Re: The championship is tainted
posted at 6/23/2011 11:20 AM EDT
In Response to Re: The championship is tainted
In Response to Re: The championship is tainted : WOW - you have deep, deep, deep problems. Too many to address here. So here are a couple, don't bother responding as it will be a waste of your time - no answer from me: BUT - here are a few tidbits for you - http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/grammarlogs4/grammarlogs595.htm
Normally, when we use the past tense of "quit" to mean "stopped," it is spelled that way, as in "He quit bugging his sister." But if you mean "left," the past tense form "quitted" would be acceptable, at least in England: "Her finances dried up and she quitted the area, moving to Montana." In the U.S., you'd undoubtedly be better off using "left." From Garner's Modern American Usage by Bryan Garner. Copyright 2003 by Bryan A. Garner. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., www.oup-usa.org
, and used with the gracious consent of Oxford University Press So, unless you mean the lakers LEFT the playoffs, using quitted is incorrect. Please do not come back with a dictionary, I never said it was not a word, you just used it incorrectly. I will not get into records, but no one keeps track of how many times one loses, except Cubs fans, and maybe those who follow the Glasgow Rangers. No one cares how many times you lost, only how many you've won. Boston 17, lakers of Minneapolis plus Inglewood plus LA 16. Comprehension 101 - I never said anything about Bynum playing in the playoffs. What I said was this - until he got hurt, the lakers did not pursue Pau Gasol from the Griz. AFTER he got hurt, they made an offer. And since CHI had an offer of Noah, Nocioni and Deng, the fact the lakers got him for Kwame Brown and some stiffs ( please don't tell me they knew Marc Gasol would be good, he had ZERO experience) is highly suspect. Lastly, I can tell you are not a gambler. The Miami Heat are the FAVORITES already to win next year............that means if they don't, they choke. The odds will not change if they get down 3-2, or if they have HCA. They are the favorites to win, and all they can do is choke. The lakers were the favorites last year - and they didn't choke. Boston's winning would have been an upset, so they could not choke. I know that is very difficult for you, but Vegas would not give you your money back if you team makes it to the Finals and gets down 3-2. That has nothing to do with it. MIA choked this year, Dal didn't. LAL were favorites last year, and they won.....................deal with it. Any other problems you have, you really need therapy for, as I can do no more for you!
Posted by Red-16Russ-11
I don't know what you are smoking, but your dream that you defined the English language really make me laugh.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quit
— vb , chiefly ( US
) quits , quitting , quitted , quit
4. to desist or cease from (something or doing something); break off: quit laughing
Pray tell, why shouldn't I come back with a dictionary? at least a dictionary is more creditable than you are.
Now, enough English lesson.
1) No one cares how many times you lose? It's funny that someone here keep emphasizing the Lakers' 16-15 finals record and "Celtics own you". Right. No one cares how many times you lose when it's the Celtics' losses. You only count wins, so the Celtics must be winning the championships in 2011. They had 5 wins in the playoffs, and no one count losses...
2) You never said Bynum playing in the playoffs? really? if so, then what implication is "no Bynum injury no Gasol" means to the Celtics' luck of not facing Bynum in the playoffs? whether it is true or not Bynum's injury caused Gasol's trade, it has no bearing on the finals. Then when we use the Bynum injury excuse in 2008, your mention of "no Bynum injury, no Gasol" is just gibberish with no meaning, oui?
2a) and you can never prove that the Lakers would not have pursued Gasol had Bynum not injured, not with a team sitting in 5th place in the conference.
"Why didn't the Lakers make an offer before Bynum got hurt?" you ask?
You are really funny. Just the Lakers didn't make an offer in December means they wouldn't have made an offer in February? Here is a penny, buy some common sense...
3) Funny you are playing this pitiful underdog again. History is definitely not your cup of tea. Of course you want to tell us that a team that had a 4-2 historical trend in their favor is an underdog, simply because for the Celtics, losing is expected, winning is a show of their heart and courage.
Funny that's a far cry from constant predictions here that 2010-11 was their #18...
Now, to your disclaimer "don't bother responding as it will be a waste of your time - no answer from me". I won't bet on it. Knowing that you have been smarting over your losses in argument over the last two years, you know what you'll do. I have no expectation that you'll give up this "No Bynum injury no Gasol" illusion anytime soon.