Class of 2018 C Majur Majak (NJ) to St Peters

[Orangefan1]

They need to offer him a scholarship first

 

[Orangezoo]

I "go on and on" because I defend myself against people who lack the ability to scroll on by and feel the need to make me see it differently? REALLY?

No way! I just don't get bullied into changing my opinion just because it's not what you or anyone else wants to me to say. If people don't like that I "go on and on" maybe stop quoting my posts as that is what seems to perpetuate the situation. I could make a case that others "go on and on" trying to make me change my view.

Now that I've put together some data to back my stance, this is all you (and others) can say? No comments about the actual data I provided? My opinion wasn't baseless, it is supported by the data.

As for my choice of the word ridicule, perhaps I should've chosen the word bullied instead because no one overtly mocked me. People did try relentlessly to get me to change my view. I'm not going to list those people because it's pretty obvious if one reads the thread, and that would simply stir the pot more.

It would be nice if we could remember that we are all 'Cuse fans and should want the same thing, a successful thriving program that contends year in and out. Just because I don't like Majak at all doesn't mean I am the enemy. Peace

Not one single person has pushed you to change your view, not one single person on here has bullied you. We all have responded to agree or disagree to your assertions which at times have seemed to lack supporting facts but have always been respected as just your opinions unless you stated them with certainty.

It really is unfair for you to point fingers as being attacked every time someone disagrees. It is the nature of a message board. Also some of the heated exchanges are directly the result of your accusations that have no basis or merit beyond your own interpretations. I as well felt you were unfairly accusing folks like myself just politely disagreeing. This continued accusation of bullying is pretty disrespectful and getting us off topic.

We know your views, many of us disagree and some do agree. If you have a direct counter point let's keep the discussion rolling on that front. Also I would just say if you are feeling attacked then maybe use the report feature vs keep issuing accusations in the thread. If you read through it , it looks a lot like you baited it to go this way...

 

[Orangezoo]

Ok... I've done some homework. I included only those in the last 10 years or listed in this thread due to time constraints. It was challenging to find all of these players rankings from the same sites since it's been a while, so rankings are listed from whatever site I could find. None of these guys outside of Arinze was rated as low as Majur Majak (#305). Two of the players were five star guys, all but Arinze was in the top 170, and still only half of these guys made meaningful contributions on the court for SU.

Rick Jackson was ranked the 97th best recruit and 10th best center in his class. He became a very good center.
Arinze Onuaku was a 2 star prospect and considered the 13th best center prospect. He became a very good center.
Sean Williams was ranked 104th, 3 stars and did nothing.
DaShonte Riley was a 7.0' center ranked 57th best recruit and 9th best center by scout. He transferred.
Chinoso Oboko was rated the 17oth best recruit on 2 4 7, and the 19th best center. He was a bust and transferred.
Baye M-K was rated the 121st best recruit on 2 4 7. He eventually became a successful back up center.
Rakeem Christmas was rated the 20th best recruit and was considered a 5 star player. He didn't blossom until his SR year.
Dajaun Coleman - was a 5 star local kid that never had a chance with his knee injuries.
Fab Melo was a 5 star, 14th best recruit and #1 center. He averaged approximately 8ppg, 6rpg and 3bpg as a sophomore and left early and did nothing in the NBA before his tragic death. He did nothing in his freshman year.

Considering Majur Majak hovers outside the top 300, even a statistician will tell you the odds are stacked against any kind of meaningful contribution. Factor in the eyeball test, lack of experience and rail thin frame, and I really don't think I'm off base in my opinion that he is not worthy of a scholarship. And although I love JB and Syracuse, it's clear that we have wiffed on bigs that were considered less risky and more highly rated than Majak. Obviously, if we land this guy (which I'm fully expecting at this point) I will have no choice but to embrace him. I just don't like the use of this scholarship if it happens as I predict it will.

Side note: I looked for Etan Thomas and Rony Seikaly's ranking and number of stars but could not find it. If anyone can that would be cool.

I think the bigger picture is looking at first year centers globally and matching ranking with production. Big men rarely come ready to go as has been the case for many years. This also makes it extremely difficult to really score them well out of HS. I don't see where you create a consensus on former players. Individually I agree about Majak. As for past centers I don't agree that makes your case. Given how long development can take, whether they are a defensive specialist or offensive specialist, whether they are coming from overseas, or rated on potential vs current ability there are too many variables to use former centers and there rankings as a solid foundation to assess Majak.

Best way to look at it is watch him play, get insight from the experts and see how the roster frames up. Guys like seikaly , arinze and Baye are great examples of how development and production is hard to gauge. I mean look back a even UK. They have had several guys struggle first year who still went pro and still struggle and they were top 20 guys. Yet one of their top guys was a 4th year unheralded Josh Harelson. Cauley Stein was high rated and took a while to produce.. There are many more examples very similar across the landscape.

 

[LaggyJon]

I'm just impressed that this thread is already off the rails, given that
1) The player doesn't even have an offer
2) Almost no one here had heard of him until 2 days ago

 

[dollarbill44]

The problem with these super tall, skinny African centers is that they never seem to be able to put on any weight. I liked Baye a lot, but he was a real limited backup until his final year. It would be nice to get a true center who only needs a year of seasoning to be a contributor.

 

[JazzNC]

I think the bigger picture is looking at first year centers globally and matching ranking with production. Big men rarely come ready to go as has been the case for many years. This also makes it extremely difficult to really score them well out of HS. I don't see where you create a consensus on former players. Individually I agree about Majak. As for past centers I don't agree that makes your case. Given how long development can take, whether they are a defensive specialist or offensive specialist, whether they are coming from overseas, or rated on potential vs current ability there are too many variables to use former centers and there rankings as a solid foundation to assess Majak.

Best way to look at it is watch him play, get insight from the experts and see how the roster frames up. Guys like seikaly , arinze and Baye are great examples of how development and production is hard to gauge. I mean look back a even UK. They have had several guys struggle first year who still went pro and still struggle and they were top 20 guys. Yet one of their top guys was a 4th year unheralded Josh Harelson. Cauley Stein was high rated and took a while to produce.. There are many more examples very similar across the landscape.

I respect your opinion. I simply disagree, and that should be ok. I think my stats, and lack of offers from anyone outside the power five conferences but Washington is enough to support my opinion. I'm not saying I'm right, any more than you can say you are right. We have two differing opinions. You should be allowed to keep yours, and I should be permitted to keep mine. I still think Majak is unworthy of a scholarship. Feel free to scroll on by unless you ARE trying to change my opinion. Have a terrific day.

 

[Orangezoo]

Just using one reference point- via one list for last year.. the center recruits in the top 100 faired as such ( Adebayo, Markkenan, Giles were all forward not centers)

In order of how highly rated:

Zach Collins - 10p 6r 3a - 10th pick in draft
Marques Bolden 1 p 1.5 r - transferred
Omer Yurtseven 5p 4r
Omari Spellman RS
Tony Bradley 7pts 5 r left for NBA
Udoka Azuibuke 5p 4r
Schneider Herard 5p 5r
Jayce Johnson 4p 4r
Taurean - 9p 3r ( highly ineffective at times as we saw despite stats)
James Banks 1 p 2r
Ike Anigbogu 4p 4r 2b -2nd round pick
Samuel Japhet-mathias- 1p 1r

This is one year but the numbers make it pretty clear just how rare it is for even the top rated Centers to be impactful in year 1.

 

[GooseMutt]

I'm just impressed that this thread is already off the rails, given that
1) The player doesn't even have an offer
2) Almost no one here had heard of him until 2 days ago

My personal fear of regression

 

[Orangezoo]

Who is Majur Majak? | Otto's Grove

This a good piece from OG. I agree with the take and still worry about him as a project but it is hard to deny the progress. At least presents a case for why the staff is sniffing around.

 

[newmexicuse]

Who is Majur Majak? | Otto's Grove

This a good piece from OG. I agree with the take and still worry about him as a project but it is hard to deny the progress. At least presents a case for why the staff is sniffing around.

Like most, I never heard about this kid until two days ago.

It has been quite awhile since the staff signed a recruit that I was convinced would be a total bust, so for the most part I trust the staff in terms of who they have actually been able to get (though I often disagree with the staff's strategy of only targeting one kid at a given position). To be clear, I am not putting MM into that category.

On this kid, how can you help but love the name ???

I am all for having a project kid on the roster, but two projects that the staff believes in at one position doesn't seem to make sense to me. Chukwu is a project until he proves otherwise. So, the only way this signing, should it occur, would make sense to me is if the staff has basically given up on Chukwu and feels that they need to find somebody else with potential at his position. If the staff really believes that Chukwu will develop then to sign another project at his position would not make sense to me.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I don't know why everybody is freaking out, Boeheim only plays seven anyway.

Also, we're all going to die some day.

 

[Orangezoo]

Like most, I never heard about this kid until two days ago.

It has been quite awhile since the staff signed a recruit that I was convinced would be a total bust, so for the most part I trust the staff in terms of who they have actually been able to get (though I often disagree with the staff's strategy of only targeting one kid at a given position). To be clear, I am not putting MM into that category.

On this kid, how can you help but love the name ???

I am all for having a project kid on the roster, but two projects that the staff believes in at one position doesn't seem to make sense to me. Chukwu is a project until he proves otherwise. So, the only way this signing, should it occur, would make sense to me is if the staff has basically given up on Chukwu and feels that they need to find somebody else with potential at his position. If the staff really believes that Chukwu will develop then to sign another project at his position would not make sense to me.

If we pull the trigger right now.. it is a mistake imho. So far he is only a target which means we are still evaluating. When there is an offer etc then that changes things. There has been an unnecessary deluge of concern for something no more than an admission of interest by the staff.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

He looks way more interesting in the OG video.

 

[JazzNC]

Just using one reference point- via one list for last year.. the center recruits in the top 100 faired as such ( Adebayo, Markkenan, Giles were all forward not centers)

In order of how highly rated:

Zach Collins - 10p 6r 3a - 10th pick in draft
Marques Bolden 1 p 1.5 r - transferred
Omer Yurtseven 5p 4r
Omari Spellman RS
Tony Bradley 7pts 5 r left for NBA
Udoka Azuibuke 5p 4r
Schneider Herard 5p 5r
Jayce Johnson 4p 4r
Taurean - 9p 3r ( highly ineffective at times as we saw despite stats)
James Banks 1 p 2r
Ike Anigbogu 4p 4r 2b -2nd round pick
Samuel Japhet-mathias- 1p 1r

This is one year but the numbers make it pretty clear just how rare it is for even the top rated Centers to be impactful in year 1.

This is a good post. And in good faith, I think you perhaps misunderstood part of what I was trying to say. I never implied that it was easy for centers to excel in their first season. That's why I did the research I did. The guys you have listed above add to my position rather than detract from it. These guys you have named are all top 170 guys, and few did very much. That's what I tried to say too using SU guys (except I looked at what they did for their entire career at SU). So from a logical standpoint, if you take a guy who is ranked outside the top 300, who is rail thin, with limited experience, it is nearly impossible for us to expect him to make much of any kind of meaningful contribution. That's really not me trying to be a jerk, that's me trying to explain something that statistically doesn't make sense. The odds are pretty low that Majak, outside of having an awesome name, will do much but be a very big practice guy. I just really want to do better than that.

Maybe that's where we were butting heads, i don't know. But I agree with you that first year centers more often than not don't contribute much, even the 4 and 5 star guys. That's the basis of my stance with a guy like Majur Majak. Also, when anyone (not just you) replies to one of my posts, and repeatedly questions my opinion, it comes off as though you'd like to change my opinion (whether that is your intention or not). That's why I called it bullying. Olive Branch?

 

[Oráiste]

If major magic falls into your lap, I think it's probably bad karma to just walk away from it

 

[RealMcNeil]

If major magic falls into your lap, I think it's probably bad karma to just walk away from it

That's how it started at Louisville...

 

[Orangezoo]

I respect your opinion. I simply disagree, and that should be ok. I think my stats, and lack of offers from anyone outside the power five conferences but Washington is enough to support my opinion. I'm not saying I'm right, any more than you can say you are right. We have two differing opinions. You should be allowed to keep yours, and I should be permitted to keep mine. I still think Majak is unworthy of a scholarship. Feel free to scroll on by unless you ARE trying to change my opinion. Have a terrific day.

This is a good post. And in good faith, I think you perhaps misunderstood part of what I was trying to say. I never implied that it was easy for centers to excel in their first season. That's why I did the research I did. The guys you have listed above add to my position rather than detract from it. These guys you have named are all top 170 guys, and few did very much. That's what I tried to say too using SU guys (except I looked at what they did for their entire career at SU). So from a logical standpoint, if you take a guy who is ranked outside the top 300, who is rail thin, with limited experience, it is nearly impossible for us to expect him to make much of any kind of meaningful contribution. That's really not me trying to be a jerk, that's me trying to explain something that statistically doesn't make sense. The odds are pretty low that Majak, outside of having an awesome name, will do much but be a very big practice guy. I just really want to do better than that.

Maybe that's where we were butting heads, i don't know. But I agree with you that first year centers more often than not don't contribute much, even the 4 and 5 star guys. That's the basis of my stance with a guy like Majur Majak. Also, when anyone (not just you) replies to one of my posts, and repeatedly questions my opinion, it comes off as though you'd like to change my opinion (whether that is your intention or not). That's why I called it bullying. Olive Branch?

This is a better more logical explanation than what you were posting before and seems to be a shift if only one in clarity.

Primary disagreement-

- Cuse past history of centers shows we have generally recruited poorly at the 5 and this is why Majak would be a bad addition. What would make it bad , and this is where you have circled back around is if Majak is the guy we need to contribute then it is not ideal. We agree on that point and I always held that same view. In respect to past Center recruitment and it being poor overall as a result of a low ranking or underperformance early I disagree and see zero connection with Majak.

I also disagree with immediately dismissing Majak pending more time to see how things play out. Like the OG article shows we don't know much yet. Too early to be too far down either the yes or no rabbit hole and so far staff is not committing anything other than interest.

In terms of bullying it really is just your view. The art of argument is to persuade. Thus any disagreement is the attempt to debate your point and persuade. It would be easy to claim you are bullying throughout this thread and state even things like telling me how to respond to you. I don't see your opinions as bullying and anyone's response to you has been nothing of the sort either. No olive branch is needed as there was only debate and a quick call out on things getting off track. I promise you no one is bullying you.. they may be trying to get you to see things their way but that is all part of debate and a message board.

 

[Orangezoo]

I will leave it at that. Looking forward to see if any progress comes about o. This kid and if any other names pop up.

 

[JazzNC]

This is a better more logical explanation than what you were posting before and seems to be a shift if only one in clarity.

Primary disagreement-

- Cuse past history of centers shows we have generally recruited poorly at the 5 and this is why Majak would be a bad addition. What would make it bad , and this is where you have circled back around is if Majak is the guy we need to contribute then it is not ideal. We agree on that point and I always held that same view. In respect to past Center recruitment and it being poor overall as a result of a low ranking or underperformance early I disagree and see zero connection with Majak.

I also disagree with immediately dismissing Majak pending more time to see how things play out. Like the OG article shows we don't know much yet. Too early to be too far down either the yes or no rabbit hole and so far staff is not committing anything other than interest.

In terms of bullying it really is just your view. The art of argument is to persuade. Thus any disagreement is the attempt to debate your point and persuade. It would be easy to claim you are bullying throughout this thread and state even things like telling me how to respond to you. I don't see your opinions as bullying and anyone's response to you has been nothing of the sort either. No olive branch is needed as there was only debate and a quick call out on things getting off track. I promise you no one is bullying you.. they may be trying to get you to see things their way but that is all part of debate and a message board.

I’ve taken a while to respond to you because I was at work, and I wanted to take my time and go back and reread the thread. It seemed to derail on about page 3. I wanted to see if what you stated is true, or perhaps you misinterpreted me, or if I misinterpreted you. I also wanted to respond in an informed and fair manner. This is my take:

In your “primary disagreement” paragraph one you stated that I said that we have “generally recruited poorly at the 5 and this is why Majak would be a bad addition.” So I went back. What I said, is “no disrespect to anyone but saying we have had successful big men recently depends on how you look at it. Considering their high school ratings one could argue that Rak and Fab underachieved.” I never said we recruited poorly. I implied that the highly rated big guys we have recruited in the past have underachieved. This is in line with my stance that expecting a guy outside the top 300 to contribute in any meaningful way is likely unrealistic. I seriously don’t think I said the things you claim I have. But if you can find where I said our big man recruiting was poor, please do share with me. I simply don’t see it after re-reading the entire thread. I did say that AO and Rick were adequate+ and later admitted that was a disservice to them. When I was asked to explain why I believed Majak was unworthy of a scholarship I found data which I believe supports my viewpoint.

In your “primary disagreement” paragraph two, you are absolutely welcome to disagree with my stance. Maybe he will become the next Hakeem Olajuwan and I'll happily eat some serious crow. I simply pointed out that the data I was able to pull up, and then yours both actually helped my case that Majak at #300 is unlikely to contribute in any kind of meaningful way. It’s ok if you disagree with me. Which brings me to paragraph 3.

Your “primary argument “ paragraph three has to do with my bullying claim. You wrote in the post previous to this one, “Not one single person has pushed you to change your view, " but then you state, “the art of argument is to persuade.” Then by your own admittance, you stated that “they may be trying to get you to see things their way.” Do you see that this contradicts your initial statement? When you or anyone responds to a post with the intention of changing someone's opinion, and continue to do it after being asked to ignore the post or scroll by if you disagree, that is not right. Is that bullying, or it is harassment? I don’t know what is the best label. But I do know that we ALL have a right to express our opinions, and when we see something we disagree with, it’s ok to just leave it alone. I also wasn’t trying to tell you or anyone else how to respond, but I did suggest that it’s ok to agree to disagree or suggested that you could simply not respond to it. If you can share with me an instance in which I told you or anyone else how to respond to me (other than ignoring me/scrolling by or not responding) please by all means point it out to me so I can apologize.

That said, I ask you to please consider whether you have truly read my posts accurately. I know, and admit, that when I get flustered it can affect the way I read or interpret something. Please do quote me rather than paraphrase if you want to discuss it. Inaccurate paraphrasing IMO is what lead to this. Also, if there is something that I have said that you feel inaccurately portrays what you meant, by all means let me know.

Go Orange!

 

[pearl31]

good lord ppl w way too much time on their hands

 

[Orangezoo]

I’ve taken a while to respond to you because I wanted to go back and reread the thread. It seemed to derail on about page 3. I wanted to see if what you stated is true, or perhaps you misinterpreted me, or if I misinterpreted you. I also wanted to respond in an informed and fair manner. This is my take:

In your “primary disagreement” paragraph one you stated that I said that we have “generally recruited poorly at the 5 and this is why Majak would be a bad addition.” So I went back. What I said, is “no disrespect to anyone but saying we have had successful big men recently depends on how you look at it. Considering their high school ratings one could argue that Rak and Fab underachieved.” I never said we recruited poorly. I implied that the highly rated big guys we have recruited in the past have underachieved. This is in line with my stance that expecting a guy outside the top 300 to contribute in any meaningful way is likely unrealistic. I seriously don’t think I said the things you claim I have. But if you can find where I said our big man recruiting was poor, please do share with me. I simply don’t see it after re-reading the entire thread. I did say that AO and Rick were adequate+ and later admitted that was a disservice to them. When I was asked to explain why I believed Majak was unworthy of a scholarship I found data which I believe supports my viewpoint.

In your “primary disagreement” paragraph two, you are absolutely welcome to disagree with my stance that Majak is unworthy of a scholarship and that we should wait to see what he becomes. Maybe he will become the next Hakeem Olajuwan and I'll happily eat some serious crow. I simply pointed out that the data I was able to pull up, and then yours both actually helped my case that Majak at #300 is unlikely to contribute in any kind of meaningful way. It’s ok if you disagree with me. Which brings me to paragraph 3.

Your “primary argument “ paragraph three has to do with my bullying claim. You wrote in the post previous to this one, “Not one single person has pushed you to change your view, " but then you state, “the art of argument is to persuade.” Then by your own admittance, you stated that “they may be trying to get you to see things their way.” Do you see that this contradicts your initial statement? When you or anyone responds to a post with the intention of changing someone's opinion, and continue to do it after being asked to ignore the post or scroll by if you disagree, that is not right. Is that bullying, or it is harassment? I don’t know what is the best label. But I do know that we ALL have a right to express our opinions, and when we see something we disagree with, it’s ok to just leave it alone. I also wasn’t trying to tell you or anyone else how to respond, but I did suggest that it’s ok to agree to disagree or suggested that you could simply not respond to it. If you can share with me an instance in which I told you or anyone else how to respond to me (other than ignoring me/scrolling by or not responding) please by all means point it out to me so I can apologize.

That said, I ask you to please consider whether you have truly read my posts accurately. I know, and admit, that when I get flustered it can affect the way I read or interpret something. If there is something that I have said that you feel inaccurately portrays what you meant, by all means let me know.

Go Orange!

Wow. All I can say is you see things through a very biased lens and wrap your words around that bias in every response.

I called it out clearly that you corrected course in terms of being more clear. Your breakdown of past recruits was very hard to decipher and at best just amounted to beating up the quality of our bigs or saying they underwhelmed. I get you meant differently thank you for clarifying and fair enough.

In terms of bullying you just don't get it. It's simple, persuasion is part of debate. The only person attempting to see that as bullying is you. You pose it as though we are trying to get into your head and change your mind. Pushing you would equate to coercion. Persuasion and coercion are a long ways apart. I also find it funny you are quick to act as though you have not been pushing at others asking for examples while wildly accusing all of us of bullying. You stated clearly I should feel free to keep scrolling unless I had something to change your opinion. As you so define bullying to be any challenging opinion, then you are very much telling me how to respond which is a bit more than just an opinion.

I'm trying to help you here not beat you up. You are only seeing this from a biased viewpoint. Your thoughts are as values as anyone else's and similarly are fair game for counter points. Again just a message board where we love to debate and try to persuade. Enjoy the banter and have fun with it. It is not personal .. not one bit unless you make it that way as it feels you have.

 

[JazzNC]

Wow. All I can say is you see things through a very biased lens and wrap your words around that bias in every response.

I called it out clearly that you corrected course in terms of being more clear. Your breakdown of past recruits was very hard to decipher and at best just amounted to beating up the quality of our bigs or saying they underwhelmed. I get you meant differently thank you for clarifying and fair enough.

In terms of bullying you just don't get it. It's simple, persuasion is part of debate. The only person attempting to see that as bullying is you. You pose it as though we are trying to get into your head and change your mind. Pushing you would equate to coercion. Persuasion and coercion are a long ways apart. I also find it funny you are quick to act as though you have not been pushing at others asking for examples while wildly accusing all of us of bullying. You stated clearly I should feel free to keep scrolling unless I had something to change your opinion. As you so define bullying to be any challenging opinion, then you are very much telling me how to respond which is a bit more than just an opinion.

I'm trying to help you here not beat you up. You are only seeing this from a biased viewpoint. Your thoughts are as values as anyone else's and similarly are fair game for counter points. Again just a message board where we love to debate and try to persuade. Enjoy the banter and have fun with it. It is not personal .. not one bit unless you make it that way as it feels you have.

I clearly spent way too much time trying to show you that maybe you misinterpreted me. I’m disappointed that you won’t provide any quotes which support your case. If you are going to make a claim that my argument is weak, inaccurate or that my behavior was wrong, please back it up with quotes. I was willing to take a look at the thread to see if I was wrong. I also said I was willing to apologize if you could provide any quotes which demonstrate that I bullied anyone or in which my behavior was inappropriate. The amount of time between my post and your response tells me all I need to know…. that you can’t back it up or even worse that it’s somehow ok to you to misquote people. I’m not targeting you, but I will defend myself against anyone if I am misquoted. You are right it should be a fun message board in which everyone’s views are respected. I am very disappointed.

 

[Orangezoo]

good lord ppl w way too much time on their hands

I clearly spent way too much time trying to show you that maybe you misinterpreted me. I’m disappointed that you won’t provide any quotes which support your case. If you are going to make a claim that my argument is weak, inaccurate or that my behavior was wrong, please back it up with quotes. I was willing to take a look at the thread to see if I was wrong. I also said I was willing to apologize if you could provide any quotes which demonstrate that I bullied anyone or in which my behavior was inappropriate. The amount of time between my post and your response tells me all I need to know…. that you can’t back it up or even worse that it’s somehow ok to you to misquote people. I’m not targeting you, but I will defend myself against anyone if I am misquoted. You are right it should be a fun message board in which everyone’s views are respected. I am very disappointed.

I referenced your comment clearly in regard to telling me to scroll down But since it wasn't quoted directly you are angry. Now some crazy rant that was uncalled for. Your analysis of my response grading it like a paper is more evidence you can't see past your own bias. Now I'm supposed to prove something to you?? All I can say is wow. Talk about a nasty post. Far and away the most nasty post in the whole thread while you keep claiming people are attacking you. Unreal.

 

[JazzNC]

I referenced your comment clearly in regard to telling me to scroll down But since it wasn't quoted directly you are angry. Now some crazy rant that was uncalled for. Your analysis of my response grading it like a paper is more evidence you can't see past your own bias. Now I'm supposed to prove something to you?? All I can say is wow. Talk about a nasty post. Far and away the most nasty post in the whole thread while you keep claiming people are attacking you. Unreal.

There is nothing nasty about my post. I'm sorry if you perceive it that way. I'm simply asking to not be misquoted. That's all. Maybe we should just stay away from one another.

 

[Funk Doc]

Holy Hanna...this thread!

In the words of any staff member. "Please take your debate/counseling/persuasion/bullying/I don't even know anymore, to another thread. Keep this about Majak man!"

Let's all just agree to love me some Orange!!!