In Response to Re: Tainted Championship
[QUOTE]Dear Mr(s) GlassCow, A cow is female so I don't know ???[/QUOTE]
Potbelly, is that what Celtics crybabies have to resort to? If you want a name-calling campaign, I can play. What are you? a Vietnam vet? 60 years old? and you like to play this game like a 5-year old?
Really sad that the Celtics loss have caused such traumatic behavior ...
You appear as I look through the glass as a bit insecure, on the defense defending the Laker Championship. [/QUOTE]
Insecure is about your folks' inevitable acceptance of the truth: Celtics were beaten by a better team, and the fact have to be accepted sooner or later. NBA is not going to be silly enough to take away the "illegitimate" championship. Afterall, Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) will be cured over time...
Let me tell you what I think you are very good at. [/QUOTE]
Let me tell you what you folks are bad at. You think just by creating some illogic then your arguments would have some merits. And these nonsense of "the ref gave the game to the Lakers since they only shot 32%", or "blogs of all other NBA cities support us", blah, blah, blah
These kind of arguments can't withstand a simple rebuttal. I am good at bashing these nonsense. You wouldn't stand a chance.
Defend the championship? Heck, the Lakers are defending champs, something you ABSOLUTELY cannot do anything about...
Ok, may I ask , well I'd prefer you just go away and leave us be, but if you do respond again " what is it exactly you want from us ? " [/QUOTE]
Why should I go away? this is a public forum, isn't it? Some continuous Celtic whinings are exactly what I am looking for. Heck, I said it before, what beats the Lakers championship is this: mocking the Celtics fans here.
I, and I can't speak for my fellow Celtic fans, concede the following: 1. The Lakers are NBA Champions 2010. 2. The record books will show that they beat the Celtics. 3. There will be no * asterisk next to the title indicating it was tainted. Do you continue on here because you think we don't know the above and you wish to convince us of it..... ...it is a fact !!![/QUOTE]
Of course I don't even think you folks know the facts. Heck, aren't you guys living in a fantasy? Illegitimate championship that cause an NBA investigations, a la Tim Donaghy, fans stop following the NBA, all those nonsense.
However, the manner in which it was accomplished and whether it was deserved based on a superior team winning by pure athletic endeavor is something we are not satisfied with and wish to discuss & we don't need you and your jibberish to try & convince us otherwise.
Championships don't have to be won by pure athletic endeavor. Luck can play a part, the loser choking can also play a part, a break here and there. That's a 7-game series, not a sweep. However, your Bill Russell once said, in a 7-game series, the better team always wins. And if you are fuming over the manner that it was accomplished, how about the three finals that the Celtics won in the 60s: one a 3-point win in OT (when Russell pushed Baylor on the rebound on Frank Selvy's missed shot), and the other two only by a deuce, not to mention your first ever championship was a 2-point OT win in game 7. Are those games convincing? pure athletic endeavor? Go ahead, enlighten me.
Now what I will not concede to is acknowledging that I, again can't speak for the Celtic fans, don't think the Lakers are the better team. You made a comment that someone said we were leading the whole game & you then said that the score was very close within minutes after the 4th qtr. started so we were't leading the whole game. [/QUOTE]
Of course you weren't leading the whole game. That's a fact. Do you know the definition of "whole". The Celtics started this lead from the middle of 2nd quarter to the middle of the 4th quarter, i.e. about 1/2 of the game. Is it in your dictionary that half == whole?
Wow ! How astute you are. Now we were leading until the incompetent Refs decided to award 21 fouls to our 6 all in the 4th Qtr., many phantom calls, many non calls on Lakers, blatant 2-3 step travel by Gasol doing a dunk where I thought he was auditioning for Dancing with the Stars at a very pivotal time in the game. [/QUOTE]
Now these are not facts either. "Incompetent", "phantom calls", "non calls", "blatant" are not facts. These are just your biased opinions. Too bad the NBA fans, we Lakers fans, etc. do NOT share these opinions. Last week I listed out all the calls that led to Lakers FTs. "The Celtics fouled" are facts. "The refs called the Celtics on phantom fouls" are not facts. These are only your fantasy.
Just one play can change momentum in an athletic contest but when a team gets 15 more foul shots in a qtr. which one really changes the momentum? [/QUOTE]
So what? when my team was more aggressive on the board, have more energy. Your team played sissy basketball and got killed on the boards. My team went to the hole and your team settled for jump shots. What do you expect? no fouls called on the Celtics? And you complained about incompetent refereeing?
And your cohorts even had the shame of crying "they only shot 32%". In the whole series, the W/L was determined by which team winning the boards, not by which team winning the FG%.
Tell me which foul I listed shouldn't be called. And I'll argue with you tooth and nail. Go ahead.
So, in addition to not admitting that we feel the Lakers are better we also feel the title is tainted. [/QUOTE]
You can feel whatever you want. You can feel that you are in love with Paul Pierce, or that you are a better player than Michael Jordan, I can't control people's feeling, especially people with some kind of mental disorder. Whenever the justifications of that feeling that don't hold water, I can bash them...
But what we feel will not change the aforementioned record-you guys are the champs. I reiterate, what else do you want from us?[/QUOTE]
Simple, more irrational justifications to support your feeling, like "the Celtics were leading the WHOLE game", "phantom fouls", etc. When there is no NBA to watch, I'll settle for this forum.
Leave us alone & please go on a Laker forum & blow smoke up your own butts about how great your Laker team and its (6-24/25%) MVP played. [/QUOTE]
See, more nonsense justifications. Do you think the MVP was awarded based on 6-24? How come you never mentioned the 15 rebounds? See how tainted your point of view is? How come you didn't mention the 28.6 PPG, 8 RPG, 3.9 APG in the series? Do you think Finals MVP == Game 7 MVP?
This is called "use facts to lie", by withholding the whole truth. You mean you want to post lies and beg me to leave you alone?
[QUOTE] but I most certainy would not be gloating about the victory and going on LA forums hounding the fans & trying to get them to capitulate & agree we were completely deserving & not lucky at all to win the title. [/QUOTE]
That's you. You don't expect I do whatever you do, do you? On the other hand, I most certainly would not be whining on the refs and gloating a "tainted championship" into August had the Celtics won. So you have your own agenda, so do I.
If you continue on this post, then it is you who are whining that we won't bow down to you guys and maybe reading all our posts some of it has sunk in and your conscience bothers you but you won't admit it. [/QUOTE]
What kind of logic is that? how about this? if you respond to this post then you are whining inanely, are not living up to reality, but secretly admit the Lakers deserved their title. I'll see how you deal with this.
- if you respond, you lose
- if you don't respond, you get shut up (i.e. in a long-winded argument that both sides trying to get the last say, you also lose).
Take your pick.
For your information, I feel the right to gloat & truly be happy about a victory and know that the world and the opponents know which team was better, I cite 2008 when we won by a thrashing 39 points !!! [/QUOTE]
You sure can. However, I would choose back2back championships over 1 year wonder (albeit by winning 39 points in the clinching game) anytime. I mean, if they could win by 39 points, why didn't they save a few for game 7 this year?