In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : Your spin is admirable, yet boring me to tears.  Dictionaries do not tell grammar, only if  a word is in the English language.

 Sometimes, like "irregardless" it says it is a word, but don't use it as it is redundant, merely use "regardless." Grammar rules, and proper English say that the Lakers QUIT is the correct use of the word.  We don't say quitted in this country.

Lakers did trade for Gasol - fact No Bynum injury - no trade - speculation They would have made the trade anyway - also speculation we need to agree to disagree on this point - I have provided you with links and quotes, and everything else to back up my "speculation". 

You have done nothing but contradict me - which is not arguing  - nor proving anything. 

you will believe what you want, and I will not change your mind.  Ditto for you, we Irish can be pretty stubborn, too.  I shall not discuss it with you anymore, it is a stalemate!
Posted by Red-16Russ-11

In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : Well your retort made no sense.  Kind of like the rest of your posts.  First off, are you questioning whether or not you are trying to hate bursting my bubble?  Not sure what the question mark is for at the end of that first sentence.    Anywho,  I stated a fact didn't I?  The higher is seed is 2-0 in those two years right?  That is true.  Those other years don't matter just like apparently the Celtics other 13 championships don't matter to you because you want to make it look like the Lakers are the better franchise.  I am simply doing what you are doing just better. 
Posted by rampageimt23

In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : Not at all. If you want to pick 2-0, I can also pick 0-4. That is also a fact, the higher seed lost in 1985, 1993, 1998 and 2006, right? So that made the Celtics overwhelming favorites to win game 6, but then they choked. See, you play by this rule, I can just play the same rule. Now you are backing into the same corner: the Celtics choked. So, take your pick: 1) you pick what you want, I pick what I want: a 4-0 sample is bigger than a 2-0 sample; Celtics still choked. 2) Looking at what happened since the 2-3-2 format, it's 4-2, Celtics still choked. So let me know, (1) or (2)?
Posted by MajicMVP

In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : Oh OK.  Got it.  Now you make much more sense (sarcasm).  I will take number (3).  Since you want to play a game I have one for you.  Pick one.  I will even give you 3 options. The fact is the Boston Celtics have more championships than the Los Angeles Lakers. 1) The Cetlics have 17 championships which are more than the Los Angeles Lakers 11 championships 2) The Celtics have 17 championships which are more than the Minneapolis Lakers 5 championships 3) The Celtics have 17 championships which are more than the Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers 16 championships I can play this game all night long like Lionel Ritchie.  You can mention your nominal facts about losing a series up 3-2 all day long but the fact is the Lakers choked 15 times in the NBA Finals.  Out of those 15 times 9 of them were to the Celtics.  Any other useless arguments that you would like to throw out there that I can pick apart with ease?
Posted by rampageimt23

In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : And choice (3) is? See, if you want to play the "because I say so" spoiled brat, my "because I say so" is stronger than yours. My sample is 4, yours is only 2. And choked 15 times in the NBA finals? Now, according to you folks, you can't choke if you are not the favorites. Then how can the Lakers choke when they were the underdogs against the Celtics in many occasions? See, consistency is not your strong suit either...
Posted by MajicMVP

In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : I said nothing about teams needing to be the favorite to choke.  If you can point out in any post where I said that then I will retract this statement.

   According to you the Celtics choked in 2010 because they had a 3-2 series lead.  Not sure how that is a choke but since that is your own definition of choke that means the 1962 Lakers choked, 1969 Lakers choked (Lakers were up 2-0 and 3-2 in that series) and the 1970 Lakers choked.

Just for the h e l l of it the 1984 Lakers choked too (2-1 series lead playing Game 4 at home and they cough up a 5 point lead with less than a minute to play).  Oh wait...I forgot you don't count anything that happened historically.

 You only use historical facts when it is conveninent for you. 

You are making this too easy for me my man.  At first I thought you posed a challenge but just like the Lakers you will always be second best.
Posted by rampageimt23

In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : I said "Now, according to you folks ". Quick, take some remedial reading classes. Yep, the 1962 and 1969 Lakers choked. But since you know I ignore the bush league era and you like to ignore history " too ", what about it? But 1970 Lakers? when have the 1970 Lakers led 3-2 and lost? That's NOT even a FACT... So now you count 2-1 series lead too? Now, that's not my criteria, but if you like to play: 1990 Celtics vs Knicks (2-0 lead in a 5-game series) 1991 Celtics vs Pistons 2002 Celtics vs Nets Son, stop talking about history because you obviously have little clue on the Celtics' failure patterns... And the history I like to talk about is since the Bird/Magic era. Don't forget, you like to ignore history "too". And you don't? What happen to the historical fact that the Celtics failed 48 times, more than the Lakers? or the historical fact that the Celtics were fishing when the Lakers won 13 of their 16 titles? Convenient to you, huh? Well, the Lakers are definitely second best in terms of choking in the finals after leading 3-2. It's obvious that you can't defend the 2010 Celtics and dodge the topics. Since the 2-3-2 in 1985: Trailing 2-3 with 2 upcoming home games: Celtics 0-1 (1985), Lakers 2-0 (1988, 2010) Leading 3-2 with 2 upcoming road games: Celtics 0-1 (2010), Lakers 1-0 (1985) See, both teams have perfect records in both categories.
Posted by MajicMVP

In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : I think you have the wrong Ray Allen picture. That's not my avatar, that's kyceltic's. So kyceltic made a promise in my behalf? You even have actual proof that I said "I promise"? If so then show us all the post where I said, "I promise".
Posted by Fiercest34

In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : Like I said, Mployee8, how can other people, on this board, know for sure that you're not making stuff up? You're making allegations and accusations that you can't even back up. Everybody on this board knows you lost in our bet and you didn't honor the bet. There goes your credibility. Ugh! If there's an entire thread about me saying "I promise" then I'm sure you have a copy of it. The problem is you keep using kyceltic as reference when we all know kyceltic is a Paul Pierce hater. So where's the post where it had my "promise" on it?
Posted by Fiercest34

In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : You implying that other people here are dumb? Like they have no idea of what your game is? LOL! You have no credibility ... all I did was blow our bet off cause I realized that that's exactly what you would have done had I won especially after breaking that promise to stop posting if your bosom buddy Davis or Perk were traded ... For the millionth time! Your original post was deleted upon suspension .... stop playing that "stupid" card as you know all to well why it can't be found as there is no longer a archive of deleted posts. GOOD NITE LOSER!
Posted by Mployee8

"It's true that my posts got deleted but I don't think there was ever a thread about my "promise" because if it really exists it would not have been deleted." What are you blind as well as a fraud? Re: I'm calling out P34 and OneOnOne!! posted at 2/24/2011 5:11 PM EST   www.boston.com/community/persona.html?UID=3567a792c5f5109ca211f62f3c1b2406&plckUserId=3567a792c5f5109ca211f62f3c1b2406 " /> kyceltic Posts: 1904 First: 2/12/2006 Last: 6/24/2011 In Response to I'm calling out P34 and OneOnOne!! : WHERE ARE YOU?? LOL! Weren't you the one that was so confident that Perk and/or BBD weren't going anywhere?? Ainge wasn't trying to trade? Why fix something that's not broken? I kept telling you that Ainge ALWAYS makes deals...ALWAYS at the deadline. Why people thought he wasn't going to do anything is perplexing to me. Posted by BiasLewis   Didn't P34 promise to quit posting if we traded Perk!!!   HAHAHA
Posted by Mployee8

Yeah .... I missed the the promise as I stopped posting for a few months but when I returned there was a thread devoted to it but the original post had already been deleted otherwise I would have archived it for sure .... Re: Would Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen come back after next season for less money? posted at 6/24/2011 11:54 PM EDT   www.boston.com/community/persona.html?UID=7f55753848dead56fcea3701229e681a&plckUserId=7f55753848dead56fcea3701229e681a "> Fiercest34 Posts: 2162 First: 3/24/2011 Last: 6/25/2011 Of course they would. Ray and KG returns for vet's minimum then hopefully joining them would be Dwight and Austin Rivers. Hahaha .... Can't wait .... What Credibility You Have ... HAHAHA!!!
Posted by Mployee8

Yeah .... I missed the the promise as I stopped posting for a few months but when I returned there was a thread devoted to it but the original post had already been deleted otherwise I would have archived it for sure .... Re: Would Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen come back after next season for less money? posted at 6/24/2011 11:54 PM EDT   www.boston.com/community/persona.html?UID=7f55753848dead56fcea3701229e681a&plckUserId=7f55753848dead56fcea3701229e681a " /> Fiercest34 Posts: 2162 First: 3/24/2011 Last: 6/25/2011 Of course they would. Ray and KG returns for vet's minimum then hopefully joining them would be Dwight and Austin Rivers. Hahaha .... Can't wait .... What Credibility You Have ... HAHAHA!!!
Posted by Mployee8

In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : Well first off you said you folks.  I am a singular person so you folks does not apply to me.  Got it? 

To have a chance to win the NBA title you have to be in the playoffs right?  The Lakers had 58 chances to win the NBA title and only did it 16 times.  The Celtics had 49 chances to win the NBA title and did it 17 times.  So that means your team failed 42 times to win the NBA title while the Celtics only failed 32 times.

  There goes that math thing again.  42 is greater than 32 so your team failed more times to win the NBA title.  I was throwing 1984 in there because it was pretty much a choke.  So since you want to retort lets take a look at the Lakers: 1961 Lakers - Up 3-2 and lost to the St Louis Hawks 1984 Lakers - Up 2-1 and lost to the Celtics 4-3 1993 Lakers - Up 2-0 and lost to Phoenix 3-2 2006 Lakers - Up 3-1 and lost to Phoenix 4-3 You even admit that you only look at the Bird/Magic era....I have to ask myself why is that.  Obviously because it skews the numbers in your teams favor.  I don't ignore history at all.

 History is defined as events that form the subject matter of history or a chronological record of significant events or an established record.  You omit history.

I presented nothing but historical facts proving the Celtics are better than the Lakers. 

Look up all time facts for both teams and post them here.  I believe I did something similar a week or so ago.  Give me the proof that the Lakers are the better franchise. ...
It is measured by championships and your team doesn't have enough to claim to be the best. 
Posted by rampageimt23

Yeah .... I missed the the promise as I stopped posting for a few months but when I returned there was a thread devoted to it but the original post had already been deleted otherwise I would have archived it for sure .... Re: Would Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen come back after next season for less money? posted at 6/24/2011 11:54 PM EDT   www.boston.com/community/persona.html?UID=7f55753848dead56fcea3701229e681a&plckUserId=7f55753848dead56fcea3701229e681a "> Fiercest34 Posts: 2162 First: 3/24/2011 Last: 6/25/2011 Of course they would. Ray and KG returns for vet's minimum then hopefully joining them would be Dwight and Austin Rivers. Hahaha .... Can't wait .... What Credibility You Have ... HAHAHA!!!
Posted by Mployee8

In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : First I said "you folks". If you didn't say that particular statement, then just shut up. Why are you so jumpy? Well, to have a chance to make the playoffs you have to play in the regular season right? The Celtics had 65 chances to play in the regular season yet they only made 49 playoffs? Are you honoring the Celtics for missing 16 playoffs? or do you consider missing the playoffs a "success"? See, keep twisting, but you can't get off the hook... Your own words in http://www.boston.com/community/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aSportsForum%3a734e2bc9-e1bc-49d6-8355-64f9a8500246Discussion%3a629a8a2b-85aa-48d5-92e7-2b7b97f9afef&plckCurrentPage=4 "I am going to ignore history too" And since you cite all the Celtics and Lakers choke, let's recap: Lakers chokes: 1961 vs Hawks, 1962 vs Celtics, 1969 vs Celtics, 1984 vs Celtics, 1993 vs Suns, 2006 vs Suns, for a total of 6 Celtics chokes: 1990 vs Knicks, 1991 vs Pistons, 2002 vs Nets, 2009 vs Magic, 2010 vs Lakers. But look at the timeframe of the chokes, the Lakers only had 3 since the Bird/Magic era, while the Celtics' 5 all happened in the same era. But wait, you can add criteria, so can I. Game 7 at home. Look at how many times the Celtics and Lakers choked: Lakers: 1969 vs Celtics Celtics: 1973 vs Knicks, 1982 vs 76ers, 2005 vs Pacers, 2009 vs Magic Counting all eras, it's Celtics 9, Lakers 7 Counting only the modern era or since Bird/Magic, its Celtics 8 Lakers 4. See, you like to play this game of cherry-picking facts/stats, I am all in. Afterall, for someone who claimed the Lakers choked in 1970 vs the Knicks, I'll see how you measure up... So no matter how you want to play, you are still in kindergarten in this game of "cherry-picks the stats the suit one's argument". Simple, because it's a judgement how certain history is significant. Your camp of course want to count that ancient history is absolutely relevant, as if every period in history are the same. 1) The basketball world doesn't think that way. Look no further than the GOAT. He only has 6 rings, 6 modern rings. The basketball world considers it to be more significant than the 11 rings in the Jurassic era... 2) Kevin Love's streak of double doubles made great headlines, breaking Moses' record in the "modern era". The basketball world thought that an achievement in the modern era was worth commending, thus discarding Wilt's streak of 200+ double doubles in the ancient era. 3) Quick, don't look at references, which school won the most # of college football titles? It's not Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, Oklahoma or Nebraska. Well, that tells you all-time numbers are not the things the followers look at when the game landscape was completely different. Yet you cherry pick the facts, like ignoring the 48 times the Celtics failed to win the championships, or the 44 times the Celtics failed to make the finals. Did you present those facts? Now your new trick is only counting the times the team made the playoffs? Are you going to brag the 16 times the Celtics failed to make the playoffs? that's obviously an advantage to you... See, just this "measured by championships", "all-time facts" are simply more cherry-pickings. Why count failures (like the 16 times they failed to make the playoffs, and the 44 times they failed to make the finals) when they are not in your favor? Why admit the ancient, struggling league as insignificant when they are not in your favor?
Posted by MajicMVP