No he doesn't. A 2012 poster making a thread about Chandler Parsons is somehow reflective of his agenda to make Lin look better? Are you stupid?
LOLs, I rarely enter the Lin threads, and certainly don't talk bad about him. I think you are thinking of someone else. You just proved with that comment that you make things up, or are way overly sensitive to everything. Back to topic. All I am saying is Parsons is streaky. And when he shoots poorly he shoots the ball flat. You would know this if you were here last year. This is common for Parsons. And he appears to be significantly better than last year, so this thread is just incorrect compared to last month and last year and 2 out of 3 of the December games. There is nothing to see here.
I totally agree. But his issue is with the OP not with sidestep. This is the second time that I have seen someone unfairly lash back at sidestep with LOF nonsense who for the most part is very informed on his opinions. The first time was when he commented on Patt & this time now with Parsons. Once again, painting multiple people with the same brush. It all needs to stop. Just a thought.
dude, did you read my post. I gave a perfectly fine basketball explanation of why Parsons is fine, and what did you offer the thread. I also gave a perfectly fine explanation of why the posters agree with the OP simply do not know Chandler Parsons very well -- ie, because they are likely new fans followers of the Rockets. A regular cf.net poster probably would not have posted this thread, because we know Parsons is streaky and generally shoots a flat shot when he misses. Newbies don't appear to know that. But that is a basketball comment, not Lin related except with the timing of the registration of the posters in this thread. The OP is not accurate, and trying to explain the accuracy of it is just weird.
No one brought up Lin except you. And you brought him up to make an assumption about me -- "You probably didn't know this because you signed up..." blah blah blah. You make pompous condescending comments like that then call me oversensitive for responding to that. What is that if not baiting? For all the **** that 2012s get on this site, they don't bait with your veteran expertise. Congrats. I don't even see how your comment is related to my post. Sure, Parsons is a streaky shooter. As I've already noted in a way earlier post, Parsons shot is often flat. And it was less so when he was shooting great.
Look at your post for my explanation. The first bold part is correct. My LOF comment was directed at the OP. The second part is not true. I did not call sidestep an LOF; I said he probably signed up as a Lin fan, thus the reason why he doesn't realize this is common Parsons shooting. "Signing up as a Lin fan" is not me saying he is a LOF. I'm just making a point that he probably didn't follow Parsons last year. Look at the rest of my comment to sidestep. I actually talked about a lot of basketball there with stats. I did not disrespect him by just talking nonsense without statistical facts. If you guys know me, you'd know I stay away of the LOF v LOH arguments. My first post in this thread is merely to show my disdain for someone starting an poor thread like this with one worthless sentence.
I'm not worried about Parson's 3s. I just want to know how the heck OP gained thread starting privilege with only 60 posts under belt while I, with almost 300 posts, haven't even gained the privilege to edit my own post yet.
wow, you are overly sensitive. I made a comment about your signing date as a prelude to saying that you probably don't know Parsons from last year. That's a completely valid statement to the discussion in this thread. I did not call you a LOF. My post to you is a completely sound basketball related challenge to your post. Then you call me a cancer...lols note to self, do not try to talk basketball with sidestep again....dude gets sensitive when you disagree with his basketball knowledge.
You and torocan are a step or two above. Most of the rest (and long term I certainly hope I am wrong) are just hot air.
You have to make a donation to Clutchfans to be able to edit your posts. If you need it I will donate in your name.
Your explanation about my sign date and my being a Lin fan as being a valid explanation sounds disingenuous to me. The phrase you used, "likely JUST a Lin fan," makes it clear that that label is not a neutral designation. Otherwise, why would you say JUST a Lin fan? Besides, it's not even remotely related to my post. I still don't even get your post as being a challenge to what I said, since I didn't even say much at all frankly except that Parsons' arc has been more flat since his injury, and that recently before that, it was less so. If anything, it just tallies with what you call 'streakiness.'
No one is worried about his capability, he will do just fine. Also he shot the clutch 3 last night, I think that was huge.
Thanks a lot for explaining the rule. I was not aware of it. Really appreciate your offer but I was just being curious since I also noticed someone made his first post by starting a thread! And I was very surprised and puzzled by that. I would rather to have gained the right to rep posts than gaining the privilege to start a thread or edit posts. There are so many good quality posts that I've really enjoyed and learned a lot from. Thanks again!
You sound like a very intelligent individual. Welcome! But there is a negative reaction by the long time posters to the Lin debate. Let it slide. It will go away in its own time.
Dude, please re-read my quote. I wasn't talking about you when I said "just a lin fan". I was talking about the OP. Read the full comment that you took out of context "This thread does not have any relevant meaning to it. Some new member (likely just a Lin fan) starts a thread " And you say that comment was about you. Overly sensitive, much? The bold part is what I challenged by explaining it was streakiness, not injury related. That's it. That is what I challenge. I also made a point that you are trying to explain an OP that is incorrect on face. It is a pet peeve of mine (for any thread) where the OP claims something that is patently false, and people respond by explaining it as if it were true. chill...I did not call you a LOF.
