Hangout BBall Internal Dialectic: Eddie's Mistakes

Oh pooh rimmy, "dodging questions?" The deal is this is for fun; I think you interpreted the openning a little too much like a personal challenge...and achebe definitely did. Doesn't Freud have something to say about that? or should we pay no attention to his cocaine derivatives?

here I was thinking rimmy would like to talk basketball in dorky philosophical terms...instead, the big critique of devilpartner.

But hey, you got me good in your openning salvo; it was funny...so I shot back with dismissing it as no better than an art critic can do who misses the artists meaning. I claim Derrida, too. And no touche? Oh well, I gave you no leading kudos. Actually, I thought I did with the "cool." But I guess much of the rest sounds like personal assaults....hmmm, so did yours. Fancy that! It's all fun. No?!

You aren't really going to add histrionics that I'm dodging you or have underlying agenda's to be a clique of one who looks to bash everyone. Have fun, rimmy, but if you want to continue playing, I just might ignore melodrama...I don't wear it very well; it clashes with my posting "games." And I wasn't dodging you to bash Kagy...I was having more fun with ricealum. Did you not read his great post!!! Kagy was just perfect for explaining Sartre for rice's p.s.s question to me. I didn't dodge him, I guess.

<b>what is my take on Griffin?</b>

First, can you accept one thing: Every assumption you and achebe have made about my basketball philosophy in this thread is off-base. I'm not saying this to win an argument....I just can't answer your question with propoganda confining me.

Here goes: I am neither a win-win, loss-loss, win-loss or anything. I started this thread to get others to talk, and if pressed, I was going to wrap up everyone's dialectical choices to say that you don't actually have to answer that question to have a take. If you can understand the "DevilTrap," you will understand that theories exist only in their own definition. One can reside completely outside of that. Not that that is better or worse than using the given Dialectic, just different.

I reside in a world of critiquing basketball, not players, not coaches. Really! Scouts do not question coaches or really bash players. They just want to understand what is happening. Sure I have bashed, but that is called having fun on the BBS.

<b>Is there a way to talk bbs about only what you see?</b>

Achebe is right that I use propoganda to win over consensus, but wrong in that the goal is to win an argument. Thinking there is always an argument floating around in a poster's mind is probably the biggest misconception of a lot of posts of others. A lot of people aren't looking to argue. Granted, I will, if there's nothing else to do, but my basketball philosophy is not that. My goal is to find those not wanting to argue theories of rotations, systems, trades (of which we can know nothing about for lack of true facts).

The Phenomenon of Rockets ball cannot by changed by us or explained absolutly, yet we can exlain its appearance.

We can only know what we see. My bliss is a thread which only talks about the previous game, execution issues, what we were trying to achieve, what the opponents were doing,,,blah blah blah. If Rudy switches out of a 4 out 1 tomorrow, great, then it is a race to spot the new system, and what we are doing. If we don't switch and the weakside still doesn't improve...why not? Think like an opponents scout. How did Houston get stopped? Can we reproduce that. and conversely, what did we do right or wrong in the realm of what we were trying to do?

<b>Do your eyes glaze over when discussing foreign theories?</b>

I really just draw a blank when someone makes suggestions. Sure I play along maybe, but it is discussion not within the realm of what I'm seeing. Why would a scout say to another, "Watch out for Houston, because they have the Eddie Griffin kid who Rudy might start using any day, and Rudy might start using a new system any day." oooh, watch out for the Rockets, they can burn you with those What Ifs.

So, did I say that at all without sounding condescending. To answer your question: I can't because it is not within the realm of my (for lack of a better word) existence.

I want to talk about player weaknesses and how to hide them. I want to talk about player strengths and how to exploit them. I want to talk about what defenses we are seeing and how to exploit them. (Man, I am so close to giving up on our defense...is there any teamwork to that at all. Wake me up if we find a team defense.)

<b>Rimbaud, so what was the game of this thread?</b>

Nothing. We suck. Why not a dorky attempt to talk edumacated about basketball? But when pressed to not dodge question, hey there is a logic behind this...a logic residing outside the Internal Dialectic. I feel lost sometimes in a fan reality not representative of my views. But why not play along, then?

In fairness to Achebe, we all love certain players...for reasons all our own. We will yell kapaya at anything. We protect, apologize, bash, but at the end of the day, I will point out Mobley's and Moochie's weaknesses and strengths with anyone, but only if the goal of the discussion is the purity of dissecting basketball games that we saw and expect to see. If the goal of the discussion is to theorize about each poster's personal agenda, then let the jabbing begin!! Why not? That's fun too.

Now achebe, I was really hoping you'd call me on the propoganda using Political Platform terminology. You went and ruined my fun with too many basketball terms.

rimmy, give it a read. Don't think too much of my "games;" I never overthought your "I'm the smartest poster."

Now can I go puke for being melodramatic? It is just basketball...it is just basketball...it is just basketball. There is nothing wrong with being a loser! You just have to really love basketball to watch a loser.

 

Rimmy,

I bailed on the game to make sure there was no misunderstanding. I backed down. You win. I recant all suggestions that read like I thought you weren't playing a game. But I did say, "It's all fun. No?" That is my lame attempt of saying that surely you agree.

I'm thrilled you did think it was a game, even while you were putting words in my mouth ... and I wasn't with you. Admit it, we haven't had a fun tit-for-tat with each other since the big jammie thread. I miss rimbaud, and I know it is largely of my own doing. I wasn't sure of your take here.

I'm pleased.

Now to continue the bball philosophies:

I think it matters to Achebe. Read his post, he explains his game, no? I was merely repaying that here. But to reveal my true bball beliefs.

rimmy, as corny as it may sound, I have a bball belief system that somewhat mirrors life. I like to explain it. At some point, it is not a game.

Not really. I haven't seen his strengths, yet, to my satisfaction. There is too much guessing right now from my seats. So, like you, I defer to the coach.

yeah he sucks. So bad so, I used it to annoy you, because I thought your third "dodging questions" call out to me in 5 months thing sucked....yet, I was merely caught in your masterful web of game playing.

That's funny! Seriously, what are my chances of ever talking about it without pissing people off, and becoming a Francis hater???

And I responded in kind (pre-dodging post) as well. No?

Anyhow, I'll take the loser tag on this one. I blinked first. You won.

p.s.

Rhetorically correct. There is nothing original about my idea. It is Rudy's idea. And it isn't 4out1 motion...it is flex.

 

about the p.s.

Yeah I've seen it at Valhalla. I thought I'd see if I could get rimbaud to read it to flex my masterful game-playing skills.

to add to your list,

<ul><li>How about misusing E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology versus Culture to feel OK with loving Langhi and Collier, because they're white.
<li>And I can't resist Margaret Mead writing a heartfelt "children's book" <i>Growing Up in New Guinea</i>" like Cato, yet not understanding why so many natives didn't like her, and so many fans don't like poor Cato.</ul>

 

I liked the catepilar one, too. But after the Valhalla mention, this is better. So, do you have a macro key set for these?

Let me finish the thought, "By quickly regurgitating Ralph theorums to anything nonsensical, we can prevent BBS Dialectics from making us dummer."

 

* Sleeper

I disagree with gootan's explanation of "Kapaya." He is confusing it with, "Eddie for 3!! Hollllyyyy Moootherrrr." Or the Gene Peterson indecipherable call of Ralph's '86 shot that shook the world. For the more reserved recipients, they would embrace the more controlled, "How Sweet It Is!"

The difference is a matter of expectation. "Kapaya" expects failure. The other's are used to success and are ready to relish it anytime, anywhere, at any moment. There is a build up to Hoolllyyyyy Moothhhher!!! That is, you believe!! I Still Believe, and you will believe again.

"Kapaya," as called on a busted play against the Lakers, is not about coming out of a funk. It is indeed about "ugly or accidental" baskets accompanying a state of sustained orgastic impotency. It is closer to Karen Horney's notion of "The Problem of Feminine Masochism," whereby the woman (Rudy in our case) must surrender all control to incompetent players, and while he did gain value in his relationship with Hakeem; he later developed the "Kapaya" cheer for fleeting success only after he lost the one man he could count on. She points out Rudy's overemphasis of pleasing the players, to the point of letting them do things he hates.

Kapaya developed as a response to finding self-satisfaction in the midst of futility. And that satisfication, itself, is fleeting and not too fulfilling, and tends not to involve orgasms. Rather, the women in her pitiful state of existence will scream Kapaya anytime she sees failure about ready to happen, yet her man stumbles upon what she wants.

Example: a man drives all over the place, never asking for directions, thinking he knows where to go, keeps making wrong turn after wrong turn and ignoring help. He then gets a flat tire to her final disgust, yet coincidentally right next to a Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream Parlor.

"Kapaya!!!!!!!"

And how different is Cuttino pounding the ball last year against GS? with everyone yelling, "Do something!" and by stumbling luck passing to Moochie for a 35 foot, "Kapaya!"

I would have to say Karen Horney would agree that Kapaya's have no orgastic assist, but Hollllly Mothhhhhher's do.