Celtic Dominance

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from puddinpuddin. Show puddinpuddin's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    Duke:

    No point reading past line two. No point at all.

    Pud
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Lakerstroll. Show Lakerstroll's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Duke4 comment:

    sorry.....I took one look at the post (wow, maybe I should call it an essay)....anyway, I didn't get past line two....but I'm sure that it made perfect sense to you...anyway....I've made my point....done for now...thanks for the time spent together....time to move on...


    Just proves my point, you're such a child, putting your hands over your ears and saying "lalalalalalalalala".
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from puddinpuddin. Show puddinpuddin's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    Lakerstroll is suggesting that Duke is a child. LOL!!!

    I suspect that Duke has 50+ years on Lakerstroll. One of the two is definitely a child.

    On the bright side, the Yanks have fallen into a tie with the O's and the Dodgers are pitching their ace tonight and are starting to pull things together for the stretch run.

    Life is good.

    Pud
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Lakerstroll. Show Lakerstroll's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    Bottom line, you're all still stunned and in shock that Howard came to L.A., that's really what prompted this thread. All of a sudden, reaching into the old ghosts to cover-up the shock. I can understand how you all feel. I would feel the exact same way had Howard gone to Boston. It's no coincidence that this thread started precisely 5 days after Boston's Black Friday, when Dwight officially became a Laker.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from DoctorCO. Show DoctorCO's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    lakers troll..SO you have esp..lol.....and you can predict rings...lol...

    blogedy oob, cant judge time..rings a ring..when you qualify a title that means your not a fan of the nba and you proved your BANDWAGON
     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Red-16Russ-11 comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sad and pathetic.  I cited four sources, and I will not do it again.  The truth is known, and the conversation is over.[/QUOTE]

    I cited many more than 4 sources. Of course you won't do it again. Your source had nothing to do with the argument, as you still try to use

    A imples B as the equivalent of !A implies !B.

    You really should learn some basic logic...

    Conversation is over? Is this the 33221 times you said it? You would be smarting again. I bet the over-under would be 1 week...


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Duke4 comment:


    if/when the Lakers tie us with 17 championships...?  .....unless the two teams play one another, the Celtics will remain #1 overall based on (1) an .809 winning percentage in the Finals as compared to .516 for the Lakers (or the .440 percentage for the LA Lakers, who are 11-14 since leaving Minneapolis) and (2) the head to head dominance (9-3)...

    and thank you....yes, all is well..



    Wow, that's amazing.

    If the Lakers win #17 next year, the Celtics will remain #1 based on failing to reach the in finals in 46 or 47 times? So you reward the Celtics for early exit by counting a finals percentage (.809)? Pathetic!!!

    And you reward the Celtics' in 8-14 (or 8-13, if the Celtics reach the finals) non-head-to-head finals with a deficit of more than 15 rounds?

    Wonder how the Celtics culture would regard missing playoffs, early playoff exit, etc. as success...


     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Duke4 comment:

    they don't need to.....the 8 peat (as part of the 11 in 13 years) gave them a nice cushion....throw in the 9 of 12 vs the Lakers......it has all but guaranteed them immortality....!!



    Guess what, I like nothing better than your "immortality".

    When the Lakers lost 4-0 in round 2 and the Celtics lost 4-1, it's already ground for Celtics bragging, let alone this year, when the Celtics achieved one more round than the Lakers.

    That's exactly what we want to see: advanced further in the playoffs == superiority.

    So when the Lakers win the championships while the Celtics exit in round 1, it's much bigger achievement than beating the Celtics in the finals.

    I would love to see 9-3 frozen forever, WHILE THE LAKERS KEEP PILING UP CHAMPIONSHIP!!!!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to KingShaq's comment:

    In response to Red-16Russ-11 comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sad and pathetic.  I cited four sources, and I will not do it again.  The truth is known, and the conversation is over.



    I cited many more than 4 sources. Of course you won't do it again. Your source had nothing to do with the argument, as you still try to use

    A imples B as the equivalent of !A implies !B.

    You really should learn some basic logic...

    Conversation is over? Is this the 33221 times you said it? You would be smarting again. I bet the over-under would be 1 week...

    [/QUOTE]


    Since you fail to supply proof of your "argument" of any kind, the convrersation is over.  It is truly sad and pathetic that you can't admit what the rest of the world already knows.  I'm not taking your word for anything, you are not an honorable person.  So.........give me LINKS to change my mind, not some BS logic class.  And if you cannot.........then the conversation is over..............I've proven my point over and over again......QED.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to KingShaq's comment:

    In response to Red-16Russ-11 comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sad and pathetic.  I cited four sources, and I will not do it again.  The truth is known, and the conversation is over.



    I cited many more than 4 sources. Of course you won't do it again. Your source had nothing to do with the argument, as you still try to use

    A imples B as the equivalent of !A implies !B.

    You really should learn some basic logic...

    Conversation is over? Is this the 33221 times you said it? You would be smarting again. I bet the over-under would be 1 week...

    [/QUOTE]

    Lie!!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Red-16Russ-11 comment:
    [QUOTE]
    I cited many more than 4 sources. Of course you won't do it again. Your source had nothing to do with the argument, as you still try to use

    A imples B as the equivalent of !A implies !B.

    You really should learn some basic logic...

    Conversation is over? Is this the 33221 times you said it? You would be smarting again. I bet the over-under would be 1 week...

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Lie!!


    Sources I cited before in this argument:

    4/4/2008
    http://basketball.realgm.com/news/wiretap/archive/2008/04/older/17


    3/18/2008
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3300705


    3/8/2008
    http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-lakerep8mar08,1,392106.story


    http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=3226236&wjb=


    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3226203


    And you have posted the recording of your conversation with ESPN LA? where? Still haven't heard it...

    One more thing, you dodge the question:

    And why is the Gasol trade NOT a viable option until Bynum got hurt? What NBA regulations or Federal laws prevent the Lakers from trading for Gasol? Can you answer that? You never able to. All you can hang on is simply the Bynum injury caused the Gasol trade...

    You think I'll let you off the hook? Knowing that you have ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO ANSWER THAT, I'll keep pressing this question...

    And you said that was the end of the conversation. You can't even stand one day. You are really something...






     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    Pathological
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    Don't need anyone to "let me off the hook".  Don't really care what you think.  I know the truth, you have spun it, you are wrong, I have proven it, and it's done!
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:

    Don't need anyone to "let me off the hook".  Don't really care what you think.  I know the truth, you have spun it, you are wrong, I have proven it, and it's done!



    The truth is, you have absolutely no proof that "No Bynum injury => no Gasol trade". And when I ask you why trading for Gasol is NOT a viable option (your own words), you wimp out.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:

    Don't need anyone to "let me off the hook".  Don't really care what you think.  I know the truth, you have spun it, you are wrong, I have proven it, and it's done!



    You don't care what I think? I have been arguing with you on this topic for 2+ years. You know I won't give you an inch in this argument. That's why you come back every other week. Just count how many times you said "it's done"? "game, set, match".

    You know I won't stop exposing your flaw, no matter how many times you say you give up or it's done or you know the truth or you've proven it (with the "Bynum injury => Gasol trade" gem)...





     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    Not what I said.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from EliasBracamonte. Show EliasBracamonte's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to Lakerstroll's comment:

    Bottom line, you're all still stunned and in shock that Howard came to L.A., that's really what prompted this thread. All of a sudden, reaching into the old ghosts to cover-up the shock. I can understand how you all feel. I would feel the exact same way had Howard gone to Boston. It's no coincidence that this thread started precisely 5 days after Boston's Black Friday, when Dwight officially became a Laker.



    Lakerstroll, you are absolutely right about Duke who by the way insulted you when he said he didn't read your brilliant post (I happen to think he did). I went back and forth with Duke a couple years ago when I started a discussion called "L.A. Lakers Best Franchise in NBA history." He was the most ardent defender against what is obviouse to most (if not all) NBA fans outside Boston. I was the one who linked to the ESPN article that declared the Lakers the best franshise ever ( http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FranchiseRankings-Intro). What is interesting is how this article came out BEFORE the Lakers beat Celtics in the finals in 2011! That victory for the Lakers would only solidified ESPN's conclusion. What would under Duke's skin back when he and I went back and forth about which franchise is the greatest was when I would point out the fact that the Celtics wins against the Lakers happened during the old era of the NBA and how the Lakers did their winning during the modern era with more teams, bigger and better players, etc. The fact that there were only 8 or 9 teams back when the Celtics had their run and the fact that they were (at one time) the only franchise that allowed black players, etc. the fact that there were only 2 seven-footers in the league, etc, etc, etc only proves that what they did back then must be understood in that context. The argument that Duke is making "Celtics dominance" is that the Celtics can stay relevant by holding on to the Lakers coattails as they keep winning because of what happened 50 years ago is flawed logically and makes no rational sense. When you think about it, what he's actually proving is how dominant the Lakers are as the greatest franchise in NBA history.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaileyPowe. Show BaileyPowe's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    2010, elias. not 2011. otherwise, beautifully delivered haymaker right to the jaw of mean ole' duke and celtics fans everywhere. you go, eliasB !!!
     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    Elias.....I thought that you and I had buried the hatchet quite awhile ago.....I guess not....well done then....

    by the way, you chide me for talking about all of those championships the Celtics won in the Sixties, Seventies, and Eighties....well, they must be pretty important or the Lakers wouldn't have decided to recognize the five titles the Lakers won in the early Fifties.....that was in 2001....forty one years after they moved to Los Angeles....
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from EliasBracamonte. Show EliasBracamonte's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    We recognize those championships out of respect for the past IN A WAY that recognizes that what took place happened during a different era. That is why if you notice the banners from the 1940's at Staples center, they are different and seperated in such a way that distiguishes them from the banners of the modern era.





    We acknowledge what happened but recognize that the level of talent (or lack thereof) in a league that was young and was for the most part irrelevant in America and the rest of the world until the ABA/NBA merger of 1976 and the awesome rivalry generated by our 2 franchises/players (Bird and Magic) of the 1980's. Our franchises have been given the credit (and rightly so) for "saving" the NBA and making it a truly competetive sport. That said, it is absolutely right to point out the obvious fact that the Lakers have gone on to reign supreme as the franchise of the modern era - no one disputes the fact that the Lakers have acheived more than any other franchise since the 1976 merger having won 10 championships with 17 appearances. Your Celtics in that same time frame, have won 4 championships with only 7 appearances (which by the way is a lower winning percentage than the Lakers during that span. Also, all 3 of the Celtics NBA Finals losses have come against the Lakers). Celtic Dominance? 4 championship is 35 years doesn't cut it Duke! And it is right for these younger guys to point out that your team has only won ONCE in the last 25 years is it?? Or back to back in 40 years (or something like that)? Anyway, the Lakers record speaks for itself and the fact that they were there going up against you guys year in year out during your era and not giving up but fighting and winning and getting knocked down but getting back up again says more about the kind of character of our team as the greatest franchise in the NBA and arguably in all of sports.



    :)

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    fair enough.....perspective usually develops as a result of the things we experience and the timeframe we live in.....
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share