opposed to lonely, non-basketball playing, moronic, needing a life
Ed Lor...

Hmm...

>>If the aforementioned example don't help, let me know...
>Of course they didn't help, but which your limited brain, letting you

I figured as much Ed... I suggest you study up a little before next time..

It's a simple concept, one that is mentioned by numerous people in different
endeavors... If you want to be alone in the world in your thoughts on this
(as with so many other issues), feel free.

Must be a lonely life out there in EdLorian Land...

[Dave Meeks]

In article <4s9e11$1...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
>In <4r0msp$16...@uvmark.vmark.com>, Day Meek whined:
>
>>No, YOU should be more careful. In no way could this reference be used to
>>bind it to 'ass-kissing'. It wasn't the primary point of the paragraph, it
>>wasn't the questions being asked, and it wasn't even the final line of the
>>paragraph.
>whose rule is it that a comment has to be always considered an answer to a
>question asked?
>
>You started a paragraph with "NO, YOU should be more careful". What question
>did I ask you that you started with "NO"?

Strawman argument Ed.. come on, you can do better than that...

No one has said that 'a comment has to be alwyas considered an answer to
a question asked', and that in no way relates to any comment must come
from a question.

However, if a question is asked, and a response follows, and that response
is consistent with the information requested, it is usually safe to assume
that the response was made in regard to the question..

>>Besides, since when
>>was Wilt ever a New York Knick, so why would a Wilt 'ass-kisser' be required
>>to read Knicks books?
>Since when is a Wilt ass-kisser prohibited from reading books of other
>teams?

But why would a Wilt ass-kisser and a person who reads books from other
teams/events be related? Wilt's being an ass kisser would logically
bear no real relation to the reading of tons of Knicks books.

You are drawing a very poor inference here...

>>But, the 'ass-kisser' was just a comment buried within the entirety of the
>>paragraph, and no one but you would look at his paragraph and think he was
>>responding to that.
>Wrong, the ass-kisser was a comment to summarize his professional
>aspiration, and he responded that with a "hobby". No one but you three
>Stooges would look at his "hobby" response as something else.

Wrong, as he has correctly pointed out. His response, as he has stated
unequivocally, was in response to the reading of Knicks books.

And, as for 'no one but you three', those three (along with standard
English interpretation) are alot more than your one. And, since those
three include the person who made the comment, you are toasted... How
can you tell the originator of the comment what he was responding to?

>>Based on your comments, and standard English and net.posting rules, his
>>response in this paragraph will either be bound to the questions
>Dumbo, which standard net.posting rules stating that a response has to
>be an answer to a question? did you follow that rule yourself?

Show me where I claim that every response must be bound to a question...

Otherwise, answer your own strawman arguments...

> "He certainly needs something like you to build his credentials".
>
>This statement itself doesn't make sense if he responded with "This is
>a hobby", but couple with the previous statement
>
> "The way I see it, the job that best suits you is to be
> Wilt's ass-kisser. He sure needs someone like you to build his
> credentials..."
>
>then it makes sense. Since these two statements tell how the two of
>them are match made in heaven...

Actually, as usual, you are wrong...

'He certainly needs something like you to build his credentials', followed
by

'That's just a hobby'

makes perfect sense. What could this be referring to? If this were
the only two statements involved, this could easily mean that the
'hobby' == 'building Wilt's credentials'.

The ass-kisser portion is an irrelevant and disregarded smart ass comment
made by an idiot with a chip on his shoulder and a lack of anything better
to do...

>>Very nice. Now, where does he claim that the 1-3-1 offense used by the
>>Knicks was used for defensive purposes?
>
>Idiot, look at how Spitz stated the effect of the 1-3-1 offense.

I have. It doesn't state that. You are wrong. Deal with it.

>>He claims that it confused them
>>and made them very overcautious, and this carried over onto the offensive
>>end. Common thing that happens.
>Well, it may be common in your ass. I think it's more common that the
>Knicks' aggressive defense was the reason that stop the Lakers offense,
>as it's accounted in several books...

I don't see anything in this book that discounts that theory. Instead,
it simply adds additional information.

And who cares what YOU think. You were not there, you have shown over
and over that you don't know much about that 1970s series (didn't know
about Dick Barnett, thought Game 5 had a final score of 92-75, etc...).
Spitz has, however, shown a great deal of knowledge about the events that
took place.

>>In the second paragraph, he deals directly with your first question.
>I couldn't care less about his second paragraph. The "that's a hobby"
>part didn't answer either question:
>
>1) what work does he do?
>2) anything besides reading Knicks book?

Sure it does. It addresses the issue of reading Knicks books.

>>two paragraphs, each dealing with one of those questions.
>His response was immediately towards the comments, about ass-kissing...

Really? Based on the observations of many others, you are wrong; based
on the observations of the author, you are wrong... Get the pattern
here Ed??

Jesus.. it's one thing to be confused about his response, but when others
point out you misinterpreted it, and then the author (Judd) also points
out that you have incorrectly interpreted the statement, you should get the
hint and drop it.

Otherwise, you not only look stupid, you look like a stubborn ass with
nothing better to do with his life...

>>Pretty simple...
>pretty dishonest on your part...

Really? Funny, since my interpretation of the statements follows exactly
with other peoples interpretation, as well as the authors..

If I understand it, others understand it, and the author AGREES that it
was meant exactly as stated, you lose...

>See how I answer questions:
>
>>'Ed, where do you work?
>Lucent.
>
>>Are you even from this country?
>Yep
>
>>Just wondering, because you seem to be lying all the time.
>Well, what you seemed like is not the truth, while it's a fact that
>you put up lies like:
>
>1) Floyd Goodrish supported you
>2) 4-1 != 4-1
>3) I flamed people like crazy in r.s.f.p
>4) the Knicks admitted that their offense was illegal ...

Prove them... All of them. Provide supporting documents. Provide
evidence that said supporting documents are valid and not forged. Provide
evidence that your supporting documents are to be trusted. Provide evidence
that both the literal and contextual interpretations are valid and support
you cause.

Otherwise, shut up...

Or should we talk about Dick Barnett, the 92-75 final score in Game 5, etc...

>>In your example, in such a situation, your 'Yes I am' must be bound
>>to you being an liar, and we could then use that as admission that you
>>always lie.
>But Meek, I don't answer questions your dumb way. So your example is
>shot...

Funny... where did I answer questions in this way? You seem to imply that
this argument or method of answering the question was MY 'dumb way'.

Please provide evidence to support your notion that this was MY way of
answering questions.

Otherwise, shut up...

[Dave Meeks]

In article <4sabmj$2...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
>In article <4s1epi$9...@cbs.ksu.ksu.edu>,
>Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>> We can't define what we say (without services), remember?
>Dumbo, "service" has a standard meaning in sports. Check out the record books
>in baseball and football and see what "service" means. Are you saying that
>you want to wimp out "service" as a typo?

Hmmm.... let's see... I don't find an actual definition for 'service' in
any of the BASKETBALL record books, do you Ed?

Afterall, we ARE talking about BASKETBALL, right?

>>since you
>> had no question mark, you stated that Barnett was a center.
>Really? but I didn't put a period there either. How then did I state
>"Barnett was a center" AS A STATEMENT?

There goes Ed... once again trying to get out of things by claiming his
standard 'I just screwed up, yet again'...

This is getting pretty common Ed..

>> Willis didn't play any minutes in game 6. Was he not on the Knicks'
>>team that game?
>Well, since you asked, the answer is "NO". In that game, the Knicks
>had these players: Barnett, Bowman, Bradley, DeBusschere, Frazier,
>Hosket, Riordan, Russell, Stallworth, Warren. Check out the boxscore.
>
>Now answer it, how many minutes did Phil Jackson play in 1970?

Let's see... The same number as Willis did in Game 6 in 1970. Yet, was
Willis a member of the 'Championship Knicks'???

>>And they still had your
>>first choice for back-up center (Barnett).
>Really? when did I state that Barnett was a back-up center? you care to
>show the **statement**?

'statement' - something stated; an account.

'stated' - To set forth in words; declare

Seems like it was 'something set forth in words' Ed...

So, using your friendly 'literal translation', you did in fact make a
'statement'.

>>Naw, Hawk doesn't know what a blocked shot is!
>Probably not, since it's not scored officially as a block shot.

Bzzt... Incorrect assumption Ed. Just because something is not
officially scored or recorded for the record books, does NOT mean it
doesn't happen.

Charges are not 'scored officially', yet they happen. A shot that goes
off the rim is not 'scored officially' as a 'shot that goes off the rim',
but that does not mean

>more nonsense. Does it mean you can't argue Debusshere's role as a center
>in the 2nd half?

Can you provide definitive evidence to support the fact that DeBusschere
was acting as the center in the 2nd half? Please provide detailed references,
cross referenced appropriately..

Otherwise, shut up...

>> Jordan 63 points. Nuff said.
>Jordan's team didn't get blown out. Nuff said...

What's the difference? You mean, ultimately, it matters whether you lost
by 1 or by 21? Do they give you a different class of loss?

Jordan's team got SWEPT, Wilt's team did not...

Guess 'nuff' is not said yet...

>> Ed. Stop it. You're killing yourself! Believe me. I will use
>>these statements once you try to justify Kareem!
>Go ahead and use it. I am still waiting for you to show me the situation
>that Kareem is hurting his team for letting his defenders steal the ball...

Well, we are still waiting for you to show that Wilt was 'letting his
defenders steal the ball'...

Standard Ed practise... ignore answering your claims, instead try and turn
the issue back on others...

>> We cannot define what we mean, remember? A literal interpretation
>>of the first thing wrote is all that is allowed. Your rules.
>Well, is that a confession that you screwed up in "without his service
>in 1973"? No problem, so I'll take your confession.

Really? We've already proven without a doubt that 'without his service'
can easily be interpreted to mean exactly what Judden has since claimed to
have meant, as well as your definition.

So, there was no screw up. The only issue was that you misinterpreted his
comment, and you claim that his comment wasn't entirely clear for you to
understand...

>> No question mark. This was a statement.
>No period either, then it was not a statement.

Sure... using the 'literal' definition of a statement, it sure was...

>You in turn proved that you knew nothing about the 1970 games, especially
>the facts, like
>
>1) the existence of an illegal offense
>2) the inclusion of Phil Jackson on the championship team
>3) Wilt's big share of fault as testified by Holzman/DeBusschere

Let's see... unlike you, who share total ownership of your failings
on not knowing about Dick Barnett and your 92-75 score in Game 5 (amongst
many others), the 'facts' you claim to be incorrect from Judd are:

a) The existence of an illegal offense

- Totally supported by the Spitz book, a nationally publicized book,
which is well referenced and researched.

- Disputed only by Ed Lor...

b) The inclusion of Phil Jackson on the championship team

- A fact which is supported by a number of references and photographs

- Which is disputed by Ed Lor, who uses some references which don't
list him as evidence (note, we haven't seen one which says he
WASN'T on the team)

c) Wilt's 'big share of fault, as testified by Holzman/DeBusschere'

- Funny, I don't remember seeing Holzman and DeBusschere say
that Wilt deserved a 'Big Share of Fault'...

>> Ed Lor-yer: Ouch! Doah! Ouch! Doah!
>Nope, I didn't see this post. Better repost it.

I saw it... the fact you didn't is your fault...

[Dave Meeks]

In article <4saqqd$2...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
>In article <4s635u$d...@uvmark.vmark.com>,
>Dave Meeks <da...@uvmark.vmark.com> wrote:

>>What's the matter Ed, afraid that you will embarrass your self??
>Meek, save your provoking for lunch. Not knowing where I went to school
>revealed one thing -- you are ignorant. How many years did you say you were
>on the net?

Sorry Ed... unfortunately, I don't save articles from what, 5-6 years ago?

>>So, just how is life in Middletown, NJ??
>Not bad, at least better than that dirty Boston...

Yeah... I have a hard time stopping all my friends from their rush to move
down to Middletown.. It is just a happening kind of place.

Of course, since I don't actually live in Boston...

>>This 'software junkyard', as it were, is the dominate player in its market,
>Yes, are you talking about the market of posting news? that one who claimed
>'doing a good job' in his company didn't even realize his post had a time-
>stamp on it, that he denied posting at 3 a.m. in the morning? I guess life in

Hmm.. this is interesting. How does the timestamp on a post I made relate
to whether or not I'm 'doing a good job'??

>>The way you write, it isn't very surprising...
>The way I write, like ignoring grammar, is certainly a Purdue trait...

Nice to see that you admit that you have problems with grammar...

>>You ask two questions, make a comment, and then make another comment.
>>He responds, very clearly,
>Maybe it's clear to your brain of fertilizers. It's not clear to me.

Whether it was clear to you is not the issue though. We can understand that
with your feeble mind, understanding things is sometimes beyond you.
However, after exposing your misunderstanding, and having it explained to
you the meaning of that passage, even by the author himself, you continue
to show your idiocy on the net by argueing about it.

Geesh, how much clearer does it have to get? Not only did others understand
it, even after you didn't he/we explained it to you. Not understanding it
is one thing, but attacking the author, who very clearly explained it, shows
nothing but you being an ass...

Of course, that is nothing new...

>>Only you (and from the response so far, it IS only you) could equate that
>>conversation as a response to the 'ass-kissing' portion...
>Of course it's only me. It's only me vs 3 idiots in this thread. I can

That's the funny part Ed..

You have the problems with English (by your own admission, at least with
grammar)

You admit to not understanding the passage.

The passage has been explained to you, definitively, a number of times.

Yet, you STILL want to argue about its meaning?

God, what an idiot...

[Dave Meeks]

In article <4sahm9$2...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
>In article <4rveb8$3...@newserv.ksu.ksu.edu>,
>Martin Shobe <kh...@unix.ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:

>>Yeah, all those players, coaches, etc. are wrong.
>Yep, I've never seen other players who claimed to need extra motivation to
>play in an NBA final game 7, or a WS game 7, or a Super Bowl, or a World
>Cup final, or an Olympic Gold Medal game, etc.

There is a BIG difference between 'motivation to play' and whether
'extra motivation helps'.

You know, at 6'5" tall, I don't need a 40" vertical to spike a volleyball
(and that was my speciality), but it sure would be nice to have one...

>>that the psychological factor was a major part of that game.
>Well, that doesn't contradict what I said. I said that they don't need
>extra motivation to play in a game 7/Super Bowl/Gold Medal game, etc.
>The event itself should pump the players up sufficiently...

Sufficiently to play?? Sure... But that does not discount the extra effect
the motivation can have on players...

>And how do you know the exact # of blocks when it wasn't officially
>scored?

From his anecdotes and comments about the game? We aren't using the number
as an 'officially recognized or accounted number' but rather that this was
the rememberance of the event.

>>> so is the receiver supposed to guard against that?
>>
>>Not really.
>Learn more about the game. It's apparent you know nothing about it...

Really? And you have still not told us your sparkling credentials Ed? For
someone spouting such definitive knowledge, especially knowledge that
contradicts that of some of the greatest players of all time, you seem
reluctant to tell us what NBA team you play for...

>>The receiver needs to run his part of the offense, it is the
>>passers responsibility to make sure the passes don't get intercepted. (There
>It's also the receiver's responsibility to make sure the passes don't
>get intercepted. by going to the ball if necessary. Unless in your feeble
>mind, a turnover is better than an out-of-position possession...

Not, it's not the receiver's responsibility. His responsibility lies in
establishing position and when necessary, keep his defender away from the
ball. In those cases when it is reasonable to do, he should do whatever
possible to keep control of the ball, but it is NOT his responsibility to
see into the future, predict the movements of other defenders, and always
leave position to avoid the turnover...

>>Apparently you can't grasp the fact that this isn't a reasonable alternative.
>>First of all, stepping out probably wouldn't have prevented steals. The players
>>making the steals are already between Wilt and the ball.
>Why is that? If Wilt stepped out as quick as his defender, how can his
>defender be "already between Wilt and the ball"? Are you saying that
>Wilt is that physically inept?

Because the defender in question is often NOT the guy guarding Wilt, but
another guy 'helping out'. Larry Bird was notorious for this.

>>Wilt wasn't exactly 100% either.
>Really? where is it accounted?

Simply look at the fact that he had missed nearly the whole season due to
injuries...

>
>>>> Phil Jackson wasn't a Knick in 1970
>>>That's from his bio. I think that has more credibilities than any picture...
>>
>>Could you cite this, please.
>I already did in <4q471h$k...@nntpa.cb.att.com>.

Please recite this again, as it seems everyone missed it...

>>>any stats in a blowout (27 point half-time defcicit, 25 point 3rd
>>>quarter deficit) was dominating.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Oh good. You do agree Wilt dominated. Now that that is settled....
>I take it back. I meant to say "was not dominating".

So you lied then?

>>No screw up here. There are reasonable definitions of without his services that
>>would make this true.
>Where are these reasonable definitions? in other sports, sevice means
>playing...
>

Well, whether in sports or other things, I don't think 'sevice' means much
of anything..

But, 'service' is not officially defined as 'playing', at least to my knowledge
of the facts. Care to provide the official references that define this term
to not only mean 'playing', but also that limits its use to ONLY
mean playing? I know of more than one sport where 'service' is actually
officially defined, but it doesn't mean 'playing', but rather 'a serving
of the ball', as in tennis or volleyball...

>>>3) I claimed that Dick Barnett was a backup center
>>
>>It's more like you didn't know that he wasn't,
>So I didn't know that he wasn't. What's the problem here?

BIG problem. You keep claiming and acting as if you are so aware of this
year, the people involved, etc... Not knowing who Dick Barnett was shows
a lack of understanding about him...

Hell, you could have at least looked it up...

And you claim to know something about the 1970 season... Sure, we should trust
you over Spitz... right...

>>and you still claim to know more
>>about what went on than the people who were there.
>Well, that's another matter. Not knowing Dick Barnett's position doesn't mean
>not knowing that game 7 of the finals is enough of motivation for any
>athletes...

Sure it does. You have been shown, conclusively, to not have a real
understanding of the happenings of the 1970 season. You have been
presented with numerous supporting statements that cite the emotional
impact of the Reed appearance as a KEY factor in the game, yet you fail
to recognize the huge number of such citations... (Here's another, from
the Sports encyclopedia... 'The rest of the Knicks, INSPIRED BY REED...
clicked with their pressing defense and outside shooting...'

>
>>>4) Phil Jackson was a member of the 1970 championship team
>>
>>No screw up here, either.
>There are documented evidence that he wasn't. So a definite screw-up
>here on your part...

Not at all. At very best, you have a standstill, since both sides can show
respectable, trustworthy evidence from multiple sources that points to their
claim.

How you can acknowledge the multiple pieces of evidence and claim victory is
moronic at best...

>move. His main function was to defend Wilt. So when the game was out
>of reach at half time (by 27 points), how many did Wilt outscore Reed
>by that time?

Don't know... GOt the numbers?? If not, shut up...

>But there is no difference to the outcome. Down by 27 or 35 by half-
>time is still a kiss of death...

And losing is still losing, irregardless of it being by 1 point or 30...

So, why be hypocritical in your anaylsis of Jordan? Did it help his team
win? Did it stop his team from getting swept??

>>Both lost. The end result is the same.
>The contributions to the game weren't. One contributed to double OT, one
>contributed to game-over by half time.

Bzzzt...

Remember your comments about the bottom line?

Bottom line, both players saw their contributions in a loss.

Period...

[Air Judden]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>>since you
>> had no question mark, you stated that Barnett was a center.
>Really? but I didn't put a period there either. How then did I state
>"Barnett was a center" AS A STATEMENT?

Questions end in question marks, statements end in periods.
You stated it.

>>Heh heh. Ed rules--gotta love em.
>Well, no matter what rule it is, you still can't find one to claim
>"was it Dick Barnett" a statement...

"(was it Dick Barnett)." is a statement.

>> Willis didn't play any minutes in game 6. Was he not on the Knicks'
>>team that game?
>Well, since you asked, the answer is "NO". In that game, the Knicks
>had these players: Barnett, Bowman, Bradley, DeBusschere, Frazier,
>Hosket, Riordan, Russell, Stallworth, Warren. Check out the boxscore.

Not on a team if you don't play. NIIIIICE. So how does Nate
McMillan fit in to Seattle's team vs. Chicago? Was he or wasn't he a Sonic?

>> I judged what Magic said about Kareem and I'm still awaiting your
>>response.
>In which do-or-die playoff game was Kareem in a situation that his
>teammates feeds to him (not too tough to handle) kept getting stolen?
>You'll get no response from me until you can identify such a situation.

Magic never gave one instance where Kareem would come out of the
low post. He said he wouldn't. Do or die or otherwise!!!!

I'll get no response because you know you've been pimp-slapped. Had
Wilt had Kareem's winning touch, he'd stay right where he was and the balls
would still be getting stolen and LA still would have lost. You lose. You
can't stand the heat, so you left the kitchen.

>>>>With no Wilt, Phoenix would have beaten them in the first round.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>More udd speculation. With no Wilt, the Lakers would still have beaten
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>Phoenix in the first round.
>>
>> Phoenix took the lead in the series WITH Wilt. Then Wilt went on
>>a tear and lead them back. Doah! Ed flaunts his lack of knowledge about
>>1970....once again. How....suprising!
>udd, I just can't imagine how hypocritical you are. You mean only you
>can speculate and I can't? Go home and play with Martin. Your rule doesn't
>apply here...

Your speculation is worthless because you thought Phoenix's starting
point gaurd was in LA. (Go see "Kaw! Kaw!" thread). That is why you
can't speculate on Wilt's winning touch in 1970 -- you've got the facts
all messed up in 1970. You don't know what position guys played, what
teams they played for, the scores of games (that 95-?? game you keep referring
to), who double-teamed who, etc.

>>>I could have swore that block shots weren't recorded until 1973-74...
>>
>> How about from "Foul! The Connie Hawkins story?"
>What about it?

Read it. Hawk got 6 shots blocked. Then read Wilt's book. He
says that he blocked Hawk's shot 6 times.

>>Naw, Hawk doesn't know what a blocked shot is!
>Probably not, since it's not scored officially as a block shot.

So nobody ever blocked a shot until 1974? Wow! I thought I saw
film footage of Russell blocking shots. Naw! That was a deflected pass to
the rim! Nope. Steals weren't kept, either. Hey! Must have been doctored
film!

>> Hey! Barnett was 11th string center! You are right! How silly of
>>me to argue with you!
>At least you get one count right -- you are silly alright.

The day I start siding with you on this thread is the day they lock
me away: Dick Barnett was a center. That was not a statement! Gail Goodrich
played in LA in 1970. Wilt played the final 12 games of the 1970 season!
Deflected passes are the fault of the receiver. 2 of 12 is a lot.

>>>>>> That was the first time a team concentrated on stopping Wilt and
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> ....
>> I did argue the content. You snipped the content.
>Of course, because even the first conjunct of the content is false...

Ed proves once again that he doesn't know what the word "and"
means. No wonder you couldn't get work with a computer degree from Purdue.
You evidently forged signatures on that degree.

>>>Wilt was lazy? Geez, I wonder whether this laziness contributed to the loss..
>> ^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Contributed? Ed, you put SOLE blame on Wilt!!! Or do I need to
>>repost you accusation?
>Yep, you need to. I want to see where I put the SOLE blame on Wilt. You
>have a full-time job ahead of you: cite the quotes...

Been there done that. Go to Kaw Kaw.

>>>Why not? for a player of his statue, his lousy performance includes "fail to
>>>take over the game", "fail to bail out his teammates", "fail to rise to
>>>the occasions", etc.
>>
>> Jordan 63 points. Nuff said.
>Jordan's team didn't get blown out. Nuff said...

Game 1 they sure did! and he scored 45. And who cares? If you lose,
everyone on the team did badly. that's what you've been arguing.

>>That is why I have argued with you all along.
>Nope, you have argued with me all along because you are smarting on the
>Oscar/Magic war. Yet you are still getting nowhere on the Wilt thread,
>instead, you put yourself in a hole by using more bogus arguments...

"MORE" bogus arguments? I went right back to the core of this thing
with your stupid Wilt comments. Before you started bringing in MORE bogus
arguments. This Wilt thread is completely unrelated to Oscar (which I
won over you, though not as decisively as I am winning this one).
Before "More" bogus arguments were brought in, you said if Wilt had
Kareem's winning touch, he would have 4 rings. Since then, you've defined
1970 as one of those years. Put Kareem in Wilt's place in 1970 and LA
wins. You fault Wilt for losing game 5 because you think the unwise passes
should have been caught before they were intercepted. Kareem wouldn't go
out of the post to catch any passes, so Kareem would have lost the game as
well.
BEFORE any foolish bogus arguments that you've tried to add came in,
I went to the core argument and dissed you hard!!!!!!!! You won't even
comment on Magic's quote and you said you won't...

(Judden): I judged what Magic said about Kareem and I'm still awaiting your
response.
(Ed): You'll get no response from me until you can identify such a situation.

Do ya know what that means?

I defended Wilt successfully
You try to side-step the issue by bringing in More bogus arguments.
You admit defeat on the primary issue and must try to BS around
irrelevant points hoping I'd forget. Sorry Ed. No can do!

In other words, Ed.....

I win
I win
I win
I win
I win

Cue up that fat lady --

na na na na
na na na na
hey hey hey
goodbye!

Cue up Dandy Don --

turn out the lights, the party's over!

Cue up that Rocky theme song

du du du.....du du du.... du du du ... du du du.....

JUDDEN WINS IN A ROUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Judden
"I am the champion, my friend
And I clobbered Ed, to the end....."

[Air Judden]

saun...@castor.che.wisc.edu (Brian Saunders) writes:

>In article <4se9d8$14...@uvmark.vmark.com>, da...@uvmark.vmark.com (Dave
>Meeks) wrote:

>>Otherwise, shut up...

>You know there is something right in the world when you see a good old
>Meeks/Lor thread going. :^)

Dang!

I start this whole thing (Oscar/Magic), continute it (Wilt's 100
point: some thought), nourish it (For a second, I thought Dupree had
Mutated), water it (Ed Lor-yer, let's rock), and add steroids to it
(Ed Lor-yer: kaw! Kaw!), and now Dave gets all my credit.

Makes me feel unappreciated :(

Judden

[Dave Meeks]

In article <4sc1la$3...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
>In article <4s5s69$12...@uvmark.vmark.com>,
>Dave Meeks <da...@uvmark.vmark.com> wrote:
>
>>Bwahahah.. this is hilarious Ed... So, you are claiming that Walt,
>>Wilt, Magic, Bird, etc... all those players that talk about these
>>psychological factors are lying to us?
>Wait, you care to show me where Bird and Magic talk about a need of
>extra psychological boost in game 7 of the finals? Before you do that,

Really... care to show me where I claim anyone 'needs' an extra psychological
boost?

>It sure does. If it's not scored officially, how do you know there are
>exactly 6 blocks?

Easy.. testimonies from the players who played, they people who were there,
or historians who have made it their job to investigate such things.

And, I'm not really concerned with whether or not it was 'exactly 6 blocks'
or not...

>>to receive it), is it the receiver's fault for not getting the ball?
>Talk to me again if that's the case. The way Holzman saw it, these are
>passes not too tough for Wilt to handle. So there goes your assumption,
>again...

Oh lord Ed. You mean you have a direct link to Holzman? Because, his
statement does NOT state that these were Wilt's fault. A pass not too
tough for Wilt to handle could mean many things. Unless you provide
supporting documentation to support your interpretation, your assumption
is pretty bad...

>So, Meek, after that many examples, are you able to deflect the blame
>for Wilt? Not a chance...

'Deflect the blame from Wilt'? Not exactly my effort. I'm just showing
you how ridiculous your assertions that it must be Wilt's fault are.
In the majority of cases, Wilt would NOT be at fault for such things.
There are cases that he would be. You have yet to provide evidence of
any sort that shows why Wilt should be blamed for the majority of these.

>>As opposed to you, who thinks that a player who plays well but sees his
>>team lose deserves a 'large chunk of the blame'.
>For a player who's the leader of the team, the one the team counts on?
>sure.

If your premise is false, what's that mean about the rest? Isn't that
your line?

Wilt wasn't the 'leader of the team', Jerry West was...

>Yep, but MJ's team wasn't given that much of a chance to begin with,
>against one of the most dominant team in the past 2 decades, unlike
>Wilt team with 2 other HOFer...

Again.. who cares. Bottom line, both teams were expected to lose, both
teams lost.

Period.

>Right, except that Jordan right himself more than enough in his career
>that his failure against Boston in 1986 was just an aberration. Was Wilt
>able to do the same?

Yes.

>In this context, Reed wasn't here. The guy particularly gave Wilt trouble
>was Stallworth, who guarded Wilt but had the speed to go around him and
>steal the ball.

Nice try. Address the point, and not the particulars of who I labelled as
guarding whom. Trying to avoid the point is the same as an admission in
my book. I guess you are admitting then, that the diagram is a very valid
example..

>>See... simple.. Wilt can really only prevent the steal/turnover in one of
>>those three places.
>Yes, pretty simple, if the steals occurred in scenarios (1) and (2), I
>don't think Holzman would classify it as "passes not to tough for him
>(Wilt) to handle"...

Provide proof of this, or as I like to say.. shut up.

What YOU THINK Holzman would classify is immaterial. Unless you can provide
some proof that Holzman did indeed think this way, you are just blowing
a lot of meaningless smoke...

>>Now, once it reaches Wilt, that's another story.
>Another story? have you even seen excuses made by Jordan or Bird that
>"I struggled because they triple-team me"?

Strawman argument. Please provide the quote of Wilt saying such a thing.

>>What Judd refers to as the 3 forward/2guard lineup is just that.
>A 3 forward 2 guard line up doesn't mean that the forward playing role
>of center wasn't considered the center, AT THAT MOMENT ON THE COURT.
>Did the Lakers play a 3 guard 2 forward line-up in 1980 game 6?

No. Magic was introduced as the center. Therein lies the difference.

>>Really, his bio said 'Phil Jackson wasn't a Knick in 1970'?
>>Which bio said that??
>Look at the career profile in the Basketball Encyclopedia:
>
> 68-69NY 70XJ 71-73NY 79-80 NJ
>
>You don't think XJ means Knicks, do you?

Sure... Since he was listed under the Knicks team listings. XJ doesn't
mean 'NOT A KNICK' either. It means he was injured that year.

Still waiting for you to provide these quotes in his bio that said
'Phil Jackson WASN'T a Knick in 1970'...

>>>any stats in a blowout (27 point half-time defcicit, 25 point 3rd
>>>quarter deficit) was dominating.
>>
>>Cool.. now you agree with us...
>Nope, I mean to say "was not dominating".

So, you lied... thanks for the admission..

>
>>As shown above, in 2 of the 3 common ways such a thing can occur, the
>>post man would indeed be faultless. And,
>1) that's not what Holzman said: "pick off passes not too tough for him
>to handle".

What Holzman said was NOT that it was Wilt's fault either. Unless you
can provide supporting evidence that Holzman said so, your hot air does
nothing but make you sweat.

>2) you are really stretching. Even if (big IF) the passes were not getting
>anywhere near him when intercepted, but his team was not getting anywhere
>with such a game plan, how did he help his team to get out of this
>doldrums? You mean he, as the leader of the team, could do nothing but
>keep seeing the passes got picked off?

If your premise is wrong (leader of the team), what then? West was the
leader of the team.

>Meek, your problem is that in a job not done, your only resolve is to
>see whether it's your fault (if not, you are home free). You've never had
>the mindset of taking lots of responsibility of seeing a job get done...

Oh, not only do you know what Holzman meant with your Ed-i-Mind Tricks, but
now you know all about my life?

>>>1) playing 69 games was without his serivce for most of the season
>>
>> - depends purely on interpretation. Don't know what 'serivce' is
>> though, but I'll assume you mean 'service'. We've shown over
>> and over that this could (and did) mean the performance Reed was
>> normally giving his team.
>That's not how sports people defined service...

Really? What 'sport people' have defined it thus? Please provide definitive
references, as well as supporting evidence, for this fact. I know many
sports people that do NOT define service as such. And, remember, how
the word is defined in other sports in not particularly relevant or
portable to basketball. Think about how service is defined in tennis or
volleyball, as an example.

>> - indeterminate. Conflicting sources of information.
>Where? Cite the source that conflict the fact that he wasn't a member
>of the champions.
>
>Remember, the picture isn't going to save you...

Sure it is. It and the description along with it, as well as the Spitz
book (similar reference) both include him as a member of the champions.

>>Whether your team loses by
>>13 pts, like Wilt's did, or 4pts, like the Bulls did should be immaterial
>>to you.
>Sure was material to me. Without Jordan's 63 points, the Bulls would
>very to be blown out, instead of making that game a 2-OT affair. With
>or without Wilt's points, the Lakers were still blown out.
>
>I.e. Jordan put his team in a position to win, even if it didn't mean
>much; Wilt didn't.

No he didn't. Again, remember the bottom line. He failed to get his team
even one victory in that series. A series in which he averaged about 55
ppg in the first two games, yet in game one, the Bulls lost by 19 (and
19 is > 14). In game 2, they also lost. And, they were blown out in
Game 3 as well.

Bottom line, MJ's performance did not get his team a victory in any of
the three games...

>>And, let's not forget the fact that at least Wilt's team didn't get swept.
>>Wilt's team went 7 games. Michael's 44ppg, 6rpg, 6apg, 2spg, 1bpg was
>>not very 'dominating', since his team got swept, right?
>Dumbo, I was bashing Wilt on games 5 and 7, two games the Lakers should
>have had. MJ's team was swept? so what? were they expect to beat the
>1986 Celtics?

Where was Wilt's Lakers expected to win? Were they expected to beat the
team that won 60 games in the regular season? The Lakers only managed
to win 46 games in the regular season, and actually finished 2nd in the
West. You mean they were expected to win?

>>effects this psychological boost provided were important are all lying, right?
>Right. I would believe the event itself is big enough a motivation. I mean,
>look at all those finals game 7/SB/WS game 7, the players are super charged.
>Why do you think that only in this particular 1970 game 7, only Reed's
>appearance was the lone motivation factor...

Please provide the quote I have made where I state 'Reed's appearance was
the LONG motivation factor...'

Why do I think Reed's appearance provided additional motivation? Motivation
to perform even MORE charged than they were? Because of the numerous
reports and quotes from players, media, and experts involved in the game
or the time that have stated such.

You mean, I should disbelieve all these reports simply because Ed Lor, a
non-basketball playing loser, a man who's all too happy to bash everyone
else's college but is too scared to admit where he went, someone who
claims to know so much about the 1970s that we should discount a well
respected author's account concerning situations and we should discount all
the player commentary/quotes concerning their motivation and that doesn't
even know the final score of game 5 nor the position played by certain key
individuals during the series..

Please Ed... Save it for lunch...

It's not much of a surprise you are from New Jersey, while I'm from Boston...

Kind of reflects our relative basketball tradition and experience...

Dave

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4secud$s...@uvmark.vmark.com>,

Dave Meeks <da...@uvmark.vmark.com> wrote:
>Hmmm.... let's see... I don't find an actual definition for 'service' in
>any of the BASKETBALL record books, do you Ed?
>
>Afterall, we ARE talking about BASKETBALL, right?

Afterall, we are also talking about team sports, right? Why do you think
basketball is different from football/baseball as far as the definition
of 'service' is concerned?

>There goes Ed... once again trying to get out of things by claiming his
>standard 'I just screwed up, yet again'...

Really? like "was it Dick Barnett" as a statement? how?

>This is getting pretty common Ed..

Yep, picking on your stupidity is very common...

>Let's see... The same number as Willis did in Game 6 in 1970. Yet, was
>Willis a member of the 'Championship Knicks'???

Yep, Willis was a member of the championship Knicks, but he wasn't a
member of game 6.

>Seems like it was 'something set forth in words' Ed...

Well, maybe it seems like it in your pea brain, but I don't see

"was it Dick Barnett"

was any sort of declaration or set forth in words.

>So, using your friendly 'literal translation', you did in fact make a
>'statement'.

How so? where is the period after the statement?

>Bzzt... Incorrect assumption Ed. Just because something is not
>officially scored or recorded for the record books, does NOT mean it
>doesn't happen.

Well, then how do you know that it happened? or specifically, block
6 shots?

>Charges are not 'scored officially', yet they happen.

That's right, but if someone say that he took 6 charges, I would take it
with a grain of salt. Since it's not officially scored, what's the evidence
that he took 6?

>Can you provide definitive evidence to support the fact that DeBusschere
>was acting as the center in the 2nd half?

Well, he played Wilt on defense, he drawed Wilt on offense. He considered
himself the 4th string. I think that's stronger evidence, in any way or
shape, than any you've provided...

>Please provide detailed references, cross referenced appropriately..

Well, really? but did you cross referenced the illegal offense?

>Otherwise, shut up...
Good advice for you...

>>Jordan's team didn't get blown out. Nuff said...
>
>What's the difference?

The difference of a close game and a blow out...

>You mean, ultimately, it matters whether you lost
>by 1 or by 21? Do they give you a different class of loss?

Yep, a close game and a blow out. One gave Jordan credit, one didn't
give Wilt credit...

>Jordan's team got SWEPT, Wilt's team did not...

Well, trying to dodge the issue? are you trying to argue one specific
game or the whole series? Hey, why not their career?

Jordan got 4 rings, Wilt got only 2...

>Guess 'nuff' is not said yet...

Sure have, the difference between a close game and a blow out...

>>Go ahead and use it. I am still waiting for you to show me the situation
>>that Kareem is hurting his team for letting his defenders steal the ball...
>
>Well, we are still waiting for you to show that Wilt was 'letting his
>defenders steal the ball'...

As Holzman said, "passes not too tough for him to handle"...

Now where is the opposing coach saying similar things about Kareem?

If you talk about waiting, I am still waiting for the Knick quote saying
that the 1-3-1 was illegal...

>Standard Ed practise... ignore answering your claims, instead try and turn
>the issue back on others...

Standard Meek practice, ingnoring his own claim when he doesn't have
support...

>Really? We've already proven without a doubt that 'without his service'
>can easily be interpreted to mean exactly what Judden has since claimed to
>have meant, as well as your definition.

Easily interpreted by whom? at least sports people don't think playing
at a certain form is the neccessary condition of "service".

>>> No question mark. This was a statement.
>>No period either, then it was not a statement.
>
>Sure... using the 'literal' definition of a statement, it sure was...

Sure not, how does "was it Dick Barnett" qualify as a "declaration"?

>a) The existence of an illegal offense
>
> - Totally supported by the Spitz book, a nationally publicized book,
> which is well referenced and researched.

Yet you have NO way to trace his reference or research on that claim.
In other words, it's still an unsubstantiated claim...

> - Disputed only by Ed Lor...

Wow, dumbo, disputed only by me doesn't discredit my dispute. You have
3 people claiming that the Knicks said that the offense was illegal.
I dispute that. Yet you still don't have anything to substantite that claim...
You have to wimp out on that...

>b) The inclusion of Phil Jackson on the championship team
>
> - A fact which is supported by a number of references and photographs

A number of references? like which?

photograph? you have already invalidated this type of photo as championship
member inclusion. Remember your claim on Elgin Baylor?

> - Which is disputed by Ed Lor, who uses some references which don't
> list him as evidence (note, we haven't seen one which says he
> WASN'T on the team)

Well, I've posted the reference already, that he wasn't on the team,
in <4q471h$k...@nntpa.cb.att.com>. You replied to that article. So you lied
about "we haven't seen"...

>c) Wilt's 'big share of fault, as testified by Holzman/DeBusschere'
>
> - Funny, I don't remember seeing Holzman and DeBusschere say
> that Wilt deserved a 'Big Share of Fault'...

Well, DeBusschere claimed that Wilt had a great game because he
wanted the ball and he wanted the game. What's the implication here,
in other games, he didn't wanted the ball and the game...

Holzman's? check out <4q7oqb$q...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>.

>>> Ed Lor-yer: Ouch! Doah! Ouch! Doah!
>>Nope, I didn't see this post. Better repost it.
>
>I saw it... the fact you didn't is your fault...

Wow, are you really that clueless? why do you think a post reaching
your site would necessarily reach my site?

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4se9d8$14...@uvmark.vmark.com>,

Dave Meeks <da...@uvmark.vmark.com> wrote:
>>You started a paragraph with "NO, YOU should be more careful". What question
>>did I ask you that you started with "NO"?
>
>Strawman argument Ed.. come on, you can do better than that...

Against your pea brain? do I need that?

>No one has said that 'a comment has to be alwyas considered an answer to
>a question asked', and that in no way relates to any comment must come
>from a question.

Then how you you know that his "this is a hobby" is an answer to the
question? Meek, glad that you slap yourself...

>However, if a question is asked, and a response follows,

the response didn't follow the question.

>and that response is consistent with the information requested,

another strike, the response didn't answer any one of the two questions.

>it is usually safe to assume that the response was made in regard to
>the question..

So two strikes against your antecedent, better save your assumption for lunch.

>But why would a Wilt ass-kisser and a person who reads books from other
>teams/events be related?

Easy, to justify how great the Knicks are, i.e. losing to such a great tema
is no shame, he has been ranting and raving the Celtics and Russell too...

>Wilt's being an ass kisser

Wilt's being an ass kisser? I don't know Wilt has scooped down that low...

>would logically bear no real relation to the reading of tons of Knicks books.

^^^^^^^^^
You are really humorous! Logically? your Meeklogic? better make it
"illogically"...

>You are drawing a very poor inference here...

Well, at least my inference isn't as humorous as yours...

>Wrong, as he has correctly pointed out. His response, as he has stated
>unequivocally, was in response to the reading of Knicks books.

Who's asking him about "why do you read Knicks books"? you find that
in any one of the two questions?

>And, as for 'no one but you three', those three (along with standard
>English interpretation) are alot more than your one.

That doesn't mean much? If you want to go by sheer number, Wilt is
certainly at fault, and you are crushed. Remember what Clyde said?

"Everybody said it's Wilt's fault".

Geez, what's world's population vs you 3 Stooges. Ok, I cut you some
slack, not "everybody in the world", even "everybody who followed the
game" is going to overwhelmed you...

>And, since those
>three include the person who made the comment, you are toasted...

Well, he responded to my comment of "ass-kissing" saying that it's a hobby.
I am sure that someone is toasted, but that's not me...

>How can you tell the originator of the comment what he was responding to?

By the way he screwed up. Where did I ask

"what's your purpose of reading Knicks books?"

>>>Based on your comments, and standard English and net.posting rules, his

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>>response in this paragraph will either be bound to the questions
>>Dumbo, which standard net.posting rules stating that a response has to
>>be an answer to a question? did you follow that rule yourself?
>
>Show me where I claim that every response must be bound to a question...

net.posting rules. What is a rule? You mean not every response has to
follow such a rule? then what rule is that?

>Otherwise, answer your own strawman arguments...

Your own words: "rules". You mean net.posting rules don't have to be
followed all the time?

>'He certainly needs something like you to build his credentials', followed

^^^^^^^^^
>by
Meek, I called Fudd "something"? Now even though I thought he was a "thing",
I haven't thought of such a line. Good job...

>'That's just a hobby'
>
>makes perfect sense. What could this be referring to? If this were
>the only two statements involved, this could easily mean that the
>'hobby' == 'building Wilt's credentials'.

Good, and how did I describe "building Wilt's credentials" in the context?
in a derogatory way: kissing Wilt's ass.

>The ass-kisser portion is an irrelevant

It certainly is relevant. It is followed in context by the next
statement -- Wilts sure need someone like you to build his credentials.

>made by an idiot with a chip on his shoulder and a lack of anything better
>to do...

Probably, like engaging in a flame war since May...

>>Idiot, look at how Spitz stated the effect of the 1-3-1 offense.
>
>I have. It doesn't state that.

It sure did. The effect of the Knicks offense was not how many points they
scored, but how they stopped Wilt and West. How interesting...

>>Well, it may be common in your ass. I think it's more common that the
>>Knicks' aggressive defense was the reason that stop the Lakers offense,
>>as it's accounted in several books...
>
>I don't see anything in this book that discounts that theory. Instead,
>it simply adds additional information.

Well, if N books claimed that the reason was X, yet if 1 book claimed
that the reason was Y, where X is Knicks' defense, Y is Knicks' offense.
Instead, you are cooked.

>And who cares what YOU think.

You certainly do, otherwise why are you arguing with me?

>You were not there, you have shown over
>and over that you don't know much about that 1970s series

Well, at least I know more than you do...

>thought Game 5 had a final score of 92-75, etc...).
Really? where did I say that game 5 had a final score of 92-75?
You care to cite it?

>Spitz has, however, shown a great deal of knowledge about the events that
>took place.

The poor thing is that such knowledge (1-3-1 being illegal) can't be
traced. I wonder whether such knowledge was invented in a closet...

I mean, inventing things is not new to you, is it? like inventing support
from Floyd, inventing the people that I flamed like crazy at a certin time
frame in r.s.f.p, inventing the new meaning of "!="...

>>2) anything besides reading Knicks book?
>
>Sure it does. It addresses the issue of reading Knicks books.

Dumbo, I only wanted to know what work he does besides reading Knicks
books. I couldn't care less why he read Knicks books...

>>His response was immediately towards the comments, about ass-kissing...
>
>Really? Based on the observations of many others, you are wrong;

And who are the many others? Why do you think you three Stooges can
serve as jury?

>based on the observations of the author, you are wrong...

That doesn't say much, especially when the response didn't even resemble
an answer to my questions...

>Get the pattern here Ed??

the pattern here? sure, that you are losing it, as usual...

>Jesus.. it's one thing to be confused about his response, but when others
>point out you misinterpreted it, and then the author (Judd) also points
>out that you have incorrectly interpreted the statement, you should get the
>hint and drop it.

Hint? that "it's a hobby" is an answer to my question "anything else
(do you do) besides reading Knicks books"?

Meek, you get some kind of imagination, but I certainly don't get "hints"
like that...

>Otherwise, you not only look stupid, you look like a stubborn ass with
>nothing better to do with his life...

Meek, whether I have anything better to do in my life is not your concern,
you better worry more about your life, or your wife would drive your car to
New York... By that time, the car won't be available to you, not because
you are in Boston, but because that's the divorce settlement. You won't
own it anymore...

>Really? Funny, since my interpretation of the statements follows exactly
>with other peoples interpretation, as well as the authors..

That means you are dishonest too. Since when does "that's a hobby" answer
the question of what else he does besides reading Knicks books?

>>1) Floyd Goodrish supported you
>>2) 4-1 != 4-1
>>3) I flamed people like crazy in r.s.f.p
>>4) the Knicks admitted that their offense was illegal ...
>
>Prove them... All of them. Provide supporting documents.

Wow, Meek, you really are desperate here. You are still smarting on your
lies in 1993?

1) Floyd Goodrich supported you --

In the e-mail you sent me on 2/8/93, id <930208194...@uvmark.vmark.com>:

>>Whether you agree with other people's interpretation of the events is
>>rules. We could care less whether or not YOU believe it. It has, however,
>>been confirmed by more than one other individual. Therefore, as we have not
>>seen any opinion (except yours) to the contrary, it is held to be in the
>>realm of the "majority rules" by-law.
>1) Well, talk is cheap. Where is the "other" individual?

<9211021531.AA19715@iapetus.>. Floyd Goodrich.

Well, you have NO support from Floyd Goodrich, true or false? You do?
why don't you post <9211021531.AA19715@iapetus.> for all of us to examine?

2) 4-1 != 4-1.

In the e-mail you sent me on 2/1/93, id <930201223...@uvmark.vmark.com>:

>Geez, how do you know my application on the head-to-head tie-breaker wasn't
>because of 4-1 == 4-1? this is a fact your aren't able to deny and have to
>dodge by "opinions differ that 4-1 and 4-1 are not actually equal ..." You get
>any evidence from me that I was applying it when their records are actually
>different (not when they are tied but you think it's different)? Yes or no?

Yes... Their "records" were different.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

3) flame people like crazy

In <1992Oct15.1...@uvmark.uucp>:

Mr. Ed has not said anything in such a long time (at least in th[is]
group, he has flamed people like crazy in anothe[r] one)...

Which "people" did I flame like crazy?

4) Testimonies from the Knicks that their offense was illegal

In <4ohqkp$1a...@uvmark.vmark.com>:

>You have no evidence of that rule existed back in 1970. I have evidence
>that it didn't exist in 1978. If you claim the existence of a

Actually, they DO have evidence, from the testimonials of the players who
played the game.

So Meek, these are the evidence. Eat them...

>Provide evidence that said supporting documents are valid and not forged.
>Provide evidence that your supporting documents are to be trusted.
>Provide evidence that both the literal and contextual interpretations
>are valid and support you cause.

Provide all these evidence A, B, C, and D? Provide evidence that you need
such evidences A, B, C, and D for a piece of evidence to be valid.
Provide evidence that you've been using A, B, C, and D in the past in
our flame war. Provide evidence that using A, B, C, and D are our traditional
way to recognize evidence...

>Otherwise, shut up...
Otherwise, shut up on your evidence doubt...

>Or should we talk about Dick Barnett, the 92-75 final score in Game 5, etc...

Yes, was he the back-up center?

What about the 92-75 final score? you get any evidence that I say a
final score of 92-75?

>Funny... where did I answer questions in this way? You seem to imply that
>this argument or method of answering the question was MY 'dumb way'.

In <4r0msp$16...@uvmark.vmark.com>

What you've done is similar to the following example:

'Ed, where do you work? Are you even from this country? Just wondering,
because you seem to be lying all the time. You sure need someone to help
you with this.'

and then you reply:

"Yes I am. And I don't to tell you, because I'm sure you know.

And, I work at Lucent Technologies."

In your example, in such a situation, your 'Yes I am' must be bound
to you being an liar, and we could then use that as admission that you
always lie.

Well, I didn't reply that dumb way, you did...

[Air Judden]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>In article <4s97kv$j...@abc.ksu.ksu.edu>,

>Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>> Ed must have been on an island, or something.
>>
>> Ed, for your information, KSU has handed the Sooners 3 consecutive
>> butt kickings. This year, the Cats handed the Sooners the worst
>> in their history 49-10 (previous worst was also by KSU).
>Wow, Fudd, you don't assume that I am a college age kid like you are,
>do you?

No, I think you are younger. Somewhere in the 12-13 range.

>> For the 3rd straight year, the Cats finished the season ranked
>> higher than the Sooners and did better in the Big 8.
>> This year, the Cats turned out more all Big 8 players than the
>> Sooners.
>Well, the time followed Big 8 football, the Cats were merely pussies.
>It's a dump for who couldn't get into Nebraska/Oklahoma...

More Ed foolishness. The dump for OU-NU rejects were known as
Oklahoma State (Barry Sanders, who I kid you not, was not sought by OU, NU,
KU, OR KSU) and Colorado. KSU, back then, was a dump for those who couldn't
get a scholorship anywhere else.

>> If you were not good enough for Okalahoma, you certainly weren't
>> good enough for KSU, so in the fine words of Ed Lor-yer: LIE!
>More Fuddlogic. If Oklahoma were better, how did this logic wash?

I checked with enrollment. You were never enrolled here. So you
LIE!!!!!!!! Heh heh.

>> Worse than the butt-kicking you've taken from me? Man, I really
>> feel for you!
>Nope, at least I learned something from Purdue: how to whip a KSU
>WildPussies in an argument...

Purdue beat KSU? When? 1988 NCAAs? (Sorry to bring up that painful
memory, Dave). 1989? Nope. First KSU victory in Bramlage
colloseum.

I'm still waiting on you to respond to the FIRECRACKER post. You
know...Kareem wouldn't go out of the post to get the ball. You
blame Wilt in game 5 by saying he should have done this. Kareem
did not, yet with Kareem's winning touch, LA would have won game 5.

still waiting ....

Judden

[Air Judden]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>In article <4s98c8$j...@abc.ksu.ksu.edu>,

>Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>> You don't know he was a guard, yet you act like you know what you
>>were talking about in the 1970 series.

>Well, at least I know more than you do...

Yes, about some things: Barney, Power Rangers, Sesame Street
characters.

You realize Ed, that you didn't deny not knowing the facts about the
1970 series and you put put on a facade.

>> Ed, you are the only one arguing with a proven point.
>So what? I am the only one smart enough to know that you are blowing
>smoke, like the Knicks admitted that they cheated (i.e. to admit that
>they cheated, they must have realized that their offense was a violation of
>the rule). Now you have NO evidence whatsoever of such realization. No
>matter how you want to dodge it...

No dodging. 1-3-1 was illegal.
Knicks admitted to running 1-3-1.

When I said 3 Knicks admitted to running an illegal offense, there
is a deduction step required. If you can't complete the last step of
this deduction, I can see why you would argue at length over a moot
point. Even the worst anti-logic people in the world can do this.
I guess you are one step below them. No wonder Lucent loves ya! You
must be fun to perform test on!

>> Because you can't read and hold past thoughts in memory.
>Or you can't write and tried to wimp out of a mistake you wrote?

I didn't write a mistake. I "assumed" a mistake. I assumed you were
capable of simple deductive reasoning. Ed, if a=b and b=c, can you
complete the relationship between a and c?

If you want to claim a small victory for not having 3 testimonies
to admitting running "an illegal offense," in those exact words,
go ahead. I won't deny it. What I do have is testimonies, saying
that they ran a 1-3-1 offense, which was an illegal.
Now, Ed, no direct quote is need. The word "that" takes out the
need for the quote (and quotation marks) and gives a summary of the
idea. They ran a 1-3-1, which has been proven illegal.

>> Only Fester knew when to leave and lick his wounds.
>Sure, becasue he has to lick his wounds. You mean I should give it up
>when I have you on the ropes? Geez, you sure are dreaming...

Ed, the only rope you have is the one around your neck. You made a
false statement about Wilt. I argued it and argued it and watched you
try to justify yourself at every turn. Finally, when you said Wilt should
have come out of the post to catch passes, I sprung the trap on you with the
Magic quote, which you won't respond to. I lead you through this master-maze
and you bit it hook line and sinker.
What I did, Ed, was give you enough rope to hang yourself with, and
that is what you've done. You tried a million bs side-steps, but when it
all comes full circle, my response to your original post stands true:

1) If Wilt had Kareem's "winning touch", he wouldn't have won 4
rings.

and

2) You didn't know what you were talking about on the topic of 1970.

You admitted #1 by stating that you won't respond to my Magic quote and you
admitted #2 at the beginning of this post.

You thought you had me on the ropes, like Foreman thought he had
Ali. But I kept hitting your arm and hitting it. Then, when I countered with
my offensive against you, you couldn't defend. Rope-a-dope -- on a newsgroup.
Amazing!

If it makes you feel better, I'll try to argue Power Rangers with you. You'll
kick my butt in that argument and can finally claim to beat me.

Judden
Reigning victorious!

[Brian Saunders]

In article <4sgcka$a...@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu>, judd...@ksu.ksu.edu (Air Judden)
wrote:

> I start this whole thing (Oscar/Magic), continute it (Wilt's 100
>point: some thought), nourish it (For a second, I thought Dupree had
>Mutated), water it (Ed Lor-yer, let's rock), and add steroids to it
>(Ed Lor-yer: kaw! Kaw!), and now Dave gets all my credit.

>Makes me feel unappreciated :(

Hardly - I wasn't giving anybody credit. I just like seeing the old
Meeks/Lor arguments. They have been one of the few constants in my 6
years of Usenetdom.

Aren't the two ksu's in your address redundant, Air Judden? My dad is a
K-State alum, and one thing he hates is redundancy. You better get that
fixed, or you may lose a little in alumni donations. :^)

--
Brian Saunders
saun...@castor.che.wisc.edu

[Martin Shobe]

In article <4s0mll$f...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>,
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT <l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com> wrote:
>In article <4r3f5a$m...@newserv.ksu.ksu.edu>,
>Martin Shobe <kh...@unix.ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>Sob, no wonder you can only play in the driveway. You aren't playing in
>the NBA, are you?

Say, I don't see your name on a roster either.

>But some idiots may think that was playing NBA ball in his driveway,
>probably against his dog...

Well, my dog could probably beat anyone you have ever played against. (And
since you probably lost to them too....)

The point was, you have enough room to play one-on-one in a quarter of
a half-court.

>>Didn't
>>stop me then. And if you were to actually watch a few games (instead of just
>>looking at the box scores), you would find that clearouts are a major part of
>>todays game.
>Yes, you would find that clearouts on half of the court is against the
>rule. But it's too much to expect you to know the rule.

I do know the rule. The rule says you cannot have three or more players above
the top of the key on the weak side. That is the only illegal offense rule
currently in the books. It is not enough to prevent clearouts. (Put two
people top of the key weakside, two more in the weakside corner, go
one-on-one on the ball side.)

>>>of the rules are easily comprehensible. Whether they enforce it for superstar
>>>is another matter.
>>
>>It's no surprise that Ed Lor is comfortable with a double standard.
>It's no surprise that Sob is not comfortable with reality...

Ed, you couldn't recognize reality if it was clearly labelled. (Then again,
you couldn't recognize a label.)

Martin Shobe
kh...@unix.ksu.ksu.edu

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4sekp4$i...@uvmark.vmark.com>,

Dave Meeks <da...@uvmark.vmark.com> wrote:
>There is a BIG difference between 'motivation to play' and whether
>'extra motivation helps'.

Well, under what circumstance that you don't need motivation even when you
really want to win the game? when you have already sufficient motivation.

>Sufficiently to play?? Sure... But that does not discount the extra effect
>the motivation can have on players...

Sure does. If this is a game they go all out to win, what extra effect can
the extra motivation have? None. For Christ's sake, even if they don't
have that extra motivation, they'll still die to win that game!!!

>From his anecdotes and comments about the game? We aren't using the number
>as an 'officially recognized or accounted number' but rather that this was
>the rememberance of the event.

So that's not a fact, but just a rememberance...

Talk to me again when you know that he did block 6 Hawkins shots as a
fact...

>>Learn more about the game. It's apparent you know nothing about it...
>
>Really? And you have still not told us your sparkling credentials Ed?

I don't even need sparkling credentials, but just common sense. The guards
passed him the ball, they aren't too tough for him to handle (according to
Holzman), yet he had it stolen...

>For someone spouting such definitive knowledge, especially knowledge that
>contradicts that of some of the greatest players of all time, you seem
>reluctant to tell us what NBA team you play for...

Well, I am just using Holzman's comments, and you know which team he
coached?

>Not, it's not the receiver's responsibility. His responsibility lies in
>establishing position and when necessary, keep his defender away from the
>ball.

It's not that simple, if under the circumstances, it's going to be
intercepted.

>In those cases when it is reasonable to do, he should do whatever
>possible to keep control of the ball, but it is NOT his responsibility to
>see into the future, predict the movements of other defenders, and always
>leave position to avoid the turnover...

Why not? is that your perception of the game? just do the job you suppose
to do. If it screws up, then it's your teammate's problem...

Meek, no wonder you are so fond of all-stats no ring player like Stockton.
His stats certainly look good...

>Because the defender in question is often NOT the guy guarding Wilt, but
>another guy 'helping out'.

Really? from "Red on Red":

"Wilt was the strongest man in the world, and he outweighed
Stallworth by almost 80 pounds, but with his quickness Dave did
a hell of a job of keeping daylight between him and Wilt. Dave
was even able to steal the ball coming around on the pass into
Chamberlain. And that threw Wilt off.

>>>Wilt wasn't exactly 100% either.
>>Really? where is it accounted?
>Simply look at the fact that he had missed nearly the whole season due to
>injuries...

It doesn't mean he's not healthy entering the finals.

>>>>That's from his bio. I think that has more credibilities than any picture...
>>>
>>>Could you cite this, please.
>>I already did in <4q471h$k...@nntpa.cb.att.com>.
>
>Please recite this again, as it seems everyone missed it...

Wow, Meek, you are really something... moronic!!!

You even responded to that article, which started with the length
of our old flame wars. It also included 2 articles you posted in
1992, on your comment on "stupid discussions". Your response was in
<4q6fl2$1a...@uvmark.vmark.com>.

And now it seems everyone missed it? Even if everyone did, you couldn't
have...

Now, you commented that a Judd article that you saw and I missed as
my fault. Now what do you say about an article you responded to but
claimed that you missed?

>>>>any stats in a blowout (27 point half-time defcicit, 25 point 3rd
>>>>quarter deficit) was dominating.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>Oh good. You do agree Wilt dominated. Now that that is settled....
>>I take it back. I meant to say "was not dominating".
>
>So you lied then?

Well, I retracted a statement that I mistyped, how is that a lie?

>Well, whether in sports or other things, I don't think 'sevice' means much
>of anything..
>
>But, 'service' is not officially defined as 'playing', at least to my knowledge
>of the facts. Care to provide the official references that define this term
>to not only mean 'playing', but also that limits its use to ONLY
>mean playing?

But then we get back to hte old thread, where somehow you wimped out.
Care to tell me where "without the service" is defined as "ineffective
playing"?

>BIG problem. You keep claiming and acting as if you are so aware of this
>year, the people involved, etc...

Wow, you claimed that the Knicks admitted on the illegal offense
in 1970 (a lie), it didn't stop you from acting like you know about
the 1970 finals. Afterall, the worse I did was asking a question on
something I wasn't sure, it's nothing compared to things you made up...

> Not knowing who Dick Barnett was shows
>a lack of understanding about him...

So? it doens't mean a lack of understanding on the series, or Wilt's
shortcomings. Not knowing about the validity of the 1-3-1 shows more
serious problem: a total lack of understanding of the game.

>Hell, you could have at least looked it up...

Yes, like look up where Spitz did his research...

>And you claim to know something about the 1970 season... Sure, we should trust
>you over Spitz... right...

At least you get this right...

>Sure it does. You have been shown, conclusively, to not have a real
>understanding of the happenings of the 1970 season.

Wow, dumbo, 1970 wasn't the only season that the finals ended in 7...
Actually, a game 7 is like a SB or NCAA final. They have that every year...

>You have been
>presented with numerous supporting statements that cite the emotional
>impact of the Reed appearance as a KEY factor in the game, yet you fail
>to recognize the huge number of such citations...

Of course, because I've seen enough final games 7 (NBA, WS, Stanley
Cup), SBs, World Cup finals, Olympic gold medal games, NCAA, national
championship game in college football, etc. to know that such events
are big enough motivations for the athletes. That's something you admitted.

> [ Phil Jackson ]

>Not at all. At very best, you have a standstill, since both sides can show
>respectable, trustworthy evidence from multiple sources that points to their
>claim.

Respectable? where is your respectable evidence that he's a member of the
1970 champions? Remember, we are talking about the 1970 champions, not the
1970 Knicks. As you admitted, a team over the season is transient. The
champions is only a subset of the entire team...

>How you can acknowledge the multiple pieces of evidence and claim victory is
>moronic at best...

I don't see your multiple pieces of evidence. I only saw that the
appearance in a picture of the champions was invalidated by you years ago...

>>move. His main function was to defend Wilt. So when the game was out
>>of reach at half time (by 27 points), how many did Wilt outscore Reed
>>by that time?
>
>Don't know... GOt the numbers?? If not, shut up...

Yes, the number: 69-42.

>And losing is still losing, irregardless of it being by 1 point or 30...

Well, if losing by 1, at least he gave his team a chance to win at the
last moment. Did Wilt give his team such a chance in that game 7?

So in other words, you still have NO evidence that a player is considered
dominating in a rout, since you only had examples of players
considered dominating in close games: Jordan in 1986 game 2, Isiah
in 1984 game 5, or 1988 game 6, Nique in 1988 game 7...

>So, why be hypocritical in your anaylsis of Jordan?

Because like many critics, a dominating performance in a nail-biting game
is possible, but not in a rout. How is that hypocritical?

Oh, talking about hypocritical, then why make a difference between 4-3
or 3-0? is there any difference to the outcome?

>Did it help his team win?

It helped his team to have a chance at the end, did Wilt?

>Did it stop his team from getting swept??

Well, no one claimed that Jordan had a great ***series***... He had
a great game 2.

>Bottom line, both players saw their contributions in a loss.

But dumbo, the critics look more than bottom line in whether a performance
is dominating, give some leeway if the game is really closed. I have
no problem with that. You have any problem with that?

You do? then better campaign to the NBA followers (media, fans, etc.). As
of now, you've got anyone saying that Wilt played a great game 7?

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4ser31$a...@uvmark.vmark.com>,

Dave Meeks <da...@uvmark.vmark.com> wrote:
>Hmm.. this is interesting. How does the timestamp on a post I made relate
>to whether or not I'm 'doing a good job'??

Easy inference. For someone without such a common sense on posting software,
what kind of good job can he do in a software company? It's just like someone
who claims himself as doing a good job playing in the NBA, yet doesn't even
know what a rebound is...

>Nice to see that you admit that you have problems with grammar...

Nice to see that you are in my company. Well, I don't mean Lucent, of
course not..

>>>He responds, very clearly,
>>Maybe it's clear to your brain of fertilizers. It's not clear to me.
>

>Whether it was clear to you is not the issue though.

Sure is, you used an adverb to describe his response -- "clearly". Since
it's an adverb, like "Luc Longley plays gracefully", it's not necessarily an
opinion I share.

>We can understand that
>with your feeble mind, understanding things is sometimes beyond you.

In this case, it's definitely beyond me. How

"it's a hobby"

being an answer to a question of what else he did besides reading Knicks
book is certainly beyond me. Can you help me with your feeble mind?

>However, after exposing your misunderstanding, and having it explained to
>you the meaning of that passage, even by the author himself, you continue
>to show your idiocy on the net by argueing about it.

Wow, Meek, he said that on 6/18/96. Today is 7/16/96. I can't ARGUE on
something by myself...

>Geesh, how much clearer does it have to get?

Tell me why "it's a hobby" can be an answer to "anything else besides
reading Knicks books". I mean, if he said:

-- take summer classes
-- do charity work
-- practice for the football team
-- do research for a professor
-- work in a software house

then it makes sense. "It's a hobby"? HA!

>Not only did others understand
>it, even after you didn't he/we explained it to you.

Well, your understanding of a non-answer does not warrant my understanding...

>Not understanding it
>is one thing, but attacking the author, who very clearly explained it, shows
>nothing but you being an ass...

If so, so be it. If he doesn't like me picking on his screw-up, tough.

>You have the problems with English (by your own admission, at least with
>grammar)

You don't have to admit it, but it doesn't mean you don't have similar
problems, like

If the aforementioned example don't help, let me know...
^^^

--

[Judd Vance]

saun...@castor.che.wisc.edu (Brian Saunders) writes:

>Aren't the two ksu's in your address redundant, Air Judden? My dad is a
>K-State alum, and one thing he hates is redundancy. You better get that
>fixed, or you may lose a little in alumni donations. :^)

Good man he is!

I thought I'd post this from my engineering account so you could
see for yourself. This explains redundancy. A lot of departments have
their own servers. I am on the mechanical engineering one right now. It
goes from here (me) to the campus one (ksu) one and off into the wild blue
yonder. When I post from my general campus account, I guess they call it
ksu, just so there will be no confusion that it came from a department.
I don't know. Ask Martin. He's the smart one. I just work here!

Judden

[Air Judden]

Dave,

You've been a fine warrior and I admire your staying-ability, but
have you noticed Ed won't answer me anymore?

He has faced his defeat and cowers at the sight of one of my post.
That Magic-Kareem-won't-come-out-for-a-pass put the fear of Judden in him.
He can't defend that point without slamming Kareem (I win), slamming
Magic (I win) or slamming his weird theories (I win). It's a catch-33:
3 exits and all spell doom.

Someday, I'll teach you how to clobber Lor-yer so badly, that even
HE admits defeat. Yes, debating with him is like shooting fish in a
barrel, but Ed just isn't one to give up...until he faces the bazooka!

Carry on, good man!

Judden :)

[Dave Meeks]

In article <4sgct9$a...@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu> judd...@ksu.ksu.edu (Air Judden) writes:

>l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>>> Willis didn't play any minutes in game 6. Was he not on the Knicks'
>>>team that game?
>>Well, since you asked, the answer is "NO". In that game, the Knicks
>>had these players: Barnett, Bowman, Bradley, DeBusschere, Frazier,
>>Hosket, Riordan, Russell, Stallworth, Warren. Check out the boxscore.

More importantly Ed...

Would you think James Edwards was part of the 1996 Championship Chicago
Bulls? Does he deserve a ring?

I mean, the guy didn't play a single minute in the NBA Finals...

> The day I start siding with you on this thread is the day they lock
>me away: Dick Barnett was a center. That was not a statement! Gail Goodrich
>played in LA in 1970. Wilt played the final 12 games of the 1970 season!
>Deflected passes are the fault of the receiver. 2 of 12 is a lot.

Don't forget the 92-75 final score of Game 5...

Ed's just full of them (or it...)

[Air Judden]

l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:

>In article <4sgd1a$b...@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu>,

>Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>> You realize Ed, that you didn't deny not knowing the facts about the
>> 1970 series and you put put on a facade.

>What's a facade? like exposing your ignorance?

>> No dodging. 1-3-1 was illegal.
>> Knicks admitted to running 1-3-1.
>>
>> When I said 3 Knicks admitted to running an illegal offense, there

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - (a)

>> is a deduction step required.

>Wow, you are really stupid. You used statement (a) as supporting evidence
>of the existence of the illegal offense. In other words,

>U justified that illegal offense rule existed, because, as you said:

> ... then how could Frazier, Bradley, AND Holzman all be making up the
> same rule? It sure doesn't glorify their cause to admit they
> cheated... and they all made up the SAME non-existent rule?

First things first...I want to see the ENTIRE exchange. I know you
cut and paste. I've seen your dirty work.

Next, I referred to all 3 guys admitting to running a 1-3-1. I
pointed out in the Spitz book that "they" felt they could hide it from the
refs. A team knowing that they were going to pull off an illegal offense.

Then, I pointed out the Spitz quote that Mullaney and West were
screaming to the refs about it.

Everyone involved knew it was illegal. My only error was assuming
you could connect the dots. My fault.

> where did they mention anything about the illegal offense rule?

They wouldn't need to be concerned about disguising it from the
refs (and West/Mullaney wouldn't be screaming) if it WERE legal. Like I
said, it's there. You just can't complete the step.

>First you fabricate their admissions to validate the existence of the
>rule, now you fabricate the existence of the rule to validate their
>admissions?

Pointed out the existence and how everyone responded to the existence.

>> If you want to claim a small victory for not having 3 testimonies
>> to admitting running "an illegal offense," in those exact words,
>> go ahead. I won't deny it.

>Oh, is that right? You you lied about it. Small victory? After that many
>weeks, I've got you admitted that you don't have 3 admissions of
>running an illegal offense. So for starter, you lied when you tried to
>use that premise to deduce the existence of the illegal offense rule.

No, I still have them all admitting to running the 1-3-1 which is
illegal. No lie. I wrote the quote about it from an expert who talked to
players, management, researched, read up books and articles, etc. All
you've said is "oh huh. I have a 1979 rulebook"

It's a small victory in that I made an assumption that you could
complete a simple syllogism. I was wrong. You are incapable. I overestimated
you. You won the point that you aren't as bright as I gave you credit for.
A hollow victory, though, when you think about it.

>>What I do have is testimonies, saying
>> that they ran a 1-3-1 offense, which was an illegal.

>But illegal according to whom? you have no testimonies from Holzman,
>Bradley and Frazier to support you, as you confessed. Bob Spitz? from
>where did he get the info that it's illegal. Did he cite his source?
>did he cite the rule # and the section #?

No. When Frazier hit the game winning free throws vs. Cinnci, he
didn't tell which rule #, section # the other team broke that sent Clyde
to the line, either. Didn't stop the fact that a rule had been broken and
the other team punished and Clyde rewarded.

>> 1) If Wilt had Kareem's "winning touch", he wouldn't have won 4
>> rings.

>Well, maybe it stands true on your ass. Kareem had 6 rings, 6>2, or haven't
>they taught about ">" in 3rd grade arithmetic yet?

Now Ed, that's not what you said. You said ~60 wins and best
record/kissing titles goodbye as your criteria.
You blame the game #5 loss on you thinking Wilt should leave the
post, knock over Knicks and catch passes and take on 3 guys by himself while
he is positioned away from the hoop. I have showed you that Kareem would not
do it, either. Kareem could not have helped the Knicks to victory. No ring
for Wilt in 1970, no ring for Kareem in 1970. No soup for you.

>> 2) You didn't know what you were talking about on the topic of 1970.

>At least I know you confessed that you lied...

No, I confessed to overestimating your ability to reason.

Judden

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4sgct9$a...@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu>,

Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
> Questions end in question marks, statements end in periods.
> You stated it.

Good, so you agree on this protocol...

> "(was it Dick Barnett)." is a statement.

Well, Fudd, I didn't see any period in "(was it Dick Barnett)", the words
within the parentheses, did you?

Good, so the stuff within the parentheses, was it a statement or not?
Remember the protocol you agree on: statements end in periods.

> Not on a team if you don't play. NIIIIICE.

Good, so Fudd, this is all you can say? "NIIIIICE"? Is that an admission
of defeat?

>So how does Nate
>McMillan fit in to Seattle's team vs. Chicago? Was he or wasn't he a Sonic?

Well, dumbo, you are really stretching. You mean when you are a Sonic,
then you would definitely be on every game?

> Magic never gave one instance where Kareem would come out of the
> low post. He said he wouldn't. Do or die or otherwise!!!!

Really? Where did Magic say Kareem wouldn't in do or die situation? You
care to cite it?

And you can't name the instance that Kareem didn't come out of
the low post and hurt the team? I don't give a damn about do or die
or otherwise. You have NO evidence that he actually hurted the team? then who
are you to criticize that he didn't come out of the low post?

> I'll get no response because you know you've been pimp-slapped. Had

You'll get no response because you are using a speculation that I don't
have to worry about..

>Wilt had Kareem's winning touch, he'd stay right where he was and the balls
>would still be getting stolen and LA still would have lost.

How do you know? You have no evidence of such a scenario since it didn't
happen. Of course, you must have Magic's words on "he won't come out even in
do or die situation". I would like to see it...

>You lose.
Fudd, I'll worry about losing if I said "Magic said Kareem won't come
out even do or die situation", or if I try to use Kareem as counter-examples
but can't really identify the counter-examples.

> Your speculation is worthless because you thought Phoenix's starting
>point gaurd was in LA.

Wait, you care to tell me where I said the Phoenix starting PG was in LA?
Geez, there is one more lie to expose...

>(Go see "Kaw! Kaw!" thread).

I saw it, and I don't assume "/" means 'and'.

>That is why you
>can't speculate on Wilt's winning touch in 1970 -- you've got the facts
>all messed up in 1970.

Oh, you mean your lie "I thought Phoenix's starting PG was in LA" is
the reason why I can't speculate? Fudd, you really have some screwed-up
logic. YOu made a lie, and I couldn't speculate...

>You don't know what position guys played,

Well, you care to cite this one too? I don't know what position Barnett
played, but Barnett is one guy. Since you used "guyS", you need at least
one more guy.

>what teams they played for,

Really? you care to cite this?

>the scores of games (that 95-?? game you keep referring to),

Really? you care to cite I said 95-77 was the score of a game?

>who double-teamed who, etc.
really? like who? I have your own words that Stallworth and DeBusshere
doubled team Wilt.

or let's see how valid are your speculations:

1) the Knicks 1-3-1 was illegal
2) Holzman, Bradley and Frazier claimed the existence of the illegal
offense rule.
3) Kareem, in actual instances, didn't come out to meet the pass
4) I claimed that Goodrich was in LA in 1970
5) Phil Jackson was a member of the championship team
6) Reed was a member of the 1972 runner-up
7) The Knicks were "without his (Reed's) service" in most of the 1973
season.

> So nobody ever blocked a shot until 1974?

Officically, you can say that.

>Wow! I thought I saw
>film footage of Russell blocking shots. Naw!

Naw, how did you know that it was blocked precisely 6 times?

> The day I start siding with you on this thread is the day they lock
>me away: Dick Barnett was a center. That was not a statement!

Well, I guess in KSU, they teach you that "was it Dick Barnett" was a
statement...

>Gail Goodrich played in LA in 1970.

Well, at least you have to furnish proof on this one...

>Wilt played the final 12 games of the 1970 season!
>Deflected passes are the fault of the receiver.

or let's see.

1) I claimed "was it Dick Barnett" as a statement
2) I claimed that Goodrich played in LA in 1970.
3) the 1-3-1 was illegal, I am sure that you can cite the rule and
the section on this
4) Frazier, Bradley and Holzman were aware of the illegal offense
rule...
5) last but not least, passes not too tough for Wilt to handle is
not his fault...

>>>>>>> That was the first time a team concentrated on stopping Wilt and
>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> ....
>>> I did argue the content. You snipped the content.
>>Of course, because even the first conjunct of the content is false...
>
> Ed proves once again that he doesn't know what the word "and"
>means.

Yes, "and" means if the first conjunct is false, you don't even worry
about the other...

or do you have a new meaning on "and"?

>No wonder you couldn't get work with a computer degree from Purdue.
>You evidently forged signatures on that degree.

Well, but I even shunned KSU, that tells you the value of their education,
like what "and" means...

>>Yep, you need to. I want to see where I put the SOLE blame on Wilt. You
>>have a full-time job ahead of you: cite the quotes...
>
> Been there done that. Go to Kaw Kaw.

Nothing there. So, I didn't see I make a statement that says Wilt gets
ALL the blame. In other words, you make things up again...

> Game 1 they sure did! and he scored 45. And who cares?

Right. And who considered his game 1 performance as dominating?

>If you lose, everyone on the team did badly. that's what you've
>been arguing.

Well, for a rout, at least you get this right...

> "MORE" bogus arguments? I went right back to the core of this thing
>with your stupid Wilt comments. Before you started bringing in MORE bogus
>arguments. This Wilt thread is completely unrelated to Oscar (which I
>won over you, though not as decisively as I am winning this one).

It's getting related pretty soon, when you have to resort to supporting
cast...

You can console yourself with you "win" again and again. No one is going
to stop you from pleasing yourself, in whatever way...

>You fault Wilt for losing game 5 because you think the unwise passes
>should have been caught before they were intercepted.

Unwise passes would have been called "passes not too tough to handle",
would it?

>Kareem wouldn't go out of the post to catch any passes, so Kareem
>would have lost the game as well.

I treat that as baseless speculation, since you have NO evidence of
such a situation for Kareem...

> BEFORE any foolish bogus arguments that you've tried to add came in,
>I went to the core argument and dissed you hard!!!!!!!! You won't even
>comment on Magic's quote and you said you won't...

Not until you tell me when Kareem actually hurt the team, in a real
situation, like Wilt did (not coming out for passes).

>(Judden): I judged what Magic said about Kareem and I'm still awaiting your
> response.
>(Ed): You'll get no response from me until you can identify such a situation.
>
>Do ya know what that means?

Yep, you are using smoke to defend Wilt...

> I defended Wilt successfully
with smoke?

> You admit defeat on the primary issue and must try to BS around
> irrelevant points hoping I'd forget. Sorry Ed. No can do!

Fudd, you get caught red faces on the primary issues, got nowhere, and
the only thing you can argue is that "Was it Dick Barnett" is a statement...

>JUDDEN WINS IN A ROUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fudd, the only thing you can win is probably a hot kiss from Sob...

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4sgcq2$a...@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu>,

Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
> No, I think you are younger. Somewhere in the 12-13 range.

Can't be. Did you say you were only 3rd grade?

> I'm still waiting on you to respond to the FIRECRACKER post. You

> know...Kareem wouldn't go out of the post to get the ball.
I am still waiting for you to tell me when Kareem actually didn't go
out of the post to get the ball, and actually hurt the team in a do
or die situation. Nope? you can't cite such a situation? So Fudd, you
mean I have to respond to your speculation?

> You
> blame Wilt in game 5 by saying he should have done this. Kareem
> did not,

When you can't even cite a real situation, how do you know he did not?
Fudd, one more lie to eat...

> still waiting ....
Right, still waiting...

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4sgd1a$b...@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu>,

Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
> You realize Ed, that you didn't deny not knowing the facts about the
> 1970 series and you put put on a facade.
What's a facade? like exposing your ignorance?

> No dodging. 1-3-1 was illegal.
> Knicks admitted to running 1-3-1.
>
> When I said 3 Knicks admitted to running an illegal offense, there
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - (a)
> is a deduction step required.
Wow, you are really stupid. You used statement (a) as supporting evidence
of the existence of the illegal offense. In other words,

U justified that illegal offense rule existed, because, as you said:

... then how could Frazier, Bradley, AND Holzman all be making up the
same rule? It sure doesn't glorify their cause to admit they
cheated... and they all made up the SAME non-existent rule?

>If you can't complete the last step of

> this deduction, I can see why you would argue at length over a moot
> point.

Of course I can't, since you tried to use their admissions to deduce
the existence of the rule.

The question is:

where did they mention anything about the illegal offense rule?

>Even the worst anti-logic people in the world can do this.
Wow, Fudd, at least the worst anti-logic people realized that you are
bluffing...

First you fabricate their admissions to validate the existence of the
rule, now you fabricate the existence of the rule to validate their
admissions?

> I didn't write a mistake. I "assumed" a mistake. I assumed you were

> capable of simple deductive reasoning. Ed, if a=b and b=c, can you
> complete the relationship between a and c?

Let's see, deductive reasoning can make smoke become facts. That's must
be your Fuddreasoning...

> If you want to claim a small victory for not having 3 testimonies
> to admitting running "an illegal offense," in those exact words,
> go ahead. I won't deny it.
Oh, is that right? You you lied about it. Small victory? After that many
weeks, I've got you admitted that you don't have 3 admissions of
running an illegal offense. So for starter, you lied when you tried to

use that premise to deduce the existence of the illegal offense rule.

Now since you have NO testimony from the Knick that they ran an illegal
offense, your deduction that the rule existed (based on such testimonies),
in <4p8foo$k...@cbs.ksu.ksu.edu> on 6/7/96, was crushed.

>What I do have is testimonies, saying
> that they ran a 1-3-1 offense, which was an illegal.
But illegal according to whom? you have no testimonies from Holzman,
Bradley and Frazier to support you, as you confessed. Bob Spitz? from
where did he get the info that it's illegal. Did he cite his source?
did he cite the rule # and the section #?

> Now, Ed, no direct quote is need. The word "that" takes out the

> need for the quote (and quotation marks) and gives a summary of the
> idea. They ran a 1-3-1, which has been proven illegal.

But the proven part was done by yourself, based on your dream that
Holzman, Bradley and Frazier admitted that the 1-3-1 as illegal. Since
you woke up from the dream already, you have no proof whatsoever that
it's illegal.

> Ed, the only rope you have is the one around your neck. You made a
>false statement about Wilt.

False statement? I guess you have PROOF that it's false...

>I argued it and argued it and watched you
>try to justify yourself at every turn.

Yep, and then in turn confessed that you don't have the admissions,
which are used to make a conclusion, which in turn are used to deduce
the admissions...

Fudd, you really have nerve to redefine logic that way...

>Finally, when you said Wilt should
>have come out of the post to catch passes, I sprung the trap on you with the
>Magic quote, which you won't respond to.

a scenario I challenge you to provide, which you have to wimp out...

> 1) If Wilt had Kareem's "winning touch", he wouldn't have won 4
> rings.
Well, maybe it stands true on your ass. Kareem had 6 rings, 6>2, or haven't
they taught about ">" in 3rd grade arithmetic yet?

> 2) You didn't know what you were talking about on the topic of 1970.

At least I know you confessed that you lied...

>You'll kick my butt in that argument and can finally claim to beat me.
You've already got your butt kicked enough. I don't know whether I
should inflict more wounds...

[VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT]

In article <4sgcu6$r...@uvmark.vmark.com>,

Dave Meeks <da...@uvmark.vmark.com> wrote:
>>>Bwahahah.. this is hilarious Ed... So, you are claiming that Walt,
>>>Wilt, Magic, Bird, etc... all those players that talk about these
>>>psychological factors are lying to us?
>>Wait, you care to show me where Bird and Magic talk about a need of
>>extra psychological boost in game 7 of the finals? Before you do that,
>
>Really... care to show me where I claim anyone 'needs' an extra psychological
>boost?

Oh, care to show me where I claimed that you claimed that anyone 'needs'
an extra psychological boost?

>Easy.. testimonies from the players who played,
That's not official scoring. So you get no official record of 6 blocks.

>And, I'm not really concerned with whether or not it was 'exactly 6 blocks'
>or not...

I am, since you said that it's blocked 6 times, I sure would like to
challenge this as a fact.

>Oh lord Ed. You mean you have a direct link to Holzman? Because, his
>statement does NOT state that these were Wilt's fault. A pass not too
>tough for Wilt to handle could mean many things.

such as?

>Unless you provide
>supporting documentation to support your interpretation, your assumption
>is pretty bad...

Dumbo, what assumption am I making? My assumption is nothing more than
Wilt couldn't handle passes not too tough for him to handle.

>'Deflect the blame from Wilt'? Not exactly my effort. I'm just showing
>you how ridiculous your assertions that it must be Wilt's fault are.

My assertions? Geez, Holzman said that, and according to Clyde in his
book (One Magic Season and a Basketball Life), everybody said that it
was Wilt's fault. I don't know why you want to credit everybody's
assertions to me...

>In the majority of cases, Wilt would NOT be at fault for such things.
>There are cases that he would be.

Well, in Holzman's testimony, they certainly are, at least in games 1,
5 and 7. Check out my post <4q7oqb$q...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>, a month ago..

>You have yet to provide evidence of
>any sort that shows why Wilt should be blamed for the majority of these.

That's another lie. I've provided Holzman's testimony from Red on Red.

>If your premise is false, what's that mean about the rest? Isn't that
>your line?
>
>Wilt wasn't the 'leader of the team', Jerry West was...

Wilt was the man the Knicks destined to stop, Jerry West wasn't...

>>Yep, but MJ's team wasn't given that much of a chance to begin with,
>>against one of the most dominant team in the past 2 decades, unlike
>>Wilt team with 2 other HOFer...
>
>Again.. who cares.

I sure do. I consider a blowout a much worse loss than a close game.
How do you like it?

>Bottom line, both teams were expected to lose, both
>teams lost.
>
>Period.

Bottom line, MJ helped his team, in that particular game, to double
OT, Wilt helped his team to 'game over' by the 2nd quarter. Period.

>>Right, except that Jordan right himself more than enough in his career
>>that his failure against Boston in 1986 was just an aberration. Was Wilt
>>able to do the same?
>
>Yes.

Well, let's see. MJ won 4 rings in his career. Wilt won 2. So when
you say the same, are you saying that 4 rings == 2 rings? Besides,
Did MJ's team blow 2-0 or 3-1 leads in the playoffs? Did MJ ever choke
in the finals when the opposing SG (a MVP type of player) got injured?

That would be interesting, Meek, you have a tall task to provide these
examples to support your answer "Yes". I can't wait...

> [ the passing examples ]

>Nice try. Address the point, and not the particulars of who I labelled as
>guarding whom. Trying to avoid the point is the same as an admission in
>my book. I guess you are admitting then, that the diagram is a very valid
>example..

Nope, because you are using an invalid example. There is no Reed in the
'passes not too tough to handle' example. Stallworth gave him a lot of problem
by using the speed to steal the ball.

So, try to give a misleading example is an admission of a lie in my book.
I guess you are admitting of lying...

>>Yes, pretty simple, if the steals occurred in scenarios (1) and (2), I
>>don't think Holzman would classify it as "passes not to tough for him
>>(Wilt) to handle"...
>
>Provide proof of this, or as I like to say.. shut up.

Provide proof of what? Have you provided proof that (1) and (2) were
the cases Holzman called "passes not too tough to handle"? No? then
why are you giving irrelevant examples? Is that another attempt to mislead?

>What YOU THINK Holzman would classify is immaterial.

like what you consider as (1) and (2) are immaterial? Holzman said
"passes not too tough for him to handle"? Where did U get the idea that
they were instances of (1) or (2)? from your ass?

>Unless you can provide
>some proof that Holzman did indeed think this way, you are just blowing
>a lot of meaningless smoke...

Or like you can provide any proof that "passes not too tough for him
to handle" were (1) or (2)? At least literally, I get the meaning of
"passes not too tough for him to handle" -- passes he could have
handled without much toughness, yet he didn't.

>>>Now, once it reaches Wilt, that's another story.
>>Another story? have you even seen excuses made by Jordan or Bird that
>>"I struggled because they triple-team me"?
>
>Strawman argument. Please provide the quote of Wilt saying such a thing.

or you cite where I claimed Wilt saying such a thing? umm... that would
be interesting...

>>Did the Lakers play a 3 guard 2 forward line-up in 1980 game 6?
>
>No. Magic was introduced as the center. Therein lies the difference.

No difference, unless you can cite an arena that re-introduces the lineup
when a starter got injured?

>Sure... Since he was listed under the Knicks team listings. XJ doesn't
>mean 'NOT A KNICK' either.

Sure does, it means he's injured. When he's a Knick, it's labeled as "NY".

>It means he was injured that year.

At least you got that right. So he's not labeled as "NY".

>Still waiting for you to provide these quotes in his bio that said
>'Phil Jackson WASN'T a Knick in 1970'...

Really? tell me when the argument started as "Phil Jackson was or
was not a Knick in 1970"? You care to cite it?

Still waiting for you to provide any evdience that he's a member of
the 1970 champions. I have plenty of evidence that he wasn't...

>>Nope, I mean to say "was not dominating".
>
>So, you lied... thanks for the admission..

How is it a lie? You mean you haven't seen typo that got retracted?

>What Holzman said was NOT that it was Wilt's fault either.

Well, what Holzman said can only mean one thing: these are passes he
could have been handled without much toughness, but he have them picked off.

>Unless you
>can provide supporting evidence that Holzman said so, your hot air does
>nothing but make you sweat.

I don't need supporting evidence on that. I have its literal meaning.
If you want supporting evidence on Wilt's fault, look what Clyde said.
You are dead duck. Do you think Holzman is an instance of "everybody"?

>If your premise is wrong (leader of the team), what then? West was the
>leader of the team.

Prove that my premise is wrong, that a player who missed most of the
regular season can't be a leader of the team. Just look at the 1986 Bulls,
and you are dead duck...

>>That's not how sports people defined service...
>
>Really? What 'sport people' have defined it thus? Please provide definitive
>references, as well as supporting evidence, for this fact.

Well, look at the Official NFL 19XX Record and Fact Book -- The Individual
Records section. Look at what's under 'service', only about games/
season played or coached. Nothing about forms...

Also look at Complete Baseball Record Book -- Individual batting. Look
at what's under 'service', only about years/league/clubs/positions/games
played, nothing about forms...

Now, does basketball's service means playing or 'serving of a ball'?

>>Remember, the picture isn't going to save you...
>
>Sure it is.

It is not, since you already included Baylor as one who has never won a
championship, it means long ago you invalidated the appearance in this
type of pictures as a member of a champion.

>>I.e. Jordan put his team in a position to win, even if it didn't mean
>>much; Wilt didn't.
>
>No he didn't. Again, remember the bottom line. He failed to get his team
>even one victory in that series.

Dumbo, who's talking about the series? We are talking about 2 particular
game: 1986 game 2, Boston vs Chicago, and 1970 game 7, NY vs LA.

The bottom line? In a close game, the Celtics did their best trying to
stop Jordan. In a rout, the Knicks put in Nate Bowman in the middle of
the 3rd quarter...

So Meek, your bottom line fails...

>A series in which he averaged about 55
>ppg in the first two games, yet in game one, the Bulls lost by 19 (and
>19 is > 14).

So? did I brag that his game 1 performance was dominating?

>In game 2, they also lost.

sure, that's dominating...

>And, they were blown out in Game 3 as well.

Right, that's not dominating.

>Bottom line, MJ's performance did not get his team a victory in any of
>the three games...

Dumbo, you can't argue against game 2, now you have to resort to the
entire series? Who's arguing for Jordan for the entire series?

>Where was Wilt's Lakers expected to win? Were they expected to beat the
>team that won 60 games in the regular season?

Sure, after Reed went down.

>The Lakers only managed
>to win 46 games in the regular season, and actually finished 2nd in the
>West. You mean they were expected to win?

After the other team's MVP went down, why not? As Clyde said about his
thoughts at half-time:

"There goes the championship, I thought. That's it. No way. I
remember the sucker bet I had made with Dickie Garrett. I guessed
I was the sucker now."

As DeBusshere said when Reed was lying on the floor:

"I could see our championship lying on the floor. I could see our
chances disappearing in pain. I could see the whole year crumbling
with Willis' right knee."

Meek, are you going to invalidate their thoughts?

>Please provide the quote I have made where I state 'Reed's appearance was
>the LONG motivation factor...'

Please provide the quote that I claimed that you stated

'Reed's appearance was the LONG motivation factor...'

>Why do I think Reed's appearance provided additional motivation? Motivation
>to perform even MORE charged than they were?

but you said it yourself. You don't think anyone need any motivation
to play in game 7. Since no motivation is needed, why would additional
motivation help?

Geez, if I don't need motivation to abuse you here on the net, no matter
how outrageous you are, I'll still abuse you to the fullest...

>It's not much of a surprise you are from New Jersey, while I'm from Boston...
>
>Kind of reflects our relative basketball tradition and experience...

Wow, are you so stupid to think that a fan's whereabout limits which
team he supports? You mean you don't know which team I root for?

We just got Shaq. Even if he's a Wilt clone, but I think winning ONE
championship in the next 5 years is still better than Boston's chances.
Celtics fans can only live for the 60s when they abused Wilt. Too bad
I don't think they even have a remote chance to abuse Shaq in the
playoffs...

[Dave Meeks]

In article <4snc0d$s...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
>In article <4sgcu6$r...@uvmark.vmark.com>,
>Dave Meeks <da...@uvmark.vmark.com> wrote:
>
>>Easy.. testimonies from the players who played,
>That's not official scoring. So you get no official record of 6 blocks.

I don't remember anyone saying that the league had it officially recorded
as 6 blocks, do you? Talk to me when you provide a quote where someone
claimed 'the league officially recognized and recorded 6 blocks'.

As far as there actually being 6 blocks, that was a fact stated, supported,
and cross-referenced by another source...

>>And, I'm not really concerned with whether or not it was 'exactly 6 blocks'
>>or not...
>I am, since you said that it's blocked 6 times, I sure would like to
>challenge this as a fact.

Care to show where >> I << said it was blocked 6 times?

>>supporting documentation to support your interpretation, your assumption
>>is pretty bad...
>Dumbo, what assumption am I making? My assumption is nothing more than
>Wilt couldn't handle passes not too tough for him to handle.

You are making the assumption that your twisted interpretation of what
Holzman said is the correct and only interpretation. Since we have seen
and proven beyond a doubt that your interpretation skills leave much to be
desired and how you seem unable to interpret what many people state, your
interpretation of such is not worth much in this world.

You better contact Holzman and get some support for your statement, it just
doesn't cut it..

>book (One Magic Season and a Basketball Life), everybody said that it
>was Wilt's fault. I don't know why you want to credit everybody's
>assertions to me...

So, based on your method of argueing again, if we can show one person who
did not say it was Wilt's fault, that source would be invalidated, right?
Afterall, if it isn't 'everybody', then it is a false statement...

>>In the majority of cases, Wilt would NOT be at fault for such things.
>>There are cases that he would be.
>Well, in Holzman's testimony, they certainly are, at least in games 1,
>5 and 7. Check out my post <4q7oqb$q...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>, a month ago..

Been there, done that.. No such testimoney provided.

>>You have yet to provide evidence of
>>any sort that shows why Wilt should be blamed for the majority of these.
>That's another lie. I've provided Holzman's testimony from Red on Red.

Didn't support your claim...

>>Wilt wasn't the 'leader of the team', Jerry West was...
>Wilt was the man the Knicks destined to stop, Jerry West wasn't...

Really? If the Knicks didn't have any plans to stop the leagues best guard,
the leagues top scorer, and the guy who was the #2 scorer in the playoffs,
then they had REAL problems.

>>Again.. who cares.
>I sure do. I consider a blowout a much worse loss than a close game.
>How do you like it?

Isn't consistent with your 'bottom line' rules.

>>Period.
>Bottom line, MJ helped his team, in that particular game, to double
>OT, Wilt helped his team to 'game over' by the 2nd quarter. Period.

And, in the end, did MJ do any more for his team than Wilt did? You mean,
in the bottom line, MJ prolonged the series? MJ did something that even
won a single game for them? You mean, in the record books, they award you
with 1/2 a win for a close game that you lose?

Last I looked, a loss was a loss, irregardless of whether it was 1 pt, 5 pts
or 25pts...

>>Provide proof of this, or as I like to say.. shut up.
>Provide proof of what? Have you provided proof that (1) and (2) were
>the cases Holzman called "passes not too tough to handle"? No? then
>why are you giving irrelevant examples? Is that another attempt to mislead?

Not irrelevant. Very relevant examples of how passes get intercepted or
deflected when trying to pass into the post. All of them would qualify as
valid from what Holzman said. Thus, if you can't prove your interpretation
was the one Holzman meant, your are fried..

>>What YOU THINK Holzman would classify is immaterial.
>like what you consider as (1) and (2) are immaterial? Holzman said
>"passes not too tough for him to handle"? Where did U get the idea that
>they were instances of (1) or (2)? from your ass?

Don't need to. Both are valid instances. Where did U get the idea that
your interpretation was the only one? From your ass??

>No difference, unless you can cite an arena that re-introduces the lineup
>when a starter got injured?

Big difference. It invalidates your use of the Magic situation as a counter.
Magic was announced as the starting center.

>>Sure... Since he was listed under the Knicks team listings. XJ doesn't
>>mean 'NOT A KNICK' either.
>Sure does, it means he's injured. When he's a Knick, it's labeled as "NY".

Ok... here you are gonna be toasted good.. Hold tight...

Page 8 - XJ is listed as 'Back Injury' under the 'Career Interruption Codes'.
Career Interruption Codes are (from page 8) 'whenever a symbol appears
in parentheses after a player's name, it indicates a career interruption
of 30 days or more duration, ...'

Now, career interruption codes are used throughout the book, and they
do not mean they player wasn't on the team. In fact, you will find numerous
entries of players with those codes that were on championship teams and got
their rings...

So, you should end this thread right now... The book does NOT support your
notion that this XJ means 'not a knick'.

Or does this mean that in 85-86, Michael Jordan was 'Not a Chicago Bull'??
After all, he has a (BF) in his entry...

>Still waiting for you to provide any evdience that he's a member of
>the 1970 champions. I have plenty of evidence that he wasn't...

Page 235 of the book... He is actually listed under the team roster for
the New York Knicks in the playoffs.

>>>Nope, I mean to say "was not dominating".
>>
>>So, you lied... thanks for the admission..
>How is it a lie? You mean you haven't seen typo that got retracted?

'typo'? Seems like you made a statement that got attacked and you tried
to clarify it.

Based on the way you view things, I should bring this up for the next 3 monthes
like you have with other statements people made and then explained/clarified
for you.

You mean, after 'without his service', 'hobby', etc... were explained to you,
you stopped trying to attack Judd for it?

Damn you are a hypocrite...

>>What Holzman said was NOT that it was Wilt's fault either.
>Well, what Holzman said can only mean one thing: these are passes he
>could have been handled without much toughness, but he have them picked off.

Prove it. Your interpretation is meaningless. I see a very different meaning
in that statement (as do others).

>>Unless you
>>can provide supporting evidence that Holzman said so, your hot air does
>>nothing but make you sweat.
>I don't need supporting evidence on that. I have its literal meaning.
>If you want supporting evidence on Wilt's fault, look what Clyde said.
>You are dead duck. Do you think Holzman is an instance of "everybody"?

It's literal meaning? I think not. As far as what Clyde said, if he
said 'everybody', then his 'literal meaning' is toasted. It will be VERY
easy to show that not 'everybody' thought that way. So, if you don't have
Clyde's statement, and Holzman's is easily interpreted in other fashions,
what do you have left?

>>If your premise is wrong (leader of the team), what then? West was the
>>leader of the team.
>Prove that my premise is wrong, that a player who missed most of the
>regular season can't be a leader of the team. Just look at the 1986 Bulls,
>and you are dead duck...

Big difference. The 1986 Bulls were a collection of your basic scrubs without
Michael. Orlando Woolridge, etc.. are not Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, etc..
Jerry West was considered one of the 5 best basketball players in the game
at that point, and was the leagues leading scorers. In the playoffs, he was
the 2nd leading scorer. In the playoffs, he took 418 total shots, compared
to Wilt's 288 shots. He also took 212 FTs compared to 202 by Wilt. And
Wilt played 21 minutes more.

So, if, by leader, you mean the main offensive threat, you are proven wrong
by a long shot. West was the leading scorer, shot taker, FT taker, ball
handler, etc.. on his team. Those facts are indisputable...

>>>That's not how sports people defined service...
>>
>>Really? What 'sport people' have defined it thus? Please provide definitive
>>references, as well as supporting evidence, for this fact.
>Well, look at the Official NFL 19XX Record and Fact Book -- The Individual
>Records section. Look at what's under 'service', only about games/
>season played or coached. Nothing about forms...
>
>Also look at Complete Baseball Record Book -- Individual batting. Look
>at what's under 'service', only about years/league/clubs/positions/games
>played, nothing about forms...
>
>Now, does basketball's service means playing or 'serving of a ball'?

Don't know. When I look in my various basketball stat, fact, and record books,
I don't see anything under 'service'. I see 'Games Played' listed many
places, but nothing about service.

So, where are these references from BASKETBALL that refer to 'service' this
way? I'd say you are pulling out of your butt since I see no such reference
to it anywhere else..

What other sports call it is immaterial in this context, because you get no
supporting evidence from the similar basketball books...

>The bottom line? In a close game, the Celtics did their best trying to
>stop Jordan. In a rout, the Knicks put in Nate Bowman in the middle of
>the 3rd quarter...
>
>So Meek, your bottom line fails...

No.. because, in the 'bottom line', both players failed to do what it took
(according to you) to win the game.. Period. Your bullshit about 'close
game' is meaningless. Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and
nuclear warfare, NOT in basketball. You get no bonus points for holding
it close. As far as the league, books, etc.. are concerned, a 1 pt loss
in double overtime is counted the same as a 35 pt loss..

>>A series in which he averaged about 55
>>ppg in the first two games, yet in game one, the Bulls lost by 19 (and
>>19 is > 14).
>So? did I brag that his game 1 performance was dominating?

The media did... what's that tell you.

>>In game 2, they also lost.
>sure, that's dominating...

So, you show a lack of consistency. A great performance in a loss can be
dominating when it fits your needs...

>>Bottom line, MJ's performance did not get his team a victory in any of
>>the three games...
>Dumbo, you can't argue against game 2, now you have to resort to the
>entire series? Who's arguing for Jordan for the entire series?

Larry Bird, for example, thought Jordan was dominating the whole series.
And, the argument for game 2 is black and white. Both players played great,
both teams lost... period. Bottom line established. All else is bullshit.

If MJ's performance can be considered dominating (great performance in a loss)
then so can Wilt's..

>>Where was Wilt's Lakers expected to win? Were they expected to beat the
>>team that won 60 games in the regular season?
>Sure, after Reed went down.

They were not expected to win the series. Reed missed Game 6, and Wilt
crushed the Knicks. Game 7 had Reed playing, the home crowd, etc.. behind
them.

>As DeBusshere said when Reed was lying on the floor:
>
> "I could see our championship lying on the floor. I could see our
> chances disappearing in pain. I could see the whole year crumbling
> with Willis' right knee."
>
>Meek, are you going to invalidate their thoughts?

Ed, you mean you are going to trust their thoughts after you so quickly
dismissed them when it came to the emotional lift Reed's appearance gave
them. You mean, you trust their feelings/thoughts only when it is
convenient Ed?

>Geez, if I don't need motivation to abuse you here on the net, no matter
>how outrageous you are, I'll still abuse you to the fullest...

Really? If this is your 'fullest', I'd suggest keeping your day job...

But, let's look at this. Right now, we typically get involved a couple of
times a year, often on multiple threads, but usually very bursty. You seem
to disappear for stretches, especially over the summer and early parts of
the season (not always). You don't 'abuse' me on every post I make..

Question: If someone offerred you one million dollars to 'abuse' me at every
chance available, at every post I make, throughout the whole year, would you
do it? Would that one million dollars be an additional motivation?

My guess is you will give your stock answer (you know, the answer you give when
you are unable to answer something): 'Wait until someone offers me one million
before I answer that'...

In other words, you'll wimp out...

Why?

Because you can't win. If you say 'No', you look like the biggest idiot the
world has ever known. If you say 'Yes', you completely invalidate your
continuous claims of 'no motivation needed'.

>>It's not much of a surprise you are from New Jersey, while I'm from Boston...
>>
>>Kind of reflects our relative basketball tradition and experience...
>Wow, are you so stupid to think that a fan's whereabout limits which
>team he supports? You mean you don't know which team I root for?

Sure I know what team you support.

>We just got Shaq. Even if he's a Wilt clone, but I think winning ONE
>championship in the next 5 years is still better than Boston's chances.

Really? If Orlando couldn't win a championship with Shaq, Penny, Horace,
Nick, and Scott, playing in the weaker East, what makes you think the Lakers
are going to win with a huge cap suck, and a lineup that doesn't invoke
images of the Orlando lineup (Van Exel - Most Likely to Be Banned from the
league, Eddie Jones - Good player, Cedric Ceballos - overachiever on a
mediocre team, and Elden Campbell - please...). And, with Shaq having to
go against the likes of Robinson and Hakeem as often as he will...

I like Shaq. I think he's a great player, but I don't see the Lakers as a
real threat anytime in the near future...

>Celtics fans can only live for the 60s when they abused Wilt. Too bad
>I don't think they even have a remote chance to abuse Shaq in the
>playoffs...

Well, at least with your last line, you are telling the truth. Since I don't
see the Lakers making the NBA Finals anytime soon, they would be unable to
meet the Celtics there...