1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercest34. Show Fiercest34's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/9/2012 12:46 AM EDT

    In response to KingShaq's comment:

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:



    WRONG!

    Every NBA superstar's dream is to win a championship. 

    And saying that 17 is not necessarily the winningest is just dumb because 17 is greater than 16.

    The LA Lakers don't even have 16 championships. 5 of the 16 came from Minneapolis. Obviously you have not been to Staples Center. When you look up, at the rafters of Staples, you'll only see 12 banners hanging. 

    Somebody stole the other 4 banners?



    Ummmm..  we are arguing about franchises. Now you have to resort to NBA superstars? have to move the goalpost again?

    Every franchise's dream is to avoid a 2-decade drought or miss the playoffs for 6 consecutive years.

    And "dumb" is not a fact, it's an adjective you use, i.e. opinion. If you have no fact but opinion, I don't worry about it. It's nothing more than saying, "you are dumb", "no, you are dumber", "you are dumber", "you are the dumbest"....

    And now you have to resort to LA Lakers? Tell me, I am arguing for the Lakers, why would LA matter?

    And you still haven't cite the rule that # championships == # banners hung. Oh, are you going to tell me the # championship banners hung at Chesapeake Arena (by the Thunder) and at Power Balance Arena (by the Kings)? ARe you telling me the Thunder franchise (formerly the Sonics) and the Kings franchise (the formerly Royals) have never won a championship?



    That's because some of the owners that bought the team don't want to associate their current team with the old team from another city. 

    It's simple, the Bulls have 6 championships and they have 6 banners hanging. The Spurs 4 championships, 4 banners. You Laker trolls keep claiming you have 16 championships and yet you don't want to talk about the 60s. I mean the Lakers won 5 of their 16 championships in the 1950s. 


    Every morning before you go to work, you come here to antagonize Celtic fans. Your day is not complete if you can't say anything bad about the Celtics?
     

  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercest34. Show Fiercest34's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/9/2012 12:48 AM EDT

    In response to KingShaq's comment:

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:



    Just stop making excuses. 

    The Lakers even have a losing record to the Bobcats.


    Stop dodging the issue and answer the questions. Do you want to talk about the 80s only or all-time series?

    But either way, you would be smoked...



    No matter if it's the 80s, 60s, or today, the Lakers never dominated. The Lakers came close when they faced the Pistons in 2004. If the Lakers beat the Pistons, for a 4-peat, that would have been dominating the 2k era. But unfortunately for the Lakers it didn't happen.
     

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercest34. Show Fiercest34's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/9/2012 12:49 AM EDT

    You have issues when you can't start the morning without having to say bad things about the Boston Celtics.
     

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/9/2012 3:30 AM EDT

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:


    That's because some of the owners that bought the team don't want to associate their current team with the old team from another city. 

    It's simple, the Bulls have 6 championships and they have 6 banners hanging. The Spurs 4 championships, 4 banners. You Laker trolls keep claiming you have 16 championships and yet you don't want to talk about the 60s. I mean the Lakers won 5 of their 16 championships in the 1950s. 

    Simple according to whom? cite where the rule stated that # championships == # banners hung. I'll see how you can get out of the corner you paint yourself in....



     

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/9/2012 3:41 AM EDT

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:


    No matter if it's the 80s, 60s, or today, the Lakers never dominated. The Lakers came close when they faced the Pistons in 2004. If the Lakers beat the Pistons, for a 4-peat, that would have been dominating the 2k era. But unfortunately for the Lakers it didn't happen.


    Umm.... 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, that's a 4-peat?

    Is that a lie or never formally educated how to count?

    And the Lakers never dominated? 5 titles in the Mikan era (6 if we count the one you mentioned), 9 finals and 5 titles in the Magic era, 7 finals and 5 titles in the Kobe era. "Never dominated" according to whom?

    I mean, the Celtics never able to dominate in more than once - the Russell era. Now that's a fact you can't dispute.


     

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/9/2012 3:42 AM EDT

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:

    You have issues when you can't start the morning without having to say bad things about the Boston Celtics.



    Now this post alone indicates that you are not so smart....


     

  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercest34. Show Fiercest34's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/9/2012 12:36 PM EDT

    In response to KingShaq's comment:

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:



    No matter if it's the 80s, 60s, or today, the Lakers never dominated. The Lakers came close when they faced the Pistons in 2004. If the Lakers beat the Pistons, for a 4-peat, that would have been dominating the 2k era. But unfortunately for the Lakers it didn't happen.


    Umm.... 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, that's a 4-peat?

    Is that a lie or never formally educated how to count?

    And the Lakers never dominated? 5 titles in the Mikan era (6 if we count the one you mentioned), 9 finals and 5 titles in the Magic era, 7 finals and 5 titles in the Kobe era. "Never dominated" according to whom?

    I mean, the Celtics never able to dominate in more than once - the Russell era. Now that's a fact you can't dispute.



    My bad, the Lakers already crashed and burned in 2003.



    George Mikan? How dare you talk about George Mikan when even Laker owners just put up 1 banner for all 5 championships!
     


    So now it's convenient for you to talk about the 1950s because it suits your argument? 

    I thought the 1960s were a bush league?

    If the 1960s was a bush league then the 1950s was a shrub league.
     

     

  8. This post has been removed.

     

  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercest34. Show Fiercest34's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/9/2012 12:41 PM EDT

    How ironic. When it's not convenient, the Celtics dominated a bush league. But when ask for Laker dominance, the troll has to go all the way back to George Mikan in the 1950s.

    HAHAHA
     

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/10/2012 8:43 AM EDT

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:


    My bad, the Lakers already crashed and burned in 2003.


    So you lied.



    George Mikan? How dare you talk about George Mikan when even Laker owners just put up 1 banner for all 5 championships!

    Why not? who says that 5 championships must be on 5 banners? Cite the NBA rule.

    That's interesting.



    So now it's convenient for you to talk about the 1950s because it suits your argument? 

    I thought the 1960s were a bush league?

    If the 1960s was a bush league then the 1950s was a shrub league.

    1950s was bush league too. Are you willing to give up the titles won during that era?

    If so, it's 11-6, Lakers, counting titles since the 70s.

    If not, the Lakers dominated in 3 eras.

    Take your pick.

     

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/10/2012 8:44 AM EDT

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:

    How ironic. When it's not convenient, the Celtics dominated a bush league. But when ask for Laker dominance, the troll has to go all the way back to George Mikan in the 1950s.



    Of course, because when you aren't willing to give up the titles in the bush league era, why shouldn't I go back to the Mikan era?

    Your pick.

     

  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercest34. Show Fiercest34's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/10/2012 8:43 PM EDT

    In response to KingShaq's comment:

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:



    My bad, the Lakers already crashed and burned in 2003.


    So you lied.



    George Mikan? How dare you talk about George Mikan when even Laker owners just put up 1 banner for all 5 championships!

    Why not? who says that 5 championships must be on 5 banners? Cite the NBA rule.

    That's interesting.



    So now it's convenient for you to talk about the 1950s because it suits your argument? 

    I thought the 1960s were a bush league?

    If the 1960s was a bush league then the 1950s was a shrub league.

    1950s was bush league too. Are you willing to give up the titles won during that era?

    If so, it's 11-6, Lakers, counting titles since the 70s.

    If not, the Lakers dominated in 3 eras.

    Take your pick.



    Are you playing basketball god? You only want to start counting Laker championships in the 70s because you want to hide the fact that the Lakers hold the NBA record of 8 straight Finals losses in the 50s and 60s.

    Talk about futility.
     

    Lakers dominated?

    In the 80s they went 5-3. 2 games above .500 is dominating?
     

    In the 2000s they came close. A 5-2 record means the Lakers were very good. But clearly 5-2 is not a record of dominance.

    Other than the Celtics the Bulls and Spurs dominated. The Bulls won 2 3-peats and the Spurs are unbeaten in the Finals since 1999.

    By the way, your Lakers are just ranked #89 in this year's annual pro franchises rankings. The Nets are even ahead of the Lakers at #88.
     

     

  13. This post has been removed.

     

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/10/2012 10:42 PM EDT

    Are you playing basketball god? You only want to start counting Laker championships in the 70s because you want to hide the fact that the Lakers hold the NBA record of 8 straight Finals losses in the 50s and 60s.


    Why hide the fact? 8 straight finals losses were way better than the Celtics 9-peat (9 consecutive years not winning a playoff series), although they suffered 0 final losses during those 9-peat seasons.



    Lakers dominated?

    In the 80s they went 5-3. 2 games above .500 is dominating?


    Of course, did the Lakers played only 8 games throughout the 80s? Your ignorance showed. We are talking about 8 final appearances and 5 championships. It's not 8 games.

    You said the Spurs dominated since 1999. Let's compare:

    In the 80s (1980-1991) Lakers made 9 finals and won 5 championships.
    From 1999-2010, the Spurs made 4 finals and won 4 championships.

    So in your little arithmetic:

    Making 4 finals is better than making 9 finals.
    Winning 4 championships is better than winning 5.

    You advocate losing again.


    In the 2000s they came close. A 5-2 record means the Lakers were very good. But clearly 5-2 is not a record of dominance.

    Other than the Celtics the Bulls and Spurs dominated. The Bulls won 2 3-peats and the Spurs are unbeaten in the Finals since 1999.


    Dominance means unbeaten in the finals? So if you don't make the finals then the season doesn't count? According to whom? Fortunately the rest of the league doesn't view it that way...

    Again, the Lakers didn't have a 5-2 record. The Lakers didn't play only 7 games. The Lakers made 7 finals out of 12 seasons and won 5 championships. The real fact (from 1999-2010)

    Lakers: 7/12 making finals, 5/12 championships
    Spurs: 4/12 making finals, 4/12 championships

    No matter how you look at it, 7/12 is better than 4/12, 5/12 is also better than 4/12, true or false?









     

  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercest34. Show Fiercest34's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/11/2012 9:54 AM EDT

    In response to KingShaq's comment:

     

    Are you playing basketball god? You only want to start counting Laker championships in the 70s because you want to hide the fact that the Lakers hold the NBA record of 8 straight Finals losses in the 50s and 60s.

    Why hide the fact? 8 straight finals losses were way better than the Celtics 9-peat (9 consecutive years not winning a playoff series), although they suffered 0 final losses during those 9-peat seasons.



    Lakers dominated?

    In the 80s they went 5-3. 2 games above .500 is dominating?


    Of course, did the Lakers played only 8 games throughout the 80s? Your ignorance showed. We are talking about 8 final appearances and 5 championships. It's not 8 games.

    You said the Spurs dominated since 1999. Let's compare:

    In the 80s (1980-1991) Lakers made 9 finals and won 5 championships.
    From 1999-2010, the Spurs made 4 finals and won 4 championships.

    So in your little arithmetic:

    Making 4 finals is better than making 9 finals.
    Winning 4 championships is better than winning 5.

    You advocate losing again.


    In the 2000s they came close. A 5-2 record means the Lakers were very good. But clearly 5-2 is not a record of dominance.

    Other than the Celtics the Bulls and Spurs dominated. The Bulls won 2 3-peats and the Spurs are unbeaten in the Finals since 1999.


    Dominance means unbeaten in the finals? So if you don't make the finals then the season doesn't count? According to whom? Fortunately the rest of the league doesn't view it that way...

    Again, the Lakers didn't have a 5-2 record. The Lakers didn't play only 7 games. The Lakers made 7 finals out of 12 seasons and won 5 championships. The real fact (from 1999-2010)

    Lakers: 7/12 making finals, 5/12 championships
    Spurs: 4/12 making finals, 4/12 championships

    No matter how you look at it, 7/12 is better than 4/12, 5/12 is also better than 4/12, true or false?









     



    Again, your stupidity reign. All I said was the Spurs dominated because every time they made it to the Finals they are sure winners. Nothing more, nothing less.

    And again, the Lakers only came close to being dominant in one decade. From 2000-09, the Lakers won 4 championships, 4 out 6. That's a 4-2 record.

    Also, stop with the manipulation of facts. 1999 and 2010 are in different decades.

    Right now the Lakers are only 89th on the annual pro franchises rankings. Even the Nets are ahead of the Lakers in the rankings.

    Lakers are popular, sure. But they're not even in the top 20 of great franchises this season.
     

  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercest34. Show Fiercest34's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/11/2012 9:56 AM EDT

    queenshag

    I suggest you ask your family or friends if you need help. Tell them that you're a Laker fan and that every morning you go to a forum for Celtic fans to talk trash about the Celtics. I mean put emphasis on the word "EVERY". 

    Seriously, this has been going on for years. I mean your morning is not complete if you can't say bad things about the Celtics when you start your day?
     

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/11/2012 10:28 AM EDT

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:

    In response to KingShaq's comment:

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:



    WRONG!

    Every NBA superstar's dream is to win a championship. 

    And saying that 17 is not necessarily the winningest is just dumb because 17 is greater than 16.

    The LA Lakers don't even have 16 championships. 5 of the 16 came from Minneapolis. Obviously you have not been to Staples Center. When you look up, at the rafters of Staples, you'll only see 12 banners hanging. 

    Somebody stole the other 4 banners?



    Ummmm..  we are arguing about franchises. Now you have to resort to NBA superstars? have to move the goalpost again?

    Every franchise's dream is to avoid a 2-decade drought or miss the playoffs for 6 consecutive years.

    And "dumb" is not a fact, it's an adjective you use, i.e. opinion. If you have no fact but opinion, I don't worry about it. It's nothing more than saying, "you are dumb", "no, you are dumber", "you are dumber", "you are the dumbest"....

    And now you have to resort to LA Lakers? Tell me, I am arguing for the Lakers, why would LA matter?

    And you still haven't cite the rule that # championships == # banners hung. Oh, are you going to tell me the # championship banners hung at Chesapeake Arena (by the Thunder) and at Power Balance Arena (by the Kings)? ARe you telling me the Thunder franchise (formerly the Sonics) and the Kings franchise (the formerly Royals) have never won a championship?

     



    That's because some of the owners that bought the team don't want to associate their current team with the old team from another city. 

    It's simple, the Bulls have 6 championships and they have 6 banners hanging. The Spurs 4 championships, 4 banners. You Laker trolls keep claiming you have 16 championships and yet you don't want to talk about the 60s. I mean the Lakers won 5 of their 16 championships in the 1950s. 


    Every morning before you go to work, you come here to antagonize Celtic fans. Your day is not complete if you can't say anything bad about the Celtics?

     



    Fierce, haven't you figured it out yet?  When it's convenient, he says 16 is better than 17 because the lakers have been better over the past few years.  BUT........when talking about coaching, a highly subjective topic, he will not budge over the  11 is bigger than 9, so Phil is better than Red argument.  Despite the fact Red did it with one team, and in less time!


    Best of luck to you!!
     

  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercest34. Show Fiercest34's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/11/2012 12:08 PM EDT

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

    [/QUOTE]

    Fierce, haven't you figured it out yet?  When it's convenient, he says 16 is better than 17 because the lakers have been better over the past few years.  BUT........when talking about coaching, a highly subjective topic, he will not budge over the  11 is bigger than 9, so Phil is better than Red argument.  Despite the fact Red did it with one team, and in less time!


    Best of luck to you!!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm just doing an experiment. His morning is not complete if he can't say bad things about the Boston Celtics when he wakes up. The more he posts here the more we know he's someone who's not right when it comes to mental stability.

    What's funny is he can't afford to stay here until 12pm Pacific time because he has to work. So he resorts to post and run.
     

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/12/2012 7:04 AM EDT

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:[/QUOTE]

    Again, your stupidity reign. All I said was the Spurs dominated because every time they made it to the Finals they are sure winners. Nothing more, nothing less.

    And again, the Lakers only came close to being dominant in one decade. From 2000-09, the Lakers won 4 championships, 4 out 6. That's a 4-2 record.

    Also, stop with the manipulation of facts. 1999 and 2010 are in different decades.
    [/QUOTE]

    Who's using your idiotic definition of "domination"? everytime they made it to the finals? It's like saying the Jets dominated the NFL because everytime they made it to the Super Bowl they won.

    The Lakers dominated in the 80s and 00s, period. You and Duke used this "we only count the times a team reached the finals, all other years don't count, thus losing in the finals is worse than not making the finals" is NOT anyone's definition, not even your fellow fans.


     

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/12/2012 7:07 AM EDT

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


    Fierce, haven't you figured it out yet?  When it's convenient, he says 16 is better than 17 because the lakers have been better over the past few years.  BUT........when talking about coaching, a highly subjective topic, he will not budge over the  11 is bigger than 9, so Phil is better than Red argument.  Despite the fact Red did it with one team, and in less time!



    Ummm... when Phil's 11 is better than Red's 9, and Lakers 16 is better than the Celtics' 17, do you see anything in common in the "9" and "17"?

    Obviously not.

    "Jurassic Park" is coming to a theatre near you....


     

  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercest34. Show Fiercest34's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/12/2012 8:23 AM EDT

    In response to KingShaq's comment:

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:




    Who's using your idiotic definition of "domination"? everytime they made it to the finals? It's like saying the Jets dominated the NFL because everytime they made it to the Super Bowl they won.

    The Lakers dominated in the 80s and 00s, period. You and Duke used this "we only count the times a team reached the finals, all other years don't count, thus losing in the finals is worse than not making the finals" is NOT anyone's definition, not even your fellow fans.

    [/QUOTE]

    The Lakers didn't dominate the 80s, they just won more than the others. A 5-3 Finals record is nowhere near domination.

    You're a working class man, you should know better!


    In the 2000s the Lakers came close to being the dominant team of the decade. If they only beat the 2004 Pistons. LOL
     

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/12/2012 10:10 AM EDT

    According to QueenShaq, then, Joe Torre, with 4 WS wins, was a better manager than Joe McCarthy, with 7.....since all of McCarthy's were in the bush league era of baseball!!
     

  23. This post has been removed.

     

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/13/2012 7:00 AM EDT

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:

    The Lakers didn't dominate the 80s, they just won more than the others. A 5-3 Finals record is nowhere near domination.

    The Lakers record was not 5-3. The Lakers record was 5 championships and 8 finals appearance.

    Since you consider 4 championships and 4 final appearances "dominate". So by your logic, 5 champs and 8 final appearances must be.
     
     

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    posted at 9/13/2012 7:02 AM EDT

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

    According to QueenShaq, then, Joe Torre, with 4 WS wins, was a better manager than Joe McCarthy, with 7.....since all of McCarthy's were in the bush league era of baseball!!



    Yep.


    This is not just my opinion. Your cohort DoctorCO has such opinion too: "Steelers ruled the NFL", despite only 6 championships (as compared to Packers' 13).

    And the Lakers are considered the best franchise by many, thus their 16 must be better than the Celtics' 17.

    If you want to know who consider the Lakers the best franchise, just ask.