Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="JazzNC, post: 2351531, member: 6034"] 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! [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?